User:Balloonman/RfA review

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 it is absolutely crucial. Some of the best candidates may never run if somebody doesn't put the bug in their ear.
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * I find it amazing that people think everybody can learn what they need to be a good admin through osmosis. Some can, but many can't.  We expect our leaders to go through specialized training in virtually every endeavor.  We put ourselves through extra training whenever we have to make a decision.  We get trained for college, spend 4 years at school to get a degree, then get continuous education when we enter the professional world. Only on Wikipedia is seeking to get help/guidance looked down upon.  What a sick perverted joke.
 * The problem isn't with getting training, but rather with the coaches. Most coaches don't know how to coach.  Most aren't critical enough and most people treat coaching like a rite of passage.  I tend to be harsher to people who go through coaching, but that is because I had higher standards for them.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * Self-noms are definite strike against a candidate. If they deserve our trust, then somebody should be willing to put their neck on the line.  I won't say that self-nom is a sign of power hunger, but it is a strike.
 * A strong nom from a a strong admin/coach means a lot to me. I expect them to have vetted the candidate and their input means that we don't have to do as much---we still should, but it alleviates some of the burden.
 * Co-noms---generally 2-3 noms at most.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * What we don't advertise? Come on give me a break.  When people like a candidate, they go out of their way to make sure to "wish them luck" on their talk page---and any other place they can.  The candidate may not post it, but how often do people wish their friends "Good luck on your RfA" on the talk pages other than the candidates?
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * 90% of the questions are a joke.  The only time a question should be asked is to clarify something from reviewing the candidates history/action.  Or asking a pointed policy question based upon specific concerns about that candidate.  Asking them canned questions doesn't tell you anything.  Do your homework, investigate the candidate, see how they actually handle issues, and investigate whether or not they understand policies/guidelines.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * The process is flawed. H2O's election proved it---I could write a book on the subject and for more reasons that you can imagine.  And that is without mentioning me.  But I can point to another candidates RfA that proved it.  BrigetteSB had an RfA that was in serious doubt.  It started out with something like 3-7 with calls for withdraw and SNOW.  I read her RfA and struggled between a STRONG OPPOSE and a STRONG SUPPORT.  There were things I REALLY liked about her and things where I had serious concerns.  With the vote at 3-7, I could have buried her---but something convinced me to support instead.  I supported her and she went on to get over 100 supports.  I KNOW that if I came out guns ablazing, she would have failed.  This case sticks in my mind because it really showed me how jilted the system is.  If the candidate is strong enough that they will get 100+ !votes, then there is something wrong when that same candidate could have been buried early on!
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * It's their right.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * I would like to see more comments by the crat---especially on their rational/reasoning when a candidate is in that 70-75% range.
 * I also support candidate rights to see "serious" RfA's through to the end. Even if it obvious that it will fail.  I define serious as one that garners at least 1/3 supports after say 30 !votes.  I feel stronger about this now than I did prior to H20.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * See coaching. Only on Wikipedia can you rationalize that training/mentoring is bad.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * A complete and utter joke. Nobody has been recalled via that process.  If an admin needs to be desysopped, they will be quicker than AOR will work.

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?
 * Need admins in all areas. They are no different than anybody else, being an admin simply is an indication that you've earned a degree of trust.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Level head, willing to learn, willing to listen, willing to take a stand, willing to make a mistake, willing to admit mistakes, willing to listen to others, willing to...