User:Johnbod/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)
 * ... No issues with this
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * ... I don't know much about it, but many editors I respect seem to be getting increasingly concerned with how it works in practice.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * ... Fine, but keep it short.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * ... Present rules, & strong prejudice against it, seem about right. of course there is always the evil IRC.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * ... Not too many please.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * ... Happy with present procedures, though too much heckling of (normally) opposes & neutrals - this should be discouraged unless new "evidence" is being produced.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * ... their business
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * ... no problems with normal closes - seems to work well. Not sure about Not Now - plenty of applications that look sure to succeed after 2 days fail, & I suspect the opposite is just as possible - but if they are well-meaningly closed, we'll never know.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * ...seems a good idea
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * ... a better standard procedure, whether voluntary or not, is needed. It is rather too hard to remove an admin, I suspect.

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?
 * ...er blughbh
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * ...polite superhero, with content-building experience, or a very solid technical/images/whatever specialism

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * ...Yes, often, but intermitently. Nowadays I usually don't pile on if I've never come across the person, & they seem obviously on the way to succeed, so I vote a relatively high % of opposes, but actually many others have my silent support.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * ...No, & no intention of ever doing so. I was first nom on a successful request once.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * ...It can be unfair on editors who have been around long enough, and active enough, to annoy certain users.

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 01:31 on 22 June 2008.