User:UKMan/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[edit]

When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
Anyone who demonstrates a real and continued interest in a topic while also demonstrating interest in fair and reasonable debate within the Wikipedia guidelines.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
I need it as much as anyone. Informal could be tricky but maybe a reference system would help.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
Wikipedia is big and broad and most people are not directly known to each other. Self-nomination is crucial (as are reasonable tests).
Advertising and canvassing
This is definitely not the place.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
Love it.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
Love it.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
Probably a good idea to save some face sometimes.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
Hmm. May also be needed to save face for those who have none.
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
As long as it's actually useful.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
OK.

When thinking about adminship in general, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

How do you view the role of an administrator?
To moderate, help the discussion along (without personal input), and enforce the Wikipedia guidelines
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
Sense of patience. Ability to keep personal opinions private.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
No.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
Submitted myself. Haven't heard anything back.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
No doubt it's a tricky, multi-headed problem for those in charge. I hope Solomon is watching over you.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 21:27 on 23 June 2008.