Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect/Statistical Analysis/List3
| A Review of the Requests for Adminship Process |
|---|
Please review each of the five questionnaires linked below. For each statement in the questionnaire that matches a statement in the table, add a "1" to the appropriate column. Statements not made in the questionnaire, or items where the response is "No Comment", should be left blank. The five responses included in this range are numbered, so please ensure that the number of the item you are tallying matches the number of the response you're reviewing.
If a response includes a statement that isn't in the table, please feel free to add it. Don't forget to add a "1" for that response, so that we can determine who said what.
When you're finished, please sign the bottom of this page. Thank you again for your assistance!
| Statements | 1.GW Simulations | 2.Garion96 | 3.Gatoclass | 4.Giggy | 5.Glane23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Responses | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| C1. Selection | |||||
| Great/Good overall | 1 | ||||
| Adequate | 1 | ||||
| Every editor should seek adminship, eventually | |||||
| Would/Should only nominate trusted editors | |||||
| Have suggested candidates before | |||||
| Will not suggest candidates | |||||
| Should be chosen on contributions | |||||
| Process is daunting to prosp. Admins | 1 | ||||
| Should not be minimum standards | |||||
| Should be minimum standards (age, exp., edits, etc) | |||||
| Should be recommended guidelines (not requirements) | |||||
| Diversity is Good | |||||
| Popularity Contest/Clique-ish | |||||
| Editors should not seek nomination | |||||
| Statistics on candidates would help if before nom | |||||
| Anyone can nominate anyone | 1 | ||||
| A Wikiproject of candidate scouts | 1 | ||||
| Ask the editor before nomming them | 1 | ||||
| Some people nominate just to nominate | 1 | ||||
| Only nominate people you know well | 1 | ||||
| Editors are scared of RFA | 1 | ||||
| Experienced admins should nominate | 1 | ||||
| Self-nomination is fine | 1 | ||||
| C2. Coaching | |||||
| Good overall | |||||
| Great Idea | 1 | ||||
| Necessary/Should be Required | |||||
| Should not be necessary | 1 | ||||
| Helps with Details/Broadens Perspective | |||||
| Some coaching not bad | 1 | 1 | |||
| Coaches should also be monitored | |||||
| Invaluable after the RFA | |||||
| Teaching for the Test (Bad Before RFA) | |||||
| Coaching is bad | 1 | ||||
| Should not oppose due to coaching | |||||
| Needs Improvement/Overhaul/More Coaches | |||||
| Experience is better teacher | |||||
| Coaching not always effective/Depends on Coach | |||||
| Feedback is preferred to Coaching | |||||
| Coaches should advertise their services | 1 | ||||
| Some kind of formal/informal combo | 1 | ||||
| C3. Nomination | |||||
| Good overall/OK as is | 1 | 1 | |||
| Self-Noms Good | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Self-Noms Bad | |||||
| Self-noms Not OK, but should be allowed | |||||
| No Support/Oppose based on Who Nom Is | |||||
| Nomination from experienced Editor is of Value | 1 | 1 | |||
| Co-noms should be limited | 1 | ||||
| Co-noms should be required (a "Second") | |||||
| Noms should be overview of candidate | |||||
| Nominations have no value/Don't Matter | 1 | ||||
| Propose Nomination Cmte | |||||
| Non-admins cannot show admin skills | |||||
| Co-noms should only bring up new information | 1 | ||||
| Self-noms should be endorsed by several editors | 1 | ||||
| Use Wikipedia Board member voting style | 1 | ||||
| C4. Canvassing et al | |||||
| Current standards are OK | |||||
| Canvassing is not currently a problem | |||||
| RFAs do not receive enough attn | |||||
| Limited Canvassing should be OK (if Neutral) | 1 | ||||
| Unlimited Canvassing should be OK | 1 | ||||
| No Canvassing should be permitted | 1 | 1 | |||
| Link from userpage is OK | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Canvassing leads to opposes/Have opposed for Canv. | |||||
| Prominent or Bot-generated list of current candidates OK | |||||
| Process should be revised to render canvassing moot | |||||
| Off-site canvassing bad; should result in ban from RFA | |||||
| A special page for advertising RFAs | 1 | ||||
| Canvassing disqualifies RFA | 1 | ||||
| Don't canvass for others | 1 | ||||
| Canvassing provides information | 1 | ||||
| C5. Questions | |||||
| Questions are good | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Opposes for not answering are bad/Optional | |||||
| Questions should be limited | 1 | ||||
| Questions should pertain to candidate | 1 | ||||
| Judge candidate on the merits, not on writing | |||||
| No Trick Questions / Trolling | 1 | ||||
| Need more civility | |||||
| Failure to answer is suspect | |||||
| Questions should be limited to a set from panel | |||||
| Have a Q&A session before voting | 1 | ||||
| Don't ask questions involving pasting policy | 1 | ||||
| Candidate's efforts speak for themselves | 1 |
| Statements | GW Simulations | Garion96 | Gatoclass | Giggy | Glane23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C6. Election | |||||
| Good overall | |||||
| Votes are worthless | |||||
| Weak Opposes should be Discounted (No need for tools, etc) | |||||
| Group similar votes by topic | |||||
| Judge arguments, not count votes | |||||
| Opposes weighed by participation (proportional) | |||||
| Vote should include rationale | 1 | ||||
| Votes need not include rationale unless requested | 1 | ||||
| Favors Election-Style (votecounting) | |||||
| Pleasing voters becoming too important | |||||
| RFA Talk pages should be used for discussion | |||||
| Process itself is flawed | |||||
| Use of "Strong" not incivil | |||||
| Should not become battleground/Needs more WP:CIVIL | |||||
| Personal standards/criteria are not helpful | |||||
| RFC-style comment-based process preferable | |||||
| Some voters oppose with intent to torpedo RFA | |||||
| Voting after all questions answered | 1 | ||||
| Don't user "Per User:XYZ" | 1 | ||||
| Opposers must provide rationale; supporters don't | 1 | ||||
| Tough process | 1 | ||||
| One or two diffs can bring down an RFA | 1 | ||||
| Many candidates pass if they persist | 1 | ||||
| Voting rationale should be defendable | 1 | ||||
| Every vote should be contested | 1 | ||||
| Small committee that makes final call | 1 | ||||
| C7. Withdrawal | |||||
| Withdrawal is OK | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Withdrawal should not be permitted | |||||
| Withdrawal bad after several votes | |||||
| Candidates should take const. criticism | |||||
| Candidate should not unwithdraw - "No Take Backs" | |||||
| Withdrawing shouldn't be prejudicial for future RFAs | 1 | ||||
| C8. Closing the Debate | |||||
| Good overall | 1 | ||||
| Bureaucrat Discussion on Close is Good | |||||
| Fixed success percentages are bad | |||||
| Fixed success percentages are good | |||||
| Fixed success percentage should be higher | |||||
| NOTNOW should be used only if cand accepts it | |||||
| NOTNOW should be used more frequently | |||||
| NOTNOW should be limited where possible | 1 | 1 | |||
| SNOW should be limited where possible | 1 | ||||
| SNOW closes are good | |||||
| Favors an appeals process | |||||
| Hounding candidate to withdraw is bad | |||||
| Detailed Closing Rationale is Good | 1 | ||||
| Detailed Closing Rationale is Unnecessary | |||||
| Crat Discretion in weighing !votes should be limited | |||||
| Crat should discuss problems before closing | |||||
| Debate/Voting should be much longer (1-2 mo) | |||||
| Crats should ignore bad opposes | 1 | ||||
| C9. Training | |||||
| New Admin School is Good Overall | 1 | ||||
| New Admin School is Bad | |||||
| New Admin School shouldn't be necessary | 1 | 1 | |||
| New Admin School should be Optional | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| New Admin School should be Mandatory | 1 | ||||
| Informal training/feedback is Good | 1 | ||||
| Mentorship good | 1 | ||||
| Experience is better teacher | |||||
| Review of Admin Actions 2 weeks after RFA | |||||
| Favors Test-Wiki for training | |||||
| Good if done well; otherwise, detrimental | |||||
| C10. Recall | |||||
| In Favor of Recall Process/Would join AOR/Good Overall | 1 | 1 | |||
| Should be Required/Assumed | 1 | ||||
| Should not be required (Optional) | 1 | ||||
| Necessary (Checks and Balances) | 1 | ||||
| Should not be necessary/Abuse=Desysop anyway | 1 | ||||
| Good in Theory | 1 | 1 | |||
| Too easy to abuse process/Needs Improvement | |||||
| Current Voluntary Process is bad | |||||
| Should not be factor in Support/Oppose | |||||
| Favors reconfirmation periodically | |||||
| Only Non-admins to recall an admin | |||||
| Proper venue is RFC and/or Arbcom | |||||
| Recall Process should be formalized/standardized/Run by Crats | |||||
| Results in lynch mobs | 1 | ||||
| Results in admins watching their backs | 1 |
| Statements | GW Simulations | Garion96 | Gatoclass | Giggy | Glane23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1. Role of Administrators | |||||
| Nothing Special/Janitor | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Editors with Extra Tools | 1 | ||||
| Trustworthy/Impartial | |||||
| Neutral | |||||
| Not Judges | |||||
| Overseer/Controller | |||||
| Administrative Servant of Community | |||||
| Enforcer / Cop / "Protect and Serve" | 1 | ||||
| Mentor/Guide Newbies | |||||
| Important | |||||
| Guardians | |||||
| Policy Reference/Leadership | |||||
| Caretaker | 1 | ||||
| Ambassador | 1 | ||||
| Shepherd | 1 | ||||
| A2. Attributes of Administrators | |||||
| Cool Head/Patience | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Common Sense/Good Judgement | 1 | ||||
| Need not be skilled in everything | |||||
| Dedication to/Knowledge of values & Policies of project | 1 | 1 | |||
| Neutrality/Good Faith/Tact | 1 | ||||
| Must abide by consensus | 1 | ||||
| Must assume Personal Responsibility | |||||
| Good communication/Grammar | 1 | ||||
| Good content editor | 1 | ||||
| Integrity/Makes the tough choices | |||||
| Trust | |||||
| Civil | 1 | ||||
| Wise / Intelligent | |||||
| Technical Skill | |||||
| Compassion/Kind | 1 | ||||
| Good Administrator | |||||
| Humility | |||||
| Professionallism | |||||
| Sense of Humor | |||||
| Good listener | 1 | ||||
| Reasonable | 1 | ||||
| Masochism | 1 | ||||
| Admits to mistakes | 1 | ||||
| Avoids drama | 1 | ||||
| Understandings | 1 |
| Statements | GW Simulations | Garion96 | Gatoclass | Giggy | Glane23 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1. Ever voted? | |||||
| Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| No | 1 | 1 | |||
| Nothing Special/No problems | |||||
| More personal than other voting processes | |||||
| Only/Mostly to Oppose | 1 | ||||
| Only/Mostly to Support | |||||
| Don't ever intend to | |||||
| Try to avoid pile-on voting if possible | |||||
| Too time consuming | 1 | ||||
| People badger opposers | 1 | ||||
| R2. Ever a Candidate? | |||||
| Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| No | 1 | 1 | |||
| Successful | 1 | ||||
| Unsuccessful | 1 | 1 | |||
| Multiple | 1 | 1 | |||
| Failure is a downer | |||||
| Unlikely to run in future | |||||
| May run in future | 1 | ||||
| Quite Stressful | 1 | ||||
| Not Stressful | 1 | ||||
| Too many personal attacks on nominees | |||||
| Editcount in Mainspace, etc, overrated | |||||
| Extra questions were pointless | 1 | ||||
| R3. Other Thoughts? | |||||
| Voters should be more positive | |||||
| RFA has been reviewed before | |||||
| More Editors need to Vote | |||||
| Only question - Can candidate be trusted | |||||
| Too many grudges | |||||
| RFA could be worse | |||||
| Current process is OK | 1 | ||||
| Need to go back to basics | |||||
| Minimum Standards? | |||||
| Too much the Interrogation | |||||
| Current bar for success is too high | |||||
| Process does not produce enough admins | 1 | ||||
| Favors de-bundling the tools | |||||
| Drama is inevitible with personal process of RFA | |||||
| Too many inactive admins | |||||
| Focus should move from RFA to other vetting processes | |||||
| No Big Deal | 1 | ||||
| Too hard to desysop | |||||
| Too much politics, not enough results | |||||
| Neutral votes are Bad | |||||
| Less emphasis on numbers | 1 | ||||
| Candidate blocked within last 2 yrs disqualified | 1 | ||||
| Too much piling-on | 1 | ||||
| Willing to consider other processes | 1 | ||||
| RFA is broken | 1 |
Reviewed by: Useight (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Recorded by: UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)