User:Garion96/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)

   Is ok. I do think the whole process makes that many editors decline when asked.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Can help, but the feeling I get is that it is more focused on passing wp:rfa than getting expertise in admin area's. Of course, the almost impossible way to pass rfa process does not help there.

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

   Nominations are good, Self-nominations are good. Co-noms are bad, they make the page too large for instance. Just one nomination and the rest simply can support.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Can have bad effects, just a note on the candidate's user page seems enough.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Questions are ok, but lately it is getting excessive. Limiting questions would be good, but how do decide which questions will be asked and which will be not.

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

   Support means you have no reason the candidate will abuse the tools. When oppose you have to explain why.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Whatever the candidate wants.

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

   More ignoring bad opposes would be nice.

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

   On volunteer basis, can be useful if new admin wants too.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    In theory could be good, but will in fact only gain lynch mobs.

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?

   Janitor.

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

   Masochism?

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?

   Lousy opposes.

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

   Yes, which wasn't too bad actually, the extra questions were kind of pointless. Just a link to the actual policy in my anseers there would have been enough.

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

   1: Backlogs everywhere, we need more admins. 2: It was said in 2003, but in 2008 it still stands, adminship is no big deal.

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:Garion96/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 23:18 on 28 June 2008.