User:Srleffler/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)
I think good editors who have shown good judgement and an ability to deal with disputes and difficult situations should be invited or actively recruited to become administrators.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
Seems like a good idea for training new admins.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
I think all are valid.
Advertising and canvassing
This doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's style.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
Sure, why not?
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
Yes. While votes may not be a good way of deciding policy, I think they are a very good way of approving or disapproving a candidate for a position.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
Candidates should be allowed to withdraw at will, just as functioning admins can resign.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
...
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
...
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
...

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?
Primarily the administrators manage vandalism and disputes. Their role is not just in the administrative tools they have, but also in that they tend to be experienced editors with a cool head. A good admin can help resolve disputes without blocking anyone.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
Experience editing, a calm demeanor, and mediation skills.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
Yes. Seemed like a straightforward process, but I have not paid attention to when these "elections" are held, so I have not voted in any recently.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
No.
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:Srleffler/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 04:43 on 24 June 2008.