User:Kingturtle/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!

I left off reading User:Rudget/RfA review. Kingturtle (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * Never nominate someone you feel will not pass the RfA. That is a disservice to the nominee and to the community.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Coaches should not nominate their mentees. Coaches should recuse themselves fully from the RfAs of their mentees.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * I am all for self-nominations. I like to see people take the initiative. Did you know that 26 of the successful 29 RfBs were self-nominations?
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with an editor letting others know that she/he's having an RfA - as long as it isn't spam, and as long as it isn't over-the-top.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * There are far too many questions.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * An RfA does not seek to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision, nor can it. Indeed, an RfA is an election, not a consensus.
 * I think all votes cast should provide an explanation, sans jokes. I also think that opposition voters should provide constructive criticism. If the editor fails the RfA, we'd like that editor to someday succeed.
 * I find that a current RfAs put an editor's character on trial, which is unfortunate. I'd like to see people be kinder and gentler with their criticisms. The process should not be stressful. It should be either affirming or educational.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * 2) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * 3) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * 4) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * 2) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

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?
 * The role of an admin is to hold Wikipedia together. We need all sorts of admin roles filled. I am happy to let each admin decide how she/he fits in. Admins don't have to do admin stuff full-time or even part-time. I am happy to see Admins use their admin tools only when they see fit.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Fair-mindedness, perspicacity, knowledge of policies, experience with the community, civility

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * 2) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * 3) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?

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 14:07 on 23 June 2008.