User:John Carter/RFA review

Candidate selection (inviting someone to stand as a candidate)
 * I've asked several parties to consider seeking adminship. I can't object to having some candidates "nudged" in such a way, provided the individual doing so is clearly not that person's sock and is otherwise someone with some idea of the process.

Administrator coaching (either formally or informally)
 * Think it's a good idea, although not necessarily required in all cases.

Nomination, co-nomination and self-nomination (introducing the candidate)
 * Trying to get nominations by others is good, as they can then "vouch for" the candidate. Self-nomination should be allowed, though.

Advertising and canvassing
 * Bad idea, beyond just maybe adding a note to the candidate's userpage. Beyond that, it can easily unbalance the vote.

Debate (Presenting questions to the candidate)
 * Some is ok. Too many questions can be daunting. Have no idea where to draw the line though.

Election (including providing reasons for support/oppose)
 * Would prefer it if individuals giving questions, comments, or reasons for supporting/opposing/staying neutral weren't grilled too much about their opinions, if perhaps a single neutral question. I know from experience I tend to not vote if my opinion is a mild oppose. I think others might be similar. Have no idea how to change that however.

Withdrawal (the candidate withdrawing from the process)
 * Can't see any problems here.

Declaration (the bureaucrat closing the application. Also includes WP:NOTNOW closes)
 * Have never seen any real problems here.

Training (use of New Admin School, other post-election training)
 * Good idea. Ongoing training of some sort might be beneficial as well.

Recall (the Administrators Open to Recall process)
 * Steps to standardize the process might be useful.

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?
 * Tough question, as there are several administrative functions. Primarily, an admin does the closing of XfDs and other deletions, hands out blocks as required, protects pages, prevents vandalism, etc. I could see having some of these made separate, like with the rollbacker option. Also should try to be a neutral reporter in ArbCom and related functions, but obviously that won't always be the case.

What attributes do you feel an administrator should possess?
 * Objectivity and rationality, first and foremost, as most admin activities involve rules of some sort. Should also try to have a thick skin.

Finally, when thinking about Requests for Adminship:

Have you ever voted in a request for Adminship? If so what was your experience?
 * Yeah, I have. Disappointed still that the checks I've often been promised have been slow to arrive, but otherwise no objections. ;)

Have you ever stood as a candidate under the Request for Adminship process? If so what was your experience?
 * Yeah, and I was made one the first time through. Questioned some of my support, and wondered whether there should have been more objections.

Do you have any further thoughts or opinions on the Request for Adminship process?
 * Quite a few.
 * 1. Wouldn't mind seeing Adminship broken into separate functions, as some people are more clearly qualified for some functions, not so clearly for others.
 * 2. Would like to encourage more "oppose" !votes, as, like I said, I am often hesitatnt to do that myself.
 * 3. Ongoing training would definitely be a new idea, particularly regarding new policies and guidelines.
 * 4. Much bigger paychecks. ;)
 * 5. Would like to help ensure that people realize being an admin doesn't necessarily mean the person knows what he's doing away from admin functions, although I have no clue how to do that.