User:Rocksanddirt/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
I would like to see a bit more advertising, which would in turn provide less need for canvassing
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
This part is the most disfunctional. The reasons and arguementation rarely have to do with actual trust of the candidates use of the admin tools and instead focus on stepping around the real reasons an editor might not want to see a certain other editor become one of the ruler's of the project.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
...
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
...
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)
I would like to see this formalized in some gaming restricted manner.

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?
Admins are the main governance structure and implementation point for en.wikipedia. The project is way to large now to just get along on the good faith of everyone. Anyone who would like to be an admin is saying "I want to be in charge/take charge here."
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?
My experience is that there is a whole lot of drama production during the vote/discussion in general.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
no, and I don't imagine I will any time soon.
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:Rocksanddirt/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 04:35 on 23 June 2008.