User:Husond/RfA review

Welcome to the Question phase of RfA Review. We hope you'll take the time to respond to your questions in order to give us further understanding of what you think of the RfA process. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers here. Also, feel free to answer as many questions as you like. Don't feel you have to tackle everything if you don't want to.

In a departure from the normal support and oppose responses, this review will focus on your thoughts, opinions and concerns. Where possible, you are encouraged to provide examples, references, diffs and so on in order to support your viewpoint. Please note that at this point we are not asking you to recommend possible remedies or solutions for any problems you describe, as that will come later in the review.

If you prefer, you can submit your responses anonymously by emailing them to gazimoff (at) o2.co.uk. Anonymous responses will be posted as subpages and linked to from the responses section, but will have the contributor's details removed. If you have any questions, please use the talk page.

Once you've provided your responses, please encourage other editors to take part in the review. More responses will improve the quality of research, as well as increasing the likelihood of producing meaningful results.

Once again, thank you for taking part!

Questions
When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:


 * 1) Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
 * I do it every now and then. When I spot a user who is experienced and could make good use of the admin tools, I consider nominating him/her.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * I've done it before and find it quite positive for candidates. Getting some extra preparation before launching an RfA is always wise.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * As long as there's some introduction to the candidate, all is well. A nomination by a user whom I regard as very experienced I view as a plus, but I always check the candidate according to my criteria anyway.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * Advertising on own userpage ok, canvassing obviously a killer.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Useful, especially if they reveal major flaws in a user's preparedness. Questions should be asked with moderation, a candidate should not be bombarded with an excessive number of questions, especially unnecessary ones.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Users supporting do not need to provide any reasoning, as by signing in they are endorsing the nomination. Users opposing should provide a justification for their position, so that the rest of the community may learn about the opposers' concerns and either share them or dismiss them.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * When it's clear the RfA will be unsuccessful, it's the wise thing to do. Avoids further stress to the candidate.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * Disagree. Bureaucrats should close RfAs with a result expected/accepted by the rest of the community. Explanations should not be necessary unless the closing bureaucrat is doing something he was not expected to (and that's usually NOT a good thing).
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * Might be good, I don't know. No such school existed when I became an admin and I learned how to use the tools in the areas I was active quite quickly.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * Only when an admin's recall criteria are fulfilled (e.g. X number of users calling for him/her to be recalled). I oppose voluntary reconfirmation RfAs by the sole whim of an admin. They waste everyone's time on something that was not needed, and cast doubts on the admin itself.

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:


 * 1) How do you view the role of an administrator?
 * Essential to keep the house running.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Experienced, civil, trustworthy, communicative, active, mature, and if it's not asking too much, friendly.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes. Can't recall.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes. It was good, I was lucky to have an uncontroversial RfA. Candidates these days probably face a lot more stress.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * It has its flaws, but it's one of the most consistent and effective processes we have on Wikipedia. Until a better one is found (and I doubt that will happen in the foreseeable future), this one shall endure.

Once you're finished...
Thank you again for taking part in this review of the Request for Adminship process. Now that you've completed the questionnaire, don't forget to add the following line of code to the bottom of the Response page by clicking this link and copying the following to the BOTTOM of the list.

*   added by  at

Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.

This question page was generated by RFAReview at 14:51 on 20 June 2008.