User:Robocoder/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 encouraged. An invite from one or more admins might hint at cronyism, but the RfA debate & election should counter such concerns.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Should be encouraged or required for self-nominations. Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I thought this was about mentoring.  No opinion/thoughts.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * Guidelines seem clear enough. No additional thoughts/opinion.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * Oppose. Adminship is not a trophy.  (I don't believe advertising/canvassing is currently a problem.)
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Ok with the standard questions, but concerned that optional questions are inherently inconsistent between candidates, may be biased (what is the asker's agenda?), and may be too selective (i.e., focussing on a particular edit vs body of work).
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Too much discussion here. Agree that Election and Debate should not be concurrent (each should have a window of opportunity for submissions).  I wonder if more weight be given to votes by admins (thus adminship would reflect a meritocracy)?
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * Keep. Is currently permitted. Practice is consistent with candidate's ability to decline nomination.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * No thoughts/opinion.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * No opinion/knowledge of. Would hope such training includes use of admin tools and tests of judgement or knowledge of rules/policies.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * Support but recognize possibility of abuse.

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?
 * Housekeeping and policing ... but whether right or wrong, may be perceived as embodying judge, jury, and executioner.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Time to contribute to the project. Patience to not act impulsively.  Exercises due diligence.  Seeks consensus.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * No. N/A.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * No. N/A.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * RfA too adversarial. Who watches the watchers?

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 16:22 on 25 June 2008.