User:Saoshyant/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:

I find it's a good practice. Many a good sysop has the incovenient of not being self-confident or just being plain shy to apply for him/herself. Useful to make sure nobody screws up and everyone has a chance to learn how things work. It's hard to apply for adminship; I know because I've followed some nominations. It takes guts to face the likely rejection. I don't understand this one. Do you mean advertising in Wikipedia or a candidate's attempt at finding support for his nomination? The former should never even be considered in my opinion, the latter I'm not completely okay with it -- I for one would rather the candidates be reviewed by interested parties without pressure from either side. It's usually how you separate the bad from the good candidates. It has the inconvenient however that some people presenting questions may take this step too far and be somewhat of a dick. Democracy. It's his/her right. It sounds okay in theory, but I'm not entirely sold on the concept. Sounds like admin coaching. Every admin should be open to recall. I've met a few bad behaved ones during my time in Wp, and I reckon they should be evaluated and stripped of access to the tools of the trade.
 * 1) Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

You are a janitor, but you also have the keys to the special locker, and being trusted with these keys is what entices so many editors to want to become an administrator. Being able to accept criticism, always willing to learn from his/her mistakes, and avoiding get into conflicts with other users for no good reason (you'd be surprised how many times I've witnessed this). Admins should also at all cost not behave like freaking elitists where their "cool group" decides what's okay and what's not (again, you'd be surprised).
 * 1) How do you view the role of an administrator?
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Yes. I think every editor should do so at least once in their time in Wp. No, I always thought at some point someone would recognize my efforts and nominate me. Heh. No, I think the process itself works fine. It's how people behave after they get the "keys to the special locker" that should be considered further. How does the saying go? A leopard can pretend, but in the end it can't change its spots?
 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * 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 11:40 on 26 June 2008.