User:Wikidas/RfA review

Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
 * I would suggest that only an automatically pre-qualified individuals who do not have any record of blocks or 3RR can self-nominate. Others need to be nominated by other editors, not that person's sock and is otherwise someone with some idea of the process.

Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Think it's a good idea. In all cases where the self-nomination involved, that will be a welcome move.

Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * Self-nomination should be allowed, but conditioned with not having a record of 3RR violations and other records

Advertising and canvassing
 * I would suggest that it can be automated by a category or link on the relevant WikiProjects, Groups, but if using user Talkpages it not a very good idea. Project boards are okay.

Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Random 10 multiply questions from a question bank automatically selected and to be answered in a limited time.

Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Uninvolved parties of 6 months or over editors only should be allowed to vote.

Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * Yeap, can't see any problems here.

Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * Have never seen any real problems here.

Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * Training should be mandatory and should involve assigments of standard tasks. Also ongoing training of some sort might at a minimum of 4-5 days a year periods can be beneficial as well.

Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * Anon the process (identities should be visible only to monitoring bureaucrat who can remove socks). It must be anonymous as a revenge can be a factor. Also areas of concern should form part of ongoing education.

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?
 * There are several administrative functions. Besides the basic functions of blocks and XfDs admin should be restricted on application of blocks in the areas defined as their areas of interest, such as for example if on the project WP:BIOGRAPHY as an active editor, the admin functions of XfD should be restricted.

What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Objectivity and detachment, and probably first and foremost - strictly following the rules that admin is supposed to enforce. Violators of 3RR or other elements of code should have their admin rights suspended for a few weeks.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Ca not recollect doing so.

Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * I generally concentrate on editing.

Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * Maybe some.
 * 1. It should involve Provisional License period, where 'young' admin should be reviewed - say after 3 months and the process of RfA is concluded on performance accessment.
 * 2. Anonimous oppose votes should be allowed.
 * 3. Continuing Professional Admin Education should be a mandatory process applied to all inactive or semi-retired admins. This ongoing training would definitely be a fresh idea, to allow every admin to be updated on new policies and guidelines. Should involve yearly multiply choice theoretical test.