User:KojiDude/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 guess it works fine, there's really no way to do it but say "Hey, do you wanna be an admin?"
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Admin Coaching seems invaluable to me, but it gets ignored too often by candidates. I've seen a few candidates run off in the middle of their admin coaching to start their RfA. :-/
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * Nominations are fine, but they're too long. WP:KISS! Co-noms don't seem like anything but a super-strong support to me, I'd rather get rid of those.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * I've been involved in RfA for a few months now, and I've never seen any kind of canvassing or advertising, so I'm assuming that's a good thing.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Aside from the joke questions people occasionally get, I think the q and a sysytem works out alright.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * I consider anything in Support to basically just say "I trust the poor son of a bitch", so really it's just the opposes that need clarification. I'd say about 90% of the time opposes are well thought out and defended.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * Withdrawal is for quiters.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * I've never been able to see a Crat chat on an RfA (once on an RfB but it was only a few posts) and I've never seen a Crat make a bad call on an RfA. So, again, I'm assuming all is good there.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * I think people neglect WP:ER too often, and should go through that before even considering an RfA.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * Recall seems like a dumb idea to me, and an even worse move is to oppose because someone doesn't agree to it.

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 protect the encyclopedia, whereas regular editors are supposed to contribute to it.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Admins have to:
 * Be smart enough to know what they're doing
 * Know policy like the back of their hand
 * Know the back of their hand very well
 * Have a sense of humor
 * Have to follow the rule

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * I vote in them all the time. I think it's amusing. It's like politics for losers. :-)
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * No.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * I think it should be a private match on COD4. Get 7 candidates and have them do a free-for-all, whoever wins gets to be an admin. It'd be alot simpler.

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 20:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC).