Bright side, dark side on adminship
cf. eG's somniloquence
Any Wikimedia project has a power structure divided into some user status, also Wikipedia therefore has it. On some projects it is a reason to give a "Cabal fantasy", that is, the base of Cabalism image is not only discreteness of irc conversation from the Wikipedia community but also main participants of irc channel(s) are sysops of a certain projects.
Meta is also a center of Cabalism according to such opinion or illusion, though it is factual a practical site except some funny articles. Anyway administrative issues are not so lovely, even if there are at least now free from frame bites. Thus the adminship on meta is not fun but just an useful tool for your activities. Once you have adminship, you understand easily what I mean, I guess. For active users adminship is convenient, even if they haven't to fight against vandals. Adminship itself has no characteristics: a tool is a tool, that's all. It depends on what you do with it as same as other tools. And then it brings another issue on act, behavior or issues on moral : if you do something, you would be evaluated both by your own consciousness and by others. They will trust you or not.
The guideline about adminship on meta express this circumstance around adminship briefly: "Get it if you need it. Keep it if people trust you. Quit it if you do not need it. Lose it if people feel they cannot trust you." So it depends on your own necessecity if you request or quit willingly, but depends on others' trust if you keep or lose it. The latter part brings both a bright side and dark side around sysopship. Both arise seldom on a little community. Honestly saying what my supporters said on my request made me happy - because I realized or confirmed that whom I have respected also have trusted me. In my opinion it is one of brightest side around request for adminship. It would be an occasion for people to reveal why and how they trust the candidate and what expect him or her. Plainly it is the occasion for users to say "I trust you" to the candidate. And if you agree with that the activities on Wikipedia is fun, the activities with adminship could be fun too.
On the other hand having sysopship bring you a fun not always. You would face vandals and trolls more than any 'ordinary' users. Deletions, protections and other administrative works are not funny and sometimes troublesome (I remember once I tried to delete some files and suddenly involved into server slowness. Ten minutes I had no response from servers and it was not a funny experience honestly.) particularly unless you enjoy Wikipedia. And then if people don't trust you, the condition is perhaps unbearable for you...
As for "questions for a candidate" on "Request for adminship" on Japanese Wikipedia, I say as its translator, it was borrowed from English Wikipedia where too many candidates caused troubles and it would be a trick to make candidates reluctant on their request. So perhaps it could be removed from Japanese Wikipedia where many people are reluctant and evasive from request for adminship.
.....But perhaps the biggest problem is not a simple question among enquete but lack of trusting on a big community in general, unless I am too pessimistic.