User:Emir34/RfA review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A Review of the

Requests for Adminship Process



Reflect - (Stats)




The Review Process
Methodology - Discussion

Requests for Adminship

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) 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!


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)
    If this question is about an editor making another editor a candidate for adminship, I think that's a fair thing. Because, an editor has a chance to become an administrator by the help of another editor or administrator. I also think that you can ask someone you know in Wikipedia to help you.
  2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
    I don't have any thoughts about this. Because, I think admins are already have more rights in Wikipedia than editors do.
  3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
    If that's about the candidate being nominated to adminship, I think the candidate has to have edited Wikipedia 15 times before earning the adminship. Because there is a chance that the candidate hasn't done any edits yet in Wikipedia. That's why I think the candidates must have edited Wikipedia with true info for 15 times.
  4. Advertising and canvassing
    There shouldn't be advertisement in Wikipedia but only inside the website. That's already how it is in advertisement, but I just wanted to tell that.
  5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
    I think there shouldn't be a question like that. This is already a question.
  6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
    Candidates should provide reasons for supporting, but not opposing. Because opposing may cause a problem in election.
  7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
    I think that is okay. Because the candidates may cause a problem or they could do something against Wikipedia.
  8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
    I support that. I support bureaucrats closing it. But I think bureaucrats should tell if they are accepting it or not.
  9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
    That would be awesome for editors. Helping them learning about adminship and bureaucrats.
  10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
    I don't think anything about this.

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?
    He has to edit Wikipedia truely and help editors for a good article.
  2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
    I don't think of anything. Administrators are doing the right thing.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

  1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
    No. This is my first time. But I believe experience needs mistakes or it won't educate anyone.
  2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
    No. I haven't.
  3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
    No. I don't think I do.

Once you're finished...[edit]

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:Emir34/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 23:03 on 21 June 2008.