User:UberScienceNerd/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)

   See "nomination, co-nomination, and self-nomination".

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I tried the system (as a coach), but it seemed rather awkward. When I was assigned to a student, my primary thought was, "Finally, I am an administrator coach! What am I supposed to do now?" Still, those who wish to become administrators should ask for, and current administrators should give, advice whenever needed.

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

   Nomination is best done by another editor to show that the candidate has at least some support from the community; co-nomination is not entirely necessary, but enforces that concept. Also, it is good etiquette to notify the candidate before starting a request for adminship, and perhaps let them preview the nomination statement.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   The best people for a candidate to advertise to are "seen you around" acquaintances who know the nature of the editor's actions but will not be biased.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   In my opinion, the default questions should be removed to encourage a greater number of user questions.

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

   A while back, support/oppose votes were too often placed without sufficient explanation. However, that has declined over time, and is no longer a concern.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Withdrawal lacks purpose if it is just a response to many opposes; the candidate should only do it if they themselves feel that they are not ready for adminship. Otherwise, it is preferable to let the request for adminship continue until a bureaucrat ends it.

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

   Bureaucrats are so because they have the trust of Wikipedians. Their decision to close an application is usually agreeable.

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

   See "recall".

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    I have not been aware of this, so I am unable to respond.

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?

   Administrators are editors that have proven that they can handle tools that, if in the wrong hands, can be harmful to the well-being of the encyclopedia, but if used properly, carry out important tasks efficiently.

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

   Among the marks of a good administrator are experience, good judgment, and the tendency to think thoroughly before acting.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   I occasionally review some of the candidates and comment, but I am not actively involved.

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

   Yes, my request for adminship was successful. I was pleasantly surprised at the support I received, and learned an important lesson from the opposing votes: Choose your words carefully.

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

   No. If I think of some within the next hour before the interrogation ends, I will list them here.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 21:21 on 30 June 2008.