User:Hmwith/RfA review

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've never nominated anyone for adminship who has accepted (1 user did not). I am okay with the way it is currently handled. Certain users help by finding people to nom, and certain users do not, but it couldn't hurt to have more editors looking for possible candidates.
Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
I'm not entirely irked by "coaching". Do I prefer editors to have learned mostly through experience? Yes, but that doesn't affect my opinion on whether or not the user would make a good admin.
Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
Some users have issues with self-noms. I don't think it should be an issue.
Advertising and canvassing
See, I would never mind an open, transparent note on my talk page. However, I've gotten emails (on other Wikipedias) requesting my support in an RfA, which is not okay. Those situations should be brought to light.
Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
I am not a fan of an excessive amount of questions on RfAs, and I don't think pop quiz questions are the best idea, but several situational questions should be asked, and questions that involve specific situations regarding users, such as asking him or her to elaborate on something particular or to explain a past situation, conflict, or mistake. The generic ones asked in nearly every RfA can get tiresome, however, and they should either be asked in the template for every RfA or not asked at all.
Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
I feel like opinions based solely on who nominated a candidate should not carry any weight. Rather, the candidate's character, actions, & contributions should be judged.
Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
Candidates withdraw, and that's okay if they'd like to do so, but I don't think other editors should ask the users to withdraw for any reason unless the RfA is a WP:SNOW candidate. I wouldn't mind close RfAs running until their time is up.
Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
I would prefer the 'crats giving more of an explanation than "no consensus" for those in the discretionary ranges.
Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
The New Admin school is great. It helped me out a great deal. It's also good for a few experienced admins to keep a helpful eye on new ones in order to give informal tips and advice if needed.
Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
I am open to recall, and I think that every admin should be.

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?
A contributor who has extra tools to help with more tasks on Wikipedia. However, since these tools make it easier for one to do more harm here, the community gives it to users who seem trustworthy. It's not about power or experience points.
What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
I feel admins should be fair, neutral, friendly, mature, respectful, approachable, trustworthy, and knowledgeable.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
Yes, I regularly participate. I've had a mostly positive experience.
Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
I failed my first RfA, which I would have passed except for "too soon" comments (not edit countis). I was just as prepared then as I was when I passed my second a few months later, but I now understand that the time standards go along with the candidate proving trustworthy.
Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
More discussion & less vote is, in theory, a good idea.

Questions

See also