User:thedemonhog/Requests for adminship review

Welcome to the question phase of RfA review. Various users have taken the time to respond to the questions in order to give further understanding of what is thought of the RfA process. In a departure from the normal support and oppose responses, this review focuses on thoughts, opinions and concerns. It is not asked to recommend possible remedies or solutions for any problems, as that will come later in the review. Other editors are encouraged to take part in the review, as more responses will improve the quality of research, as well as increasing the likelihood of producing meaningful results.

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)

   This is a good part of the process. I have never invited someone, but this is something that I would like to do in the future.

2. Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

   I have no problem with this. If everyone candidate passed his or her request for adminship, a lot less feelings would be hurt.

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

   Co-nominations are fine, but other editors have brought up a good point when they said that co-nominations might as well just go in the "support" section. I have no problem with self-nominations. Some users say that this indicates a candidate who wants it too badly, but I think that this is a good quality. Why should administrative tools be given to someone who does not want them. Think back to when you were in elementary school and the teacher asked the class "who wants to…?" Several kids would yell and raise their hands and the teacher would choose the silent student to do the task, when the other children clearly wanted it more.

4. Advertising and canvassing

   I think that this is fine, to an extent. When I was having my candidacy, I posted a message on my user page; however, I was told that this would be criticized as canvassing so I changed it to a sentence farther down on the page and it became something of an Easter egg. Lately, a template has been introduced that is way more obvious than the message I had. I digress. I think that it is fine having a link to your request in your signature, as this will attract users you interact with and should not change the outcome of your election. This is different than only contacting your friends, which will impact the outcome, although, I do not find this so wrong either as I would like to know if a friend had been nominated. I also think that putting a link to your request in your edit summary is excessive.

5. Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

   This is a necessary part of the process, but a lot of the questions asked are unnecessary. Knowledge of policy is not demonstrated through copy and pasting the blocking policy. See Wikipedia:RfA cheatsheet for more details.

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

   It is unnecessary for users to type out "support", "oppose" or "neutral" as the votes are already separated. Wikipedia is supposedly run by consensus; however, requests for adminship is almost purely a vote. People may add an exclamation mark before they type "vote", but this does not change the fact. The election being a vote does not bother me because the outcome is not going to be changed if it was switched to consensus as so many editors comment. Reasons for supporting are unnecessary as it is implied that they agree with the nominator.

7. Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

   Withdrawal is up to the candidate. It may be obvious that a nomination will not succeed, but the nominee can pick up some tips so that he or she is more successdul in the future.

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

   I oppose "not now" closes. The request will only take seven days at most and it does not affect anyone's editing. I have heard an argument that editors could be editing other areas of Wikipedia instead of discussing a failing nomination; however, I believe that this is not true as I think that editors will instead comment on other requests for adminship with their spare time.

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

   This is a good idea and will prevent some mistakes from being made.

10. Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

    This is also a good idea. We have processes for delisting featured articles, so why not administrators as well.

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?

   Administrators have blocking and protecting abilities. They have been referred to as "janitors", but I think that the term "glorified janitor" is more fitting.

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

   Administrators should be civil, trustworthy and have some history in article writing.

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 have voted. It boosted my edit count and did not change the outcome of the nomination.  ;)

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

   I did so in December 2007. I narrowly failed, due to a lack of project space contributions. The experience was fine (obviously, it would have been better if I had been successful), although one of my answers was misinterpreted as a jab at wikignomes (which it was not) and that cost me a few votes.

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

   Yeah, but I have already said too much for my own good and I do not wish to lessen the chances for my next candidacy any more.

This question page was generated by {{RFAReview}} at 05:33 on 18 June 2008 and filled out at 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC).