User:Wilhelmina Will/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 think a user should only invite someone if they have made substantial contributions to the encyclopedia. My personal goal, before I consider nominating myself for adminship, is to create at least four hundred articles, at least forty of which are DYK articles. I also think that a person who is nominated ought to have been on Wikipedia for some time (between six months and one year at the least.)
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * ...I'm not sure what administrator coaching is, but if it's teaching a potential administrator about what to do in this position, I guess the best thing to do is be like a personal fitness trainer. I have a personal fitness trainer, myself, and she is polite, funny, and energetic, but still gets to the point. Really does the job well. That is how admins teaching users how to become admins should be.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * ...You should start with describing how long you've been on Wikipedia, maybe give a few brief details on what inspired you to register, list any bad incidents you were involved in or may have caused (and give your heart-felt apologies, LOL!) and include all the biggest and most major contributions you have made to Wikipedia's development. I believe in keeping a list of the articles you have parented on a user-subpage, and a link to this can be provided in your nomination. If you are nominating someone else, mention these things about this user as far as you know them; easy as pie!
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * ...Advertising? I thought we weren't supposed to do that here?! Canvassing? If you want to release an image of yours into the public domain, do it on Wikimedia Commons! What's this got to do with Wikipedia-adminship?
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * ...You should ask questions about what they intend to do as administrators (I've known lots of administrators who only protect pages, or block bad users, or delete bad pages, and don't do anything else an admin can do.) You could also ask questions about... hmmm... Sorry, I guess that's all!
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * ...If you support, put in list order the qualities you see in this user, and if you oppose, put in list order all the cons you see. But isn't this what's already done?
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * ...Withdrawal? Why would anyone back down? It's a big thing to be an admin, after all.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * ...Uh, well, maybe it's best to just briefly summarize what was said and decided, and archive it - don't they do that already?
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * ...I already described that up above. (see "Administrator coaching")
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * ...I don't know what recalling means, but if it means recalling all of the events the user has participated in, perhaps it should be in paragraph order, and telling like a story or a narrative.

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?
 * ...I view it as the role of a captain or a first officer or commander of some sort. Regular users are more like lieutenants and ensigns, while IPs are crewmen and cadets.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * ...Polite, patient, witty, tireless and hardworking, yet at the same time domineering over lesser users.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * ...I have not, which might explain my lack of knowledge of the lesser details.
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * ...No, and I do not intend to until I've created four hundred articles or more, and I coincidentally have forty DYK articles under my name. I might go for an editor's review after three hundred, though.
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * ...I think, if this isn't how it already is, that the format should go like this: 1. Two equals signs on each side of the heading for the description of the user being nominated. After that, two equals signs around the title for the support/oppose decisions. Three equals signs should surround each participant's opinions, followed by a detailed review. It should finish with two equals signs around the conclusion section. Later, I might provide an example to show what I mean. Thank you for your time. Bye!!!

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 21:24 on 29 June 2008.