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)

   ...Seems OK.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   ...I think this is a valid concept, - good idea.

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

   ...A good way to express endorsements, self-noms need to explain why they want to be admin.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   ...In some cases it might not be a bad idea, mild communication might be ok, its a little dicey though

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   ...It's an important vetting procedure

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

   ...Reasonable means of expressing support or non-support

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   ...sometimes this is the only option, and should be preserved

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

   ...not sure

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

   ...It is useful

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    ...Should be a requirement

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?As an aide to editors...and to the project in general, Too often however some seem to abuse the position; behaving as law enforcement. The position of authority is abused when - rules rule.

   ...

2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?Wisdom, Common Sense, Patience, and a helpful nature

   ...

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   ...Yes, - win some, lose some

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?

   ...The intense argumentative nature of the so-called voting process can get very personal very quickly and some take it too seriously.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{ RFAReview}} at 11:55 on 30 June 2008. ,