User:Cyclonenim/RfA review

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)
 * As a whole, I find this absolutely fine. There are indeed some cases of nomination where the candidate is clearly unsuitable to become an admin but the vast majority of candidates have started being nominated by a select number of people. This, in my eyes, can be a good thing (especially when the select number of people are respected Wikipedia administrators or users).
 * 1) Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Formally, no, it's not a good idea in my honest opinion. It takes away the whole point of adminship and focuses solely upon getting a candidate to an acceptable level rather than a good level. I'm much more a fan of informal processes such as Pedro's mentoring scheme, which can be used when you need it rather than as a formal training process.
 * 1) Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * Nomination is fine, see above. Co-nominations are fine as long as they are reasonable co-nominations and limited to a maximum of three, otherwise it just gets out of hand. Self-nominations are not a demonstration of being power hungry, in my opinion, so i'm absolutely fine with them.
 * 1) Advertising and canvassing
 * Nothing wrong with sharing your nomination on your talk or user page, but advertising elsewhere or canvassing others clearly compromises the fairness to the vote.
 * 1) Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Optional questions should really be answered. If the candidate does not answer all of them, it will usually compromise my support for them.
 * 1) Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Certainly! Placeholder votes should be really frowned upon and reasons should always be given unless everything as already been said, where you can say "Per Somebody" instead. But a reason should certainly be given.
 * 1) Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * Fine. If an application is likely to fail, it may save heart to give up and come back later after addressing concerns of others.
 * 1) Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * NOTNOW, or SNOW as we all know it really, is a good idea. Some can be a little hasty to close anyone who has about 2 oppose votes but usually it only comes into play when someone is being heavily opposed with no support (or simply moral supports).
 * 1) Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * I don't really know much about this but it seems like a good idea. It's not a good idea to throw a successful candidate out into the blue.
 * 1) Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * Great idea, should be compulsory. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear.

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?
 * 2) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * 1) What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:


 * 1) Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * 2) Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * 3) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * 1) Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?