Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect/Statistical Analysis/List21

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.Pete.Hurd	2.Phil Sandifer	3.PhilKnight	5.Pigman
Total Responses	1	1	1	1
C1. Selection
Great/Good overall	1		1	1
Adequate
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
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		1
Editors should not seek nomination
Statistics on candidates would help if before nom
Adminship viewed as a trophy		1
C2. Coaching
Good overall
Great Idea				1
Necessary/Should be Required
Should not be necessary	1	1
Helps with Details/Broadens Perspective
Some coaching not bad
Coaches should also be monitored
Invaluable after the RFA
Teaching for the Test (Bad Before RFA)
Coaching is bad	1	1
Should not oppose due to coaching
Needs Improvement/Overhaul/More Coaches			1
Experience is better teacher
Coaching not always effective/Depends on Coach
Feedback is preferred to Coaching
C3. Nomination
Good overall/OK as is			1
Self-Noms Good	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
Co-noms should be limited
Co-noms should be required (a "Second")
Noms should be overview of candidate	1
Nominations have no value/Don't Matter		1
Propose Nomination Cmte
Non-admins cannot show admin skills
C4. Canvassing et al
Current standards are OK	1		1
Canvassing is not currently a problem	1
RFAs do not receive enough attn
Limited Canvassing should be OK (if Neutral)	1
Unlimited Canvassing should be OK
No Canvassing should be permitted
Link from userpage is OK
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
Canvassing to close associates (incl. off wiki) is OK; to random editors, not so much		1
C5. Questions
Questions are good	1		1
Opposes for not answering are bad/Optional
Questions should be limited
Questions should pertain to candidate
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
Current standard questions are bad/answers too obvious		1

Statements	Pete.Hurd	Phil Sandifer	PhilKnight
C6. Election
Good overall			1
Votes are worthless
Weak Opposes should be Discounted (No need for tools, etc)
Group similar votes by topic	1
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	1
Process itself is flawed
Use of "Strong" not incivil
Should not become battleground/Needs more WP:CIVIL	1
Personal standards/criteria are not helpful
RFC-style comment-based process preferable
Some voters oppose with intent to torpedo RFA
C7. Withdrawal
Withdrawal is OK	1		1
Withdrawal should not be permitted
Withdrawal bad after several votes
Candidates should take const. criticism
Candidate should not unwithdraw - "No Take Backs"
C8. Closing the Debate
Good overall	1		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
SNOW closes are good
Favors an appeals process
Hounding candidate to withdraw is bad
Detailed Closing Rationale is Good
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)
NOTNOW closes are bad/should not happen		1
Bureaucrats should view close RfAs as unsuccessful/Err with caution		1
C9. Training
New Admin School is Good Overall
New Admin School is Bad
New Admin School shouldn't be necessary		1	1
New Admin School should be Optional	1
New Admin School should be Mandatory
Informal training/feedback is Good
Mentorship good
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
Should be Required/Assumed			1
Should not be required (Optional)		1
Necessary (Checks and Balances)
Should not be necessary/Abuse=Desysop anyway	1
Good in Theory
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

Statements	Pete.Hurd	Phil Sandifer	PhilKnight
A1. Role of Administrators
Nothing Special/Janitor		1	1
Editors with Extra Tools	1
Trustworthy/Impartial
Neutral
Not Judges
Overseer/Controller
Administrative Servant of Community
Enforcer / Cop / "Protect and Serve"
Mentor/Guide Newbies
Important
Guardians
Policy Reference/Leadership
A2. Attributes of Administrators
Cool Head/Patience
Common Sense/Good Judgement		1	1
Need not be skilled in everything
Dedication to/Knowledge of values & Policies of project
Neutrality/Good Faith/Tact
Must abide by consensus	1
Must assume Personal Responsibility
Good communication/Grammar	1	1
Good content editor
Integrity/Makes the tough choices
Trust
Civil
Wise / Intelligent
Technical Skill
Compassion/Kind
Good Administrator
Humility
Professionallism
Sense of Humor
Impartial			1

Statements	Pete.Hurd	Phil Sandifer	PhilKnight
R1. Ever voted?
Yes	1	1	1
No
Nothing Special/No problems	1		1
More personal than other voting processes
Only/Mostly to Oppose
Only/Mostly to Support
Don't ever intend to
Try to avoid pile-on voting if possible
R2. Ever a Candidate?
Yes		1	1
No	1
Successful		1
Unsuccessful
Multiple
Failure is a downer	1
Unlikely to run in future
May run in future
Quite Stressful
Not Stressful			1
Too many personal attacks on nominees
Editcount in Mainspace, etc, overrated
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
Need to go back to basics		1
Minimum Standards?
Too much the Interrogation
Current bar for success is too high
Process does not produce enough admins
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
Too hard to desysop
Too much politics, not enough results
Neutral votes are Bad
Wikipedia is not an MMORPG		1

Reviewed by: Livitup (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: Phoenix-wiki's form had no answers at all.

Pigman only answered the first two questions. Those answers were included above.

Phil Sandifer's answers were very difficult to summarize. A second pair of eyes would be appreciated.

I read through Phil's response and added a few items. Good read overall, though. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded by: UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]