User:Useight/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 would only nominate an editor at RFA if I felt they met my own personal standards in an admin candidate and met the standards often required by the general community.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I feel that admin coaching is an effective method to help a more experienced editor (one who has been around for some time, as adoption is a better method for brand new editors) learn what is expected of an administator. Through administrator coaching, the candidate can learn directly from someone with more experience. While some may see admin coaching as "fast tracking" to becoming an admin, I see it as a direct and effective way to learn the skillset required of admins. This can include learning to communicate civily and effectively, policies and procedures, etc. There are many different methods of admin coaching, some better than others, and I am currently in the process of revamping mine.

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

   As for self-nominations versus nominations by someone else, I don't have a preference. I will thoroughly review the candidate regardless. I think the nomination should be, at most, a couple of paragraphs long and co-nominations should be shorter. Should there be a limit? I don't think we need to formally set one because it seems to already be the community consensus that more than one or two co-noms is excessive. If the co-nom can't add something extra, or take some other angle, there really isn't a need for repetitious co-nom after co-nom. I prefer to let the candidate's work speak for itself.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   I am definitely opposed to a candidate (or someone other than the candidate, for that matter) advertising a particular RFA, even if they are not canvassing for supports specifically. If there is canvassing for a particular RFA, perhaps it was selective canvassing, advertising in places where the candidate knows he is well-known in hopes of generating more supports.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   I do not see a problem with asking optional questions of the candidate. However, I do agree that a candidate can be asked too many. Again, I rarely ask optional questions because I prefer to dig through the candidate's work to find a reason to support or oppose.

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

   I feel that editors can support, oppose, or go neutral for whatever reason they please. I would prefer that they give at least a brief reason why they are voting the way they are. Providing diffs is always a plus.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   I think the candidate might as well withdraw if the support is sub-50%, but I don't have a problem with candidate's running their RFA the full seven days.

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

   I believe a NOTNOW close is warranted if a sufficient number of editors have voiced their opinions and a vast majority oppose the editor becoming an admin. The less experience the editor has, the fewer number of opposes that would take. Yes, it is very subjective, but it is usually pretty blatant whether it should be closed per NOTNOW or not. The closing bureaucrat also has discretion when an RFA ends after seven days with a support percentage in the range of 70-75%, or close to that range.

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

   New Admin School is a great resource. I used it immediately after being granted the sysop flag and I recommend it to all new admininstrators.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    Being open to recall is a great idea in theory, but, generally speaking, the process is incredibly complex and just as difficult to use as an ArbCom decision.

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 role of an administrator is not one of greater authority nor does it grant the editor more weight in a dispute or give the editor a license to circumvent policy. Instead it merely indicates that the community has expressed enough trust in the editor and his/her knowledge of policies and procedures to allow him/her to perform some extra functions.

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

   In no particular order, a solid grasp of policies, civility, excellent communication skills, and experience in various parts of Wikipedia.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

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

   As a regular at RFA, I have participated in many. Sometimes being among the first to voice my opinion, sometimes tacking on near the end. Sometimes I support, sometimes I oppose; I rarely go neutral. Sometimes I go with the flow, sometimes I go against the grain. I try to always provide objective reasons as to why I am supporting or opposing. I could go on for many paragraphs about my experience, so I'll just cut it off there for now.

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

   I first stood for RFA in July of 2007 when I had just passed the 2000 edit mark. I was still fairly new and didn't understand everything yet, so I understandably ended in "No Consensus". I did get a lot of feedback, though, on how to improve myself. I tried again a couple months later, but it was still a bit too soon. On my third attempt, in December 2007, which ended successfully, I was much more confident and felt much more experienced. As I have had both experiences, I understand what a candidate goes through when an RFA doesn't go as desired.

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

   I'm going to go with, "No", for now.