User:J Milburn/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)

   I have no desire to personally nominate anyone at the moment, but I feel that inviting people to be a candidate is a good idea, and works.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Informal admin coaching (chatting to a current admin about how things are actually done) is good, but I get the feeling that 'formal' admin coaching is geared too much towards teaching people how to pass.

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

   Long nominations are often dull (I sometimes don't even finish really long ones) and I prefer reading the candidate's own thoughts to those of someone else.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   No thoughts, I may answer this at a later date.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   A good idea, and good the way it is done at the moment. I think it's a shame that the optional questions aren't really optional, but I don't think there are too many questions.

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

   The way it is done now is fairly good.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   I have no issues with that.

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

   Providing reasons are provided in borderline cases, and the bureaucrat actually makes a decision that reflects the consensus of the discussion, I have no issues.

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

   A good idea.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    A fairly good idea, but I think it's a shame that people consider it such an important thing- not putting yourself open to recall should not be considered as a bad thing.

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?

   Too broad a question.

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

   Intelligence, reliability, trustworthiness, experience, ability (in terms of actually being able to write articles and articulate themselves)

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   Many times. I do feel my comments have been disregarded once or twice, but that doesn't bother me too much.

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

   Twice. First time, I was very politely told to come back later, and given some very good advice. (I think people are a lot more aggressive now). Second time, I passed- few people took part, but I feel the process was fairly secure.

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

   I feel it is far harder to pass now than it was.

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:J Milburn/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 10:15 on 21 June 2008.