User:MER-C/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:

Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
...

Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
...

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

Advertising and canvassing
...

Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
The questions should actually relate to the candidate. Questions such as "what is the difference between a ban and a block" are a waste of space, especially if spammed over multiple RFAs. If I stood again, I likely would ignore any excessive and cookie cutter questions.

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

Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
The status quo is probably the way to go.

Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
The bureaucrats should not be afraid confine invalid votes to /dev/null and actually tell people about it. I've stated in various places that I will ignore anything invalid. That should end all this silly speculation and drama about how the bureaucrats may or may not be be ignoring certain votes.

The NOTNOW thing is a good idea, there should be a bit less hesitation kicking it into action. In featured pictures, we have {{FPX}} on commons and a less formal speedy close provision here. It puts an end to the rather blunt criticism and in the case of RFA it might keep constructive editors at the project. These closes need not require bureaucrat intervention.

Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
The New Admin School is a good idea. I see it as an "admin tool sandbox". But, like any other training, it should be optional.

Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
No comment.

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

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
Yes, but it was too long ago for me to remember anything about it.

Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
Yes, I've decided not do it again unless I have a real pressing need for the tools (which I don't).
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
...

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:MER-C/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 11:59 on 25 June 2008.