User:James086/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)
 * The current system is fine, most people who want to be admins are either nominated or nominate themselves. I don't think there should be any restrictions on who can be nominated.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * I think it's a good idea but it's quite difficult to actually carry out. Perhaps a guide would be useful. Also some coachee's may turn out like the coach which may or may not be a good thing.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * A limit of 2 co-noms please. The RfAs where people want more of a say than a normal support get filled with co-noms and it just becomes silly.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * To put a note on their userpage informing people that they have a current RFA is fine, asking for support on that note is not. Signature advertisements, even if neutral, are advertising because the person can choose where to sign (such as on a talkpage filled with like-minded people so it is advertising to likely to support).
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * I think there should be no limit on the number of questions. Obviously if it's a stupid question it can be removed but if there are many legitimate questions they should not be prohibited just because other people asked things first.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Reasons help the closing crat if the numbers require "crat discretion". Someone with a bad (meaning against community consensus) reason will carry less weight when the crat decides. In general supports don't need a reason because I see RfA as "is there any reason not to give this person the tools? No? then go for it"
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * They can if they want. Why shouldn't they. Personally if my RfA was failing I would wait to see if there was any more constructive criticism. But remember kids, the withdrawal method doesn't work!
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * If the crat/s need more time then they should have it. Stopping the discussion for a day and making a well informed decision is better than a bad but quick one.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * It's ok, not necessary but not a bad idea either. It shouldn't be compulsory but it's good to see it's available. Back in my day we had to make do without these fancy-smancy schools...
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * I think it's a good idea but others don't. I don't think it should play a part in whether a candidate would make a good admin or not. Opposing a candidate because they will enter the group is silly I think.

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?
 * An experienced user who can be trusted to carry out consensus and in extreme circumstances do what is right for Wikipedia even if they take flak for it.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Experience in the area that they will take part in, civility (although incidents can be forgiven if it is not a trend), the ability to admit their mistakes.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * No, I have !voted ;) Yes, I have voted in many. I find that I disagree with some users on what an admin needs.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * ...Yeah, (link if you're interested). I was pretty worried before it started and I kept waiting for someone to oppose. It would probably be more harrowing for someone who has a close call.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * I think the process is ok, it's people's opinions which make it the way it is.

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 11:12 on 27 June 2008.