User:Arnoutf/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)

   Sounds fine, it is definitely nice to be invited, and it will also indicate the editor is ready for it

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Haven't heard of it, but I think any Wikipedian that reaches Admin status should be fairly self-supporting. Little bit of Admin help is not bad though

3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)

   Simple procedure which seems fair enough

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Nonsense, it is not an election

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   I think this has grown out of hand to the level where an editor that is no fulltime Wikipedia addict can hardly manage to muster the time/effort to become admin

6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)

   I think admin status is becoming too much of an elitist issue, where pleasing voters (rather than having needed skills) is becoming important.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Fair enough, if you appear to have underestimated the demand withdrawal seems the best thing

8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)

   Fine

9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)

   Please no

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    Dont know

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?

   Editor with some added powers and responsibilities (trying to stay out of debates, and if engaged no abuse of powers)

2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

   Rollback, look into history of deleted articles etc.

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 made some comments, but as far as I know I did not vote unless an editor was clearly not up to it (e.g. new editers with about 50 edits)

2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?

   No but someone suggested I should run, lack of time to engage in the debate witheld me

3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?

   It has become too much of a third degree interrogation. This probably shies away good but modest editors while ambitious editors will fight for the right and may get it (regardless of their quality)

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.

* [[User:Arnoutf/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

Again, on behalf of the project, thank you for your participation.

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 20:34 on 22 June 2008.