User:Daniel.Cardenas/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[edit]

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)
...
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)
Administrator rights should automatically expire. The length of term should be longer each time the candidate successfully reapplies. For example length should be 1, 5, and 15 years, for first, second, and 3rd terms.

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?
I'm thinking the role is too broad and rights should be broken up into separate privileges. For example there should be administrators for blocking and administrators for deleting pages. You can have both rights or just one of them.
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?
...
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
I was denied adminship because they wanted people more experienced.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
Just want to reemphasize that the role of administrator should be broken up into sub roles. This will make the process easier, less prone to abuse, less risk to accept an admin with more limited rights. As mentioned above, break out the admin privileges into: block, delete, perhaps more...

Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Once you're finished...[edit]

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:Daniel.Cardenas/RfA review]] added by ~~~ at ~~~~~

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 22:46 on 25 June 2008.