User:Kmweber/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)
 * Should be open to anyone.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Bad idea. Leads to viewing it as a game to be won, rather than a job to be done.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * No problem with any of them.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * Perfectly fine, if a bit obnoxious.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Duh.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Should be a straight-up vote.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * If he wants to save himself and everyone else the heartache, more power to him.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * Without an explicit withdrawal by the candidate, and barring truly extraordinary circumstances (blocking of the candidate that is upheld by the community at large, etc.), it should be left to run its course.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * Not necessary.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * Should be mandatory. They are servants of the community, and serve at the community's pleasure.

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?
 * A servant.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Humility, a thick skin, and a lack of rule-bound thinking.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Yup, and no problem.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes, and I shouldn't have. I got what I deserved.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * It needs to be trashed completely. See User:Kmweber/Servantship Reform for a better 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 16:37 on 30 June 2008.