User:Anetode/RfA review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)
    Anything is fair game.
  2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
    Pretentious, paternalistic, prescriptivist.
  3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
    Keep co-nominations to a minimum, they are rarely little more than bloated support #votes.
  4. Advertising and canvassing
    Canvassing: no. Including a link on the candidate's user/talk page: sure.
  5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
    Simple, honest questions. No loaded questions or convoluted ethical tests.
  6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
    Varies with participation. Opposition should be given weight in direct proportion to the level of participation. A candidate approved by two hundred people but distrusted by fifty should not be granted adminship. IMHO.
  7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
    Not an issue.
  8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
    Not an issue. WP:NOTNOW might sound nicer as WP:NOTYET
  9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
    Experience is the best teacher.
  10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
    Being open to the concept of recall should be expected of everyone of sound mind and strong moral character. The current process, however, must remain voluntary and flexible.

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?
    Editor with extra tools at their disposal.
  2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
    The RfA process grants tools with an expectation of familiarity with most policies, the assumption of personal responsibility for every administrative action, and the willingness to address concerns/direct challenges in a civil manner. A good editor might not always make for a good administrator, but a good administrator must be a capable content editor. Appreciation of WP:MASTODON and WP:UCS is a must.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

  1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
    Fun at first, then I woke up next to my vote and just felt dirty. We haven't talked since.
  2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
    Painless/lucky. I appreciated the support.
  3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
    Too much meta-analysis, too many personal grudges, too many arbitrary standards.