User:Winger84/RfA Review Answers

Questions

When thinking about the adminship process, what are your thoughts and opinions about the following areas:

Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)

I think that the invitation process is flawed. I understand that an invitation is one way to show that you have a certain level of "trust" in another user and that you believe that they can do great things for the project by volunteering their time as an administrator. However, I've noticed more than a few instances where an editor would offer to / actually nominate someone just for the sake of stroking their own ego when that candidate succeeds. It shouldn't be about getting a proverbial "trophy." The process should truly be about finding those who can effectively lead others in the pursuit of the best interests of Wikipedia.

Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)

I don't think it's a big deal, honestly. In the real world, you have training on the job. Why should Wikipedia be any different? If an Administrator is willing to train a potential candidate for the sysop tools and the greater good of the project, then more power to them, I say! That's not to say, however, that the "line in the sand" doesn't get crossed, on occasion... I've seen instances of candidates being "coached" on the RfA process and how to answer the standard questions "a certain way" so that the community "will hear the 'right' answers." That is bullshit and accomplishes nothing.

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

Again, as I stated in the first question above, the nomination process should be a result of continued positive interactions with the candidate and a true appreciation of quality work by that candidate. If you have a candidate that does great work in certain areas of the project and their work is observed by multiple people that can write nominations that bring new information to the table, then so be it. As far as self-nominations go, I have nothing against the idea (as evidenced by my own self-nomination a few weeks ago). If you believe that you can stand up to the process and meet the overall "unwritten criteria" of the community, then knock yourself out and good luck!

Advertising and canvassing

Advertising = Good. Utilizing the standard template that alerts those who visit your user space that you're up for adminship is fine... after all, isn't that part of the process, gathering opinions about the candidate's suitability? Canvassing... I'm on the fence about it. On one hand, it falls into the area about bringing more opinions into the discussion. On the other hand, it opens up a potential can of worms in that the candidate might have a group of friends around the project that they can get to come vote in a positive fashion in the RfA, which brings nothing useful to the table, other than turning the process into a popularity contest.

Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)

If you can bring a quality question to the discussion, do it. But, please don't just ask questions that insult the candidate's - and the community's - intelligence by essentially asking them to quote a standard Wikipedia policy that can best be described as "common sense" knowledge.

Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)

Very simple here... Have a real reason for supporting or opposing a candidate. If you're going to support, tell the candidate and the community why you're supporting. Tell us exactly why you feel that the candidate is a good fit for the sysop tools! If you're going to oppose, tell us why. With either, don't just say "per (insert user name here)." Bring something to the table, don't just pile on.

Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)

Having gone through the process myself, I'm not a fan of the process ending by any means other than the RfA running its full course. If you choose to self-nominate or accept someone else's nomination, then you need to have thick enough skin to stick it out and take whatever commentary may come your way.

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

See my answer to the previous question. Allowing for certain candidates that obviously don't have enough experience in the workings of the project, there should not be any reason for an RfA to not run the full course. If nothing else, a fully-run RfA should give a candidate useful guidance as to how they can improve their contributions to the project in the future.

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

Again, we have job training in the real world, why should Wikipedia be any different? The education process never truly ends.

Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)

I would love to see a standard policy developed under which all Administrators should have to adhere to. I don't think anybody should be "invincible." If your job performance sucks in the real world, it's possible that you might get fired, regardless of whether or not you're "open" to the process. Why should Wikipedia be any different?