User:GRBerry/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)
... I'm not going to nominate someone I don't think has a good chance of passing. Why waste my time, the community's time, their time, and subject them to a negative review if I expect a negative outcome?
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
... Irrelevant
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
... Worth reading
Advertising and canvassing
... Incompatible with a consensus decision model, even more incompatible with voting.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
... Rarely ask questions, only skim the standard questions and their answers, read some others and their answers (not including the Filll questions)
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
... Reasons are what carry weight in my review of candidacys.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
... Should always be permitted.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
... Crats have been too aggressive in promoting certain contentious cases. It is a lot easier for a failed candidate to run again than for the community to remove a promoted admin, so crats should err on failing in cases of uncertainty. (In other words, with two possible errors, make the possible error that is easier to fix.) Crats should never close if they have taken any position on the candidacy previously.
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
... Irrelevant.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
... I'm in the category. Participation should remain voluntary.

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?
... Servant of community consensus, not a policymaker.
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?
... Regularly. No problems with it.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
... Promoted. Uncontentious discussion.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
...

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

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

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 15:25 on 30 June 2008.