User:TakuyaMurata/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)

   Don't we have an election instead?

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   Is it necessary?

3. Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)

   Self-nomination sounds like a good idea.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   Not sure what the question means.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   Debating about what?

6. Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)

   May not be the best way, but I can't think of any better alternative.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   He or she should have this as an option.

8. Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)

   The community (not a particular individual) should decide whether to close the application.

9. Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)

   How is this related to couching?

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    Admins who abuse his technical rights should be recalled.

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?

   They are janitors. Since Wikipedia is large, we need a handful of individuals who are dedicated to various maintenance related works; e.g., editing protected pages. In other words, they should never be seen as members of some kind of the ruling class. Perhaps, the term "administrator" is really misleading because their jobs are not to administrate but to perform some technical operators on the behalf of Wikipedia editors.

2. What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

   Knowledge of the policies. Nothing else. (For instance, the personally should not matter at all because admits must act only according to the community's behalf. They should never ever make any judgement in editorial matters based on their personal opinions.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

1. Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?

   Perhaps a long time ago. Don't remember much.

2. Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?

   No.

3. Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?

   As said above, maybe renaming "administrator" to something else is probably a good idea. Maybe something like "custodian", "protector" or even "janitor", because their jobs are mostly related to editing of protected pages. (I mean, they really shouldn't be doing anything else.)