User:PastorMatt/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)

   It tends to make adminiship a "circle of friends" rather than a way to attract new ideas and concepts to Wikipedia.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   A definite necessity, and should be done on a formal basis.

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

   I nominated myself for adminship, and was eliminated under the "snowball" provision. If you have a procedure, you should take it to its conclusion and allow those who are interested to defend their answers fully.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   If you do it, you need to make sure to fully explain the qualities needed for adminship.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Don't short-circuit the procedure as you did with me!

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

   This seemed to work well. In my case, I didn't agree with the reasons, but at least I knew what they were.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   This should be the ONLY reason a candidate for adminship is not brought up for a vote.

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

   Impossible to do without causing offense.

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

   I'm all for it!

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I'm all for it!

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?

   Maintain order, enforcing rules

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

   Knowledge, organizational skills, collaborational skills, moderation skills.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   No

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

   Yes. My experience was not very good, and I don't think I was treated fairly. I was kicked out under the "snowball" provision.

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

   It needs definite revision and fairness assessment.

PastorMatt (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(User posted questions on the main question page here; I have posted them to the user's subpage and reformatted them using the stock template. No answer was edited in any way. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 19:25 on 23 June 2008.