User:CredoFromStart/RfA review

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 we have enough admins to handle the workload, but I also think that more are always welcome, if qualified. The method of obtaining new admins is a bit clique-ish, but that's a result of current admins knowing a lot of users, so they tend to nom the people they know.


 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * This is a very good idea. I know some oppose the notion of "wanting to be an admin" (power hunger or whatever), but I think that those who want to be an admin will in fact end up being the most active in the administration process. However, a lot of folks need some assistance, particularly those who don't naturally learn from instruction guides.


 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * This works fine as is.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * I think that advertising RfA is a good thing, but not necessarily advertising a specific RfA. Inviting people to vote is important though, because it helps cut down on situations where the RfA regulars, representing a small number of wikipedians, determine 90% of RfA outcomes. Placing a banner on your user page is probably acceptable, but I don't think I like the notion of crossposting your adminship to every person you're on good terms with.


 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * I like the notion of these questions, although it might be helpful if they were a little more targeted toward what the person intends on doing. Diffs should be provided more than they are.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * The term election, and using the 80/20 rule, seems completely at odds with the rest of wikipedia. We don't try to come to a consensus on admins, we take a vote, which is supposedly not how wikipedia works. I'd propose we use the RfC template, where there is a statement about the potential admin, and people can support or oppose the statement. For example, a candidate who has mediated dispute, fought vandalism inclulding AIV, participated in DRV and more could very realistically find himself under the 80/20 rule because of a copyvio image 3 months ago, even if that was the only image he'd ever uploaded.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * this is fine as is
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * Again, once the decision is made, this is fine as is.
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * No comment because of my lack of knowledge
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * This is a very noble initiative, and I fully support it. If I were to become an administrator I would participate in this process

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?
 * The admin is, above all else, the policy reference. Admins don't need to know every item of wikipedia policy and guidelines, but they need to possess a sense of the spirit of wikipedia and enough knowledge to know how to make decisions based on policy. The are the face of the wiki, not necessarily only to newbies but to the editors that want to make solid contributions. They have to make judgement calls on actions, set boundaries and keep their cool.

That being said, another primary aspect should be humility; admins need to realize that the sysop flag on their account does not make them infallible, nor does it do away with the need for consideration of other points of view. Admins are the police, and in some cases the courts, but they are not the legislators of wikipedia.
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Patience and Discernment. Any admin with those two plus the time to commit will probably make a good admin.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Yes; I felt like my vote(s) was insignificant but other than that it was positive
 * 1) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * No
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * They're brutal. People need to remember civility, even if they are commenting in ways that fit WP:NPA

This question page was generated by RFAReview at 19:34 on 27 June 2008.