User:Ukexpat/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)

   An excellent method of selection. Being judged worthy by one's fellow editors of an admin nomination is in my the best method.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Some form of coaching should be compulsory during a short period immediately after being sysopped.

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

   Nomination by peers clearly the best method, but should be no bar on the other established methods

4. Advertising and canvassing

   No to both. Neither is in the spirit of WP.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   I cannot see how else you find out the candidate's views on relevant issues and knowledge of the policies and guidelines.

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

   Nor sure any other method would work. It should be compulsory to give reasons.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Any candidate should be able to withdraw from the process, obviously without prejudice to future RfAs.

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

   If there is clearly no doubt as to the result, it should be closed as quickly as possible. Similarly for WP:NOTNOW closes. The RfA should be left to run its course if there is doubt.

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

   Training (and mentoring) should be compulsory

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    All admins should be agree to be subject to the OtR process.

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?

   Protection of the project. All actions of an admin should be towards this overriding principle.

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

   Sound knowledge of the key WP policies and guidelines. Levelheadedness. Ability to express themselves clearly and concisely in writing.

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?

   No

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

   No. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 15:58 on 23 June 2008.