User:Fattyjwoods/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)

   I think that the candidate should have no negative contributions (vandalism, blocks etc.) recently (6-12 months). Should have done some work (6 months at least and at least 3000 edits).

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Admin coaching I think is a very good way to help potential candidates on his/her way on becoming an admin. For those who would like to become one admin coaching can help out a grate lot. If I ever get nominated I would most certainly go through the coaching process before I accepted

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

   I see no problem here, although some prima facie examples of “opposition” have been voiced over self-nomination. I personally don’t see anything wrong with self-noms, as long as they fit into the criteria

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Canvassing should not be employed on mass like spam, but I don’t see why a small short note dropped on a few user talk pages saying “hey, I’ve got a RfA why don’t you check it out.” What I don’t think is acceptable is “Vote for me! Vote for me!” using AWB or a bot on hundreds of talk pages. An alternative is to put a RfA notice on your userpages – people browsing through will see it and vote accordingly.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   No problems with this I don’t think

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

   I think that users can have their own opinions on whatever issue is brought up. Although there almost always is someone at an RfA that smacks a big fat oppose supplying the reason of “it’s a self-nom” or “I don’t like them”.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   I see no problem with the process now. You can withdraw if you don’t want it to carry on but if it’s going to snow I suggest pulling out would be a better option.

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

   Im not very familiar with this process but Ill give it a try. If it’s a obvious pile on then sure go ahead, but otherwise I would suggest let it run. Also leave it to the bearucrats to sort these things out and to strike through sock votes and block the sock.

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

   Very useful, helps out with new admins a lot.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    Recall is not very useful as there are other ways of desysoping, but it gives voters a sense of… Im not sure how to describe it but its like a peace of mind. That you know that the admin will happily give up the buttons if the community decides to desysop him/her.

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?

   More responsibility required as more tools are given out. The community looks up to admins as a source of help so admins need to be friendly, fair and helpful.

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

   Calm, cool-headed, easy to talk to, helpful

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   Yes, most have been supports, but sometimes theres just far too much drama involved it hard to decide who’s wrong and who’s right

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

   No I haven’t yet.

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

   I think it’s fine really, well organised.

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 01:16 on 29 June 2008.