Wikipedia:RfA Review/Reflect/Statistical Analysis/List8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A Review of the

Requests for Adminship Process



Reflect - (Stats)




The Review Process
Methodology - Discussion

Requests for Adminship

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.Iterator12n 2.Itub 3.J Milburn 4.J.delanoy 5.James086
Total Responses 1 1 1 1 1
C1. Selection
Great/Good overall 1 1 1 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 1
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
C2. Coaching
Good overall 1
Great Idea 1
Necessary/Should be Required
Should not be necessary/Should be Optional 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) 1 1
Coaching is bad
Should not oppose due to coaching
Needs Improvement/Overhaul/More Coaches 1
Experience is better teacher 1
Coaching not always effective/Depends on Coach 1
Feedback is preferred to Coaching 1 1
C3. Nomination
Good overall/OK as is 1
Self-Noms Good 1 1 1
Self-Noms Bad
Self-noms Not OK, but should be allowed 1
No Support/Oppose based on Who Nom Is 1
Nomination from experienced Editor is of Value 1
Co-noms should be limited 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 1
Canvassing is not currently a problem 1
RFAs do not receive enough attn 1
Limited Canvassing should be OK (if Neutral) 1 1
Unlimited Canvassing should be OK
No Canvassing should be permitted 1
Link from userpage is OK 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
C5. Questions
Questions are good 1 1
Opposes for not answering are bad/Optional 1 1
Questions should be limited 1 1 1
Questions should pertain to candidate 1 1
Judge candidate on the merits, not on writing
No Trick Questions / Trolling 1 1
Need more civility
Failure to answer is suspect
Questions should be limited to a set from panel
Statements Iterator12n Itub J Milburn J.delanoy James086
C6. Election
Good overall 1 1
Votes are worthless
Weak Opposes should be Discounted (No need for tools, etc) 1
Group similar votes by topic
Judge arguments, not count votes 1 1
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 1
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
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"
C8. Closing the Debate
Good overall 1 1
Bureaucrat Discussion on Close is Good 1
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 1
Detailed Closing Rationale is Good 1 1 1
Detailed Closing Rationale is Unnecessary
Crat Discretion in weighing !votes should be limited 1
Crat should discuss problems before closing 1
Debate/Voting should be much longer (1-2 mo)
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 1 1
New Admin School should be Mandatory
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 1 1
Should not be required (Optional)
Necessary (Checks and Balances)
Should not be necessary/Abuse=Desysop anyway
Good in Theory 1
Too easy to abuse process/Needs Improvement 1 1 1
Current Voluntary Process is bad 1
Should not be factor in Support/Oppose 1 1
Favors reconfirmation periodically 1
Only Non-admins to recall an admin
Proper venue is RFC and/or Arbcom
Recall Process should be formalized/standardized/Run by Crats
Statements Iterator12n Itub J Milburn J.delanoy James086
A1. Role of Administrators
Nothing Special/Janitor 1
Editors with Extra Tools
Trustworthy/Impartial 1 1
Not Judges
Administrative Servant of Community
Enforcer / Cop / "Protect and Serve"
Mentor/Guide Newbies 1
Guardians 1
Policy Reference/Leadership 1
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 1
Neutrality/Good Faith/Tact
Must abide by consensus 1
Must assume Personal Responsibility 1 1
Good communication/Grammar
Good content editor
Integrity/Makes the tough choices
Trust 1
Civil 1 1
Wise / Intelligent
Technical Skill
Compassion/Kind 1
Good Administrator
Professionallism 1
Sense of Humor
Statements Iterator12n Itub J Milburn J.delanoy James086
R1. Ever voted?
Yes 1 1 1 1 1
Nothing Special/Few or No problems 1 1
More personal than other voting processes
Only/Mostly to Oppose
Only/Mostly to Support 1
Don't ever intend to
Try to avoid pile-on voting if possible
Voting was a positive experience 1
R2. Ever a Candidate?
Yes 1 1 1
No 1 1
Successful 1 1 1
Unsuccessful 1 1
Multiple 1 1
Failure is a downer
Unlikely to run in future
May run in future
Quite Stressful
Not Stressful 1 1 1
Too many personal attacks on nominees
Editcount in Mainspace, etc, overrated
Received Valuable Constructive Criticism 1 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/Harder to pass 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
Too hard to desysop 1
Too much politics, not enough results
Neutral votes are Bad

Reviewed by: UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Recorded by: UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)