Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect/Statistical Analysis/List23

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	2.Quartermaster	3.RGTraynor	4.Richard0612
Total Responses	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		1
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
Editors should not seek nomination
Statistics on candidates would help if before nom
Bias against self-noms			1
C2. Coaching
Good overall	1
Great Idea		1	1
Necessary/Should be Required
Should not be necessary
Helps with Details/Broadens Perspective			1
Some coaching not bad
Coaches should also be monitored
Invaluable after the RFA
Teaching for the Test (Bad Before RFA)		1	1
Coaching is bad
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
Good idea, but done wrong		1
C3. Nomination
Good overall/OK as is
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	1	1	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
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	1
Unlimited Canvassing should be OK
No Canvassing should be permitted
Link from userpage is OK			1
Canvassing leads to opposes/Have opposed for Canv.			1
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
Don't canvass opposes either		1
C5. Questions
Questions are good	1		1
Opposes for not answering are bad/Optional		1
Questions should be limited			1
Questions should pertain to candidate			1
Judge candidate on the merits, not on writing			1
No Trick Questions / Trolling
Need more civility		1
Failure to answer is suspect
Questions should be limited to a set from panel
Standard set (first three) fine		1

Statements	Quartermaster	RGTraynor	Richard0612
C6. Election
Good overall	1
Votes are worthless		1
Weak Opposes should be Discounted (No need for tools, etc)		1
Group similar votes by topic
Judge arguments, not count votes		1
Opposes weighed by participation (proportional)
Vote should include rationale
Votes need not include rationale unless requested
Favors Election-Style (votecounting)
Pleasing voters becoming too important		1
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		1
RFC-style comment-based process preferable
Some voters oppose with intent to torpedo RFA
Support !vote requires less explanation than oppose			1
Pile-ons bad			1
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
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
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)
No need to rush it	1
NOTNOW/SNOW good			1
NOTNOW less WP:BITEy then SNOW			1
C9. Training
New Admin School is Good Overall	1	1	1
New Admin School is Bad
New Admin School shouldn't be necessary
New Admin School should be Optional
New Admin School should be Mandatory
Informal training/feedback is Good
Mentorship good
Experience is better teacher			1
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
Should be Required/Assumed
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	1	1
Current Voluntary Process is bad			1
Should not be factor in Support/Oppose		1
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	Quartermaster	Richard0612
A1. Role of Administrators
Nothing Special/Janitor	1
Editors with Extra Tools		1
Trustworthy/Impartial		1
Neutral
Not Judges		1
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	1
Common Sense/Good Judgement		1
Need not be skilled in everything
Dedication to/Knowledge of values & Policies of project
Neutrality/Good Faith/Tact
Must abide by consensus
Must assume Personal Responsibility
Good communication/Grammar
Good content editor
Integrity/Makes the tough choices
Trust		1
Civil
Wise / Intelligent		1
Technical Skill
Compassion/Kind
Good Administrator
Humility
Professionallism
Sense of Humor

Statements	Quartermaster	RGTraynor	Richard0612
R1. Ever voted?
Yes	1	1	1
No
Nothing Special/No problems	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
Unsuccessful		1	1
Multiple
Failure is a downer
Unlikely to run in future		1
May run in future
Quite Stressful		1
Not Stressful
Too many personal attacks on nominees		1
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
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
Temporary admin status?	1
Only can pass if entirely uncontroversial		1
Process is entirely broken		1
Deters people from running		1
RFA needs to be taken out of the community's hands		1
Process not fundamentally flawed, needs tweaking			1

Reviewed by: lifebaka++ 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pyrospirit's and Richardshusr's reviews are blank.

Recorded by: UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]