User:Tswsl1989/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)

   From my understanding of the process, I don't think that there are any problems regarding candidate selection

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   This should be encouraged, but not obligatory, before someone is nominated

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

   The current system seems to be flexible enough to allow the process to be open to all Wikipedians. I don't see that it needs to be changed

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Not enough knowledge of this to make a meaningful comment

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Is a reasonable phase to incclude, provided questioning is not overly agressive or adversarial.

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

   Fine

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Fine, although I do disagree with the use of WP:SNOW as justification for withdrawral\closure

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

   As Above

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

   Not enough knowledge to comment

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    Personally, I think that this is a good idea in terms of accountability, but would prefer to see the format as follows:

    • Editors nominate admin for recall by notifyin that admin
    • Admins then decided to confirm\reconfirm admin status or not
    • Editors then notified of Recall decision

    However, the community does need to haves it's say, so I can understand why the current mechanism has consensus.

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?

   A trusted person, responsible to their conscience and to others for the maintenance of Wikipedia and the community that it constitutes.

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

   Trusted by the community, and respected for their opinion. Able to act decisively, but without stampeding over others opinions. Levelheaded and maintains an appropriate attitude in the course of their duties as an admin

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   Once, that candidate was unsuccessful. Although I can understand why the vote went the way it did, I think that there was too much history between the candidate and other editors (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PaxEquilibrium). I haven't been that active on Wikipedia since shortly after that (unrelated circumstances), so haven't voted in an RfA since

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

   No. Maybe someday

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

   Not at this time

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:Tswsl1989/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 10:42 on 25 June 2008.