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)

   Not much of an opinion. It seems that nominators do a pretty good job at identifying good candidates.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I am opposed to this, though I have never (and would never) oppose a candidate because of their involvement in admin coaching. The RfA process should be used to identify and promote the best qualified among us, not to reward those who have been told how to answer the questions. There's a certain amount of gamesmanship involved there, I think.

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

   Not too sure what's being asked here; I have no problem with any of them, though I think co-noms are a bit silly, but to each his own.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   I don't think that an RfA candidate announcing their RfA to editors with whom they frequently interact should be considered canvassing. Who better to weigh in on an RfA than those who are most familiar with the candidate?

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Aside from the standard questions (which in my opinion ought always be answered), I like to see user-specific ones. For instance, in my RfA I was asked several questions which related directly to areas in which I am involved; unfortunately, I don't see this done in many other RfAs.

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

   I don't think that giving reasons is absolutely necessary (though I always do); an established editor should not have their opinion questioned or discounted. I especially hate when those who oppose an RfA are hassled, and think that no one other than the candidate ought to comment on any specific oppose.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   If a candidate wants to withdraw, that's their prerogative.

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

   A bureaucrat should only exercise their own discretion when closing an RfA at around 70-80% support. No established editors opinion should be discounted. I have no strong opinion about SNOW.

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

   Perhaps unnecessary, but potentially useful. A new admin should act with great caution until they are comfortable with the tools. But the buttons aren't that complicated and anyone who passes an RfA ought to be able to get the hang of things with a minimum of growing pains.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I am against recall, finding it hollow and meaningless. If an admin abuses the tools, they will lose them. AOR creates an artificial divide between administrators and serves no purpose.

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?

   The common view that an admin is a janitor is dead on.

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

   An administrator ought to be knowledgeable and trustworthy.

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 participated in many RfAs.

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

   Contrary to how others describe it, I did not find the RfA process stressful or difficult in the least.

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

   There are several areas that need tweaking, but all in all I think the RfA process works well.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{ RFAReview}} at 18:34 on 20 June 2008.