User:Fl/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)

   People should be able to invite others to become an administrator, but this should not effect their standing during their RfA in any way.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Admin coaching is a great way to learn about the admin process and could be a great leg-up for users who have the initiative to request such a service, but the system needs a big overhaul as it has many requesting users and few admins to coach them

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

   (Co-)Nomination is great, because you have the backing of experienced user(s) throughout an adminship, but the problem with the system is that many people view self-noms negatively and sometimes oppose because of them.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   People should be able to canvass and advertise their adminship in any way they wish in their userspace, but should not be allowed to do so anywhere else (except maybe an allocated canvass page).

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   The questions to the candidate and a very important part of the adminship process, but users should not try and use them as a way to put the admin-hopeful in a stressful position.

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

   Reasons for support and oppose should provide an accurate description as to why they opppose/support or the votes should be discarded at the end.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Candidates should be permitted to withdraw if they wish but should not be forced.

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

   No comment

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

   Future admins should demonstrate knowledge of all the things mentioned at the New Admin School.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I think this question should not be asked at all, it is unfair to pressure to agree to a such a thing when not agreeing could lead to an oppose.

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 think that the role of administrator is very important in Wikipedia but the criteria for such a position is sometimes too high, many editors suffer from editcountitus when voting and these votes should be discarded. Its the quality of contributions that count not quantity

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

   Administrators should be able to maintain a cool head in hot-headed debates. Have at least mediocre mediation skills (or stay away from areas involving them), as administrators are often called upon in disputed. Have a good knowledge of how the admin tools/Wikipedia policy/the CSD/AFD/ processes work. They should have at least shown that they do write/edit articles and that they would continue to do so when they became an administrator and they should have an excellent understand of the block/ban/warning/vandalism process and when policies relating to them are applied.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   No, I don't think so.

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

   No, but I plan to in the future.

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

   I think for something that is no big deal tthe bar is set too high, perhaps moving it down to 70% support.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 09:01 on 21 June 2008.