Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 175

Archive 170

←

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

Archive 177

→

Archive 180

A fake RFA

OK I have too much time to spare. I just created this. Feel free to add to it. Hope you like :) Majorly talk 19:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

*giggle* EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ev, can you do a check user on him... I think we now have enough to suspect that Majorly might in fact be a sockpuppet of another user... I present, this as evidence!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody should love my vote. ^_^ Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not really funny. :P  iMatthew :  Chat  00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it :} — R² 00:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, user spends too much time in own userspace instead of editing the encyclopedia. Dekimasuよ! 00:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Very funny. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Three letters: UAA! don't speak of credit these days, don't even think of it. What's next, User:Payroll Slasher? User:Headcount Optimizer? NVO (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That RfA is oddly realistic. Enigma^msg 02:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Only 20 questions? You guys can do better than that :) Majoreditor (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew that there would be someone copying DougsTech on there :)--Iner22 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:This flag once was red/27RFAreason. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That joke was a lot funnier before the subpage was deleted, trust me ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Counting As, Bs and so forth as separate questions there are still only 33, but the number of answers is even lower. ϢereSpielChequers 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. My. Goodness. I have not laughed out loud at something I read in ages! Thanks for the laughs everyone! That is just too funny! Ariel♥Gold 10:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardly anyone running for adminship

Is this the end of all Wikipedia??? What will happen? Haven't most of the desysoped admins had a chance to create new accounts so they could run again a la Sam Blacketer? Or are they already resysoped and waiting for the next Arbcom election?

Seriously, I'm concerned. I mean I've seen good nominees be turned away as unsuccessful over whatever drama opposers could create, but certainly there are more editors with no content contributions and lots of automated reversions that we can promote??? Aren't there??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the necessity to get people to run for adminship, as if a pause in nominations will indicate, per this post, the end of Wikipedia. Wikipedia will end when editors stop adding to and maintaining articles.--Moni3 (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we have a comfortable number of admins, and don't need a constant supply of new ones. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stats show we're losing admins faster than +sysop ing them for the last 18 months or so. We need more new ones, not less or the same number. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Maybe becoming an admin is seen as less desirable than it has been previously? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, being an admin can be boring, stressful, and time-consuming, so I'd buy that theory. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it's only as time-consuming as I want it to be. It's not like I keep regular office-hours here or something. As for stressful... yeah, it can be that. Yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's merely standard laws of growth, an enterprise starts slow, catches on, grows fast, then slows down and stabilizes out, which is where we are now. The depends on if wiki interest grows or not. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Today there are 927 active admins. 9 Dec 2007 (18 months ago) there were 984 active admins - that's a drop of 5.8%? Today there are 13 active bureaucrats; 9 Dec 2007 there were 15 - that's a drop of 13.3%? Am I doing my math right? Meanwhile, today there are about 2,908,000 articles, while on 2008-01-01 there were about 2,153,000, up 35%? We need more admins, and we need more crats. Kingturtle (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed a decrease in the amount of people who are using automated tools such as Huggle. As the encyclopedia gets bigger, we need more vandalism patrollers as well as anti-vandalism admins. I think I'll start using Huggle again. -download ׀ sign! 02:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some stats on that, Download? I'd be interested to see 'em since, having been in a similar position elsewhere, I have always been consistently impressed these past four years with the amount of work done by non-admins. It's nice to see someone with 15k edits and be a rollbacker, not sysop; you know they've not strayed. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have stats. However, I've noticed that while I'm using Huggle that I used to have a lot of competition at reverting vandalism before everyone else. I no longer have that problem as much as it seems like there's less people. As for admins doing the reverting, I still think there's a few; take J.delanoy for example. -download ׀ sign! 04:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Great News!!! I stand ready to run for Admin again and to help fill the void. I trust I can count on all of you for strong support. I'm looking at you GTB & Rlevse. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec, r to Kingturtle) Interesting data, but another way to think about it is that we need more active admins, since I think there are something like 1600 (??) total. Apparently well over a third of those are non-active, though I don't know what the definition of that is. Then you have additional admins who are not especially active (I'd put myself there), which cuts the number down further. One solution is more folks running at RfA, but another is trying to get some of the folks who already have the bit to contribute more, or at the least to try to figure out some of the reasons why they do not. It might actually be interesting to survey admins that have voluntarily stopped editing or at least radically reduced their level of contribution and see some of the reasons why they do so. Perhaps there's a fairly consistent burnout rate/reason(s) for burnout among admins, and it seems that's the kind of information that would probably be useful. Probably someone has thought of this before though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

you're posting at WT:RFA; everything has been thought of before :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

...including your comment that everything has been thought of before.... hee. Keeper | 76 02:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

....and thus we continue the Great Circular Discussion that is WT:RFA. Can't... break... free.... *strain* --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does WP:GCD redirect? My nifty "show preview" tool says....no where! Anyone up for some Beans? Keeper | 76 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

AAAAAHHHHH –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any particular tasks that are "most understaffed" due to the dearth of active admins? Which ones? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A germane question! (relative shock) I believe that the image maintenance categories are perennially understaffed, particularly the NFCC reduced size one (sorry I don't have the actual link, I'll hunt for it or someone cleverer than I just add it). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, and I guess this is directed at David Fuchs primarily, was there actually an effort to gather data from non-active admins, or was this just something that was bandied about? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No idea. There's been a billion "we need more admins" threads, and probably just as many "where have all the admins gone?" threads. But as to any hard metrics? Beats me. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, okay. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that you were responding at least semi-seriously to my previous comment. But if everything has been thought of before here at WT:RFA, then I guess we may as well save some time by deleting this page and then salting it against recreation. I know I know, surely that's been thought of as well, but I'm afraid I can't spare any more brain cells for this place than I have already. I'm pretty certain I clicked on the wrong button to even end up here in the first place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to GTBacchus, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is definitely another one of those understaffed areas - there are frequently over 100 candidates for speedy del. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

this is the category with the mother of all backlogs referred to above that a number of us have been battling with for a few days now since it got brought up on AN. Mfield (Oi!) 03:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam blacklist would be another one. MER-C 05:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PANIC---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL I think we'll survive. But I am wondering about early Aug. when Flagged Revs. hit town. Any ideas on what it will do to the admin. workload? — Ched :  ?  05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I need to start nomming people again if the wells are this dry.. Wizardman 05:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman coming out of retirement? Sweet! :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We are short admins. I probably wouldn't pass an RFA today. I think the standards and questions at RFA have gone up, and it means people are unsuccessful or don't even go for adminship for bad reasons. This is going to get worse when flagged revisions come. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The flipside to the question/concern about a slowdown in new, successful admin candidates is: why are we losing admins at a rate faster than we are getting new ones? It's too bad there is no reliable record of when and how we "lose" an administrator, to see if it's a matter of simple attrition (I have been somewhat less than active of late myself due to RL workloads) or if there is some other issue going on. If admins are being chased away from the position for some other, specific reason, it would be equally helpful - perhaps more useful, even - to try and tackle that issue as well. After all, retaining a seasoned administrator is every bit as helpful as promoting a new one. Shereth 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we will continue to lose admins as long as the community does not back people up who try to resolve problems. Who'd want to be an admin when all adminship does is give people the right to abuse you, assume bad faith, scream admin abuse and then drag you through endless process. It's a hard, thankless job. If you have any sense, do not apply. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. If we are going to put someone through the ringer of RfA and they come out still standing, we should reward them with some measure of trust and community confidence - not scrutinizing their actions at every turn. Shereth 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone bother? It is not worth the effort. If your niche is admin related areas, then you can't garner enough support. Dlohcierekim 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My RfA was defeated by editors who don't like my outspokenness. You couldn't pay me enough to run again. I have found that I can be as effective as a peon, as I could as an admin - and maybe more so. And by not being an admin, I'm less likely to be targeted by other internet sites seeking revenge against wikipedia admins for having indef'd some belligerent user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, when I ran, I told everyone I was going to keep concentrating on content issues. I now and then will do something adminly, usually on request. However, WP has six more featured articles than it had before I became an admin, thanks to me (and others). I don't feel guilty; I'm not paid and there is no shortage of mops. Deal with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The theory behind the concern expressed is that the "population" is growing while the number of "cops" is shrinking. Whether it's anywhere near a "crisis" is certainly debatable. But some proactive concern is good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did vote for you!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And I appreciate that. And if you decide to run again, as some do, to "renew your vows", as it were, you'll get my vote. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if admins were perceived as something different from cops, or even "cops". People who want to be a cop might not make the best admins, and acting like a cop does tend to invite the kind of interactions that scare some away from the job, I would think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be a very short list of what being an admin is actually about. Of course, that might scare even more potential candidates away. An admin doing his job right would find that it's nearly all pain and little gain. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's little gain, but I don't know what you mean by "an admin doing his job right". There's no obligation that any admin perform any particular task, painful or otherwise. An admin who works in uncontroversial image deletions and never sees an edit war is still doing his job right. Being an admin is almost entirely what you make of it, but there are very few groupies or private jets involved.

In your opinion, what does an admin who is "doing his job right" do? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts - the sad thing is that they're not new, but have not previously been mentioned in this thread:

• There's been a lot of cricitism of actions by admins in the last few months, possibly longer. In the biggest recent case I know of, and admin blocked someone for a week and then rescinded the block within an hour - at least one of these actions was ill-considered. The incident that triggered this involved 3 admins piling on to one person (who admittedly had done something questionable).
• There's a related perception that "admins stick together". In particular they vehemently oppose proposals for a system to recall admins who act improperly
• Non-admin users don't know or care about most of the "housekeeping" tasks, they care about the risk of abuse of power, of being unjustly or over-harshly blocked, and about XfD. If they can't contest actions they consider unjust, they'd rather lose a potential good admin than promote a potential bad one.

These are all well-documented. I also guess that some policies and guidelines that admins have to uphold are out of step with with the views of typical editors - not the vandals and long-term POV-pushers, but people who just want to to get on with editing articles on subjects that interest them. Perhaps admins should identify the policies and guidelines that cause the most disputes and act to align them better with the views of those who do not spend large amounts of time at policy and guideline Talk pages. --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't take an admin to do that. Any editor can propose a change in policy. It is of course well to have a considerable experience observing and participating in the discussion of similar proposed changes of the same general magnitude & the same subject--actually effecting major changes takes careful patient work, a high tolerance for frustration, and the willingness to accept a long time scale--and many of people with these qualities & the necessary experience do tend to become admins. It also helps to have no obvious axe to grind on a particualr article or topic that would be affected. Even on some relatively fundamental matters, consensus has changed before and can change again. DGG (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

While reading the ongoing discussion I was struck by a comment by Rlevse -"Stats show we're losing admins faster than +sysop ing them for the last 18 months or so." Is it possible the slowdown of applications for adminship might also be due in part to the current economic conditions? Speaking for myself, I've had to get a part time job on top of my full time job at the beginning of this year. This has certainly cut down the available that can be used for editing or even working on larger projects. Shinerunner (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a projection as to when we will get to the point of having no admins at all. Then it will become truly a site that anyone can edit. There could be side effects, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The bad side of this is that I believe we have reached a point where the process has become so difficult, demeaning, political, and unpredictable that few people are interested. When I became an admin, I had just over 1000 edits and answered (as I recall) one or two questions. The site has grown in complexity since then, and people accumulate edits more quickly, but it's still quite a contrast. I'm not going to suggest that we loosen the standards that far, but on the other hand, they've become too stringent. People draw oppose votes for not having enough FAs, having too low an average edit count per day, too few edits in project space, too many edits in project space, not enough conflict, too much conflict, etc. A review of the RFAs of admins who resigned their adminship in response to community concerns or had their adminship removed against their wishes shows that it is difficult to detect these cases in advance, at all, let alone by calculating edit count ratios.

On the other hand, I think there's quite a bit less admin work to do, because the MediaWiki software stops more bad edits before they get committed to the page database (things like the captcha and the account creation throttle have helped immensely), and because the bots are effective enough that there's rarely a compelling reason to block someone for vandalism. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like there's less activity in the NH summer. Also, even though there are editors running all of the time, at some point, there will be less (and more at other points). On graphs, the line normally zigzags. In a week or two, there could be more running again. However, I'm always a fan of more people becoming admins. Who wants to get to work on nomming? :) hmwithτ 14:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's because everyone saw my RfA and decided that they all had something somewhere in their past that would be horribly misconstrued and/or taken out of context, so they decided to pass. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Amount of questions

Lately as most of you have seen, the amount of RfA questions has shot up. Maybe we should step back and determine which of them have anything to do with becoming an administrator, rather than "Let me ask him/her a question because I can." Wizardman noted on the current RfA, that it seems we are playing 20 questions with the candidates. The questions mean a lot to some people in an RfA, and I can't image it's very easy to complete 20 questions with well-thought out answers in just two days.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But of those, there are only 6 askers. If you have a bunch of stock RFA questions, try not to unleash them all at once! –xeno^talk 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thing, then, that candidates have up to seven days to answer questions. I agree that the amount of questions have only increased, and it can be daunting to answer them all, but every question is important to the person asking it. My recent question (#19) on the current RfA, for example, may seem silly and far-fetched to many editors, but it has importance to me; the answer may determine if I support or not. I'm not, however, going to oppose if the question isn't answered within two days, or at all... and I doubt there are many (or any?) who would. -kotra (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is some would. You are asking your question which may help determine your !vote. The silly thing is when some people !vote, then come back later and ask a question or two.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some candidates don't answer all 12 questions from one voter, which is probably a good strategy. We can always suggest this in the Guide. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for a bit of historical reference, at my RfA over a year ago my nominator (and then bureaucrat) WJBscribe commented on this very issue, so this is an ongoing concern (which also ties in with the thread above). He noted in part: "There is an increasingly held view that candidates are feeling overloaded with questions and that this is putting people off applying, which is a problem. A steady flow of new admins is important to a project that continues to increase in size - already we have the lowest ration of admins to users/pages of all Wikimedia projects I believe. Lets try to encourage candidates - if there's information you haven't been able to glean from what the candidate's contributions and what has been said already that you think is needed to decide whether they are trusted/competent to use to tools go on and ask. Otherwise, it's just adding extra burden to the process. Candidates shouldn't be here to jump through everyone's collective hoops - just to help people decide if they can be trusted with the additional user right."

Personally I did not really mind the extra questions (including one or two frivolous ones), but I do agree with the general point that this adds burden to an already burdensome and, I would argue, fairly dysfunctional process. Avoiding questions that are not going to tell us all that much about whether a candidate will be a good admin or not is probably a good idea. In the current Engigaman 3 RFA I see several questions that almost certainly will not tell us more than a quick perusal of a user's contributions would. It's a fine balance obviously since some questions are going to be needed, but perhaps we're erring too much on the side of too many questions and need to dial it back as apparently was happening a year ago (at least in my RFA, but perhaps some others as well). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is timing. 20 questions isn't so bad if you have seven days (that's a measely three questions a day, not hard to pull off) but as is noted above, a candidate really only has a few. Today was the perfect example. Snowded had his open for what, 55 minutes? And he had 2 Supports (one from nom) and 8 Opposes before even answering a single question, or anyone posing any extra. You can't compete against that kind of rush. If there were a more reasonable "Pose Questions and Comment" period followed by "Vote and add additional comments," it might be a lot more favorable. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's not a tough call. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If I were in charge I would ban generic questions from individual editors. Questions that apply to everyone should be part of the standard questions that everyone is asked and should be added to that list by consensus. Custom questions should be limited to questions relevant to that specific candidate and not to everyone. --Tango (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple days ago, I was looking at a certain person's stock questions list that they are planning on posting to RfAs, and I was shocked. I saw almost 20 questions from one user. That is, really, a little excessive. (X! · talk)  · @215  ·  04:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, some of the questions asked these days are also quite inappropriate. Asking about someone's polical views or other views has almost nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, as long as the candidate has no problems with POV or COI. -download ׀ sign! 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tango and Download. Side note: if a user has undergone previous RfAs, it's probably reasonable to assume that you can draw conclusions from their answers there. This does not apply in all cases, but it seems silly to have to answer similar questions again and again. Furthermore, as mentioned above, I believe the person asking the question should have a personal stake in it. In other words, the answer to the question should affect the questioner's !vote. Opposing and then throwing up multiple tricky questions that are designed to trap the candidate is unfair, in my opinion. If the answer matters to you, then I would recommend not pre-judging. Enigma^msg 05:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, do we have support here for adding advice to the Guide that if one voter asks you a lot of questions, it would probably be wise to only answer a few of them at first, so that other voters won't feel bad about asking additional questions, and then come back to the ones you didn't answer later, if you have time? - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps uninvolved parties should just start removing everything after say, the third question, asked by the same person. –xeno^talk 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless it has been discussed at some point in the past, but perhaps some of the concerns about the "question crush" could be alleviated by some kind of Q&A period prior to opening the RfA up to general discussion/!voting? As stated above, a significant number of people !vote in an RfA after is has only been up a few hours (or even minutes!) and remain unchanged even after a dozen or more new question have been asked. While this would necessarily lengthen the process, it would allow participants in the discussion more time to consider a candidate's qualifications and answers, as well as allow the candidate ample time to provide thoughtful answers to the questions. Just a thought! Shereth 14:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2. It didn't turn out well. I guess so many people wanted to test the process that they asked dozens of questions... (X! · talk)  · @185  ·  03:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course that went overboard with 50+ questions. However not only is that seemingly an isolated example, but it's a pretty bad one. It was the fourth RfA for that user, who had also had the issue of having switched accounts. Let's please not damn the idea of "discussion before !voting" based on this single example. I agree though that some measures to limit the number of questions may be helpful. One possibility would be for questions to be proposed on the talk page first, and developed collaboratively - reducing the number of very similar questions. Disembrangler (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a Q&A period before the process starts, when you create your RFA it is preloaded with questions 1 - 3 and there should be no time pressure at all about answering them before you Transclude. If anyone has generic questions that they are going to ask of every candidate then I would suggest they make a proposal here for them to be added to the three standard questions. But I suspect that the current perception of a glut of questions is really a symptom of our shortage of candidates; As the number of RFA questions being asked per week is actually unusually low, but with so few RFA candidates the number of questions per candidate is quite high. However a lot of questions do look like they are generic and not based on a review of the candidates contributions, so one change we could make would be to require non standard questions to be supported by diffs. ϢereSpielChequers 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• How about press conference style, "One question per person"? - Mailer Diablo 14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I support that idea. Kingturtle (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I wonder if people look at questions already asked. I submit a pretty thorough battery and remove questions about areas already asked. Also, I see little value in questions about areas outside the candidate's requested area. A person can be a net positive if they stick to an area that they like and understand instead of trying to please everyone in all areas. I for one pretty well stick to CSD and AIV. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea as well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't and I'm one of the more vocal critics of too many questions. The problem is that when there are legit questions, there are legit questions. Legit questions should not be hampered, it's the stock questions that are asked of every candidate regardless of whom it is... it is the questions wherein a single person has decided that they have the right to ask a dozen stock questions despite the community frowning upon that action.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I also like the idea of one question per candidate. They have to be relevant to the candidate, though.  iMatthew :  Chat  17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - questions should be allowed or disallowed based on their own merits, not on who asked them. --Tango (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A valid concern, but I think it would offset by the fact that people would be more inclined to make their one question "count."
Also, I'm definitely only seeing this "restriction" (for lack of a better phrase) as being on RfAs; RfBs tend to have numerous questions, but there are less superfluous ones there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a limit of one question is a good idea. I hardly ever ask questions, but, when I have, I've asked more than one. In one particular case that I can remember, the second was based on his answer to the first. hmwithτ 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, so I can't help wondering if this aimed in part at my battery (which I just shortened, by the way). It's mostly stock stuff, I think. Maybe if there was a way to pre-announce pending RFAs as "open for questions"? rootology (C)(T) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also consider not asking the questions if you plan to support anyway, Root. Just a thought :-) Tan | 39 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In part, yes. But the issue has been around a lot longer than your stock questions, and it will be around long after you are gone. So, while I did cite your battery of questions elsewhere, they are only a symptom of a larger issue, and not related to you individually. Does that make sense? EG while your questions are (in part) what has prompted this latest wave of discussions, it not intended as an inditement against you.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

New Q4 Standard question

Given that a lot of the "non-standard questions" have become pretty standard lately, I believe this is a reasonable suggestion. Shereth 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK but what would be a good question 4? I'm not sure that any of the questions I've read recently would be relevant to every RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Question Are there any policies or guidelines that you are involved with, work with, or have any concerns about? — Ched :  ?  16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this question would serve 2 functions: 1.) It would allow a candidate to present his/her strong suits in regards to understanding a policy or guideline. 2.)In a sense it would allow a candidate the opportunity to "opt out" of items they felt they were weaker in, and acknowledge the fact that we can't all be great at every aspect of the 'pedia. (Just a thought) — Ched :  ?  16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I agree that policy would make a good q4, but I don't see we have a problem with admins who want to change particular policies, as long as they will administer according to current policy. How about:

Question Are there any policies or guidelines that you disagree with to the point of not being willing to enforce them as an administrator, if so how would you handle situations where such policies were being breached? ϢereSpielChequers 16:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm...Yes, better I think. I know we seem to have a lot of things in a state of flux right now: WP:BIO, WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:NOT (well, that's an all the time thing there), ...Seems ... not quite NPOV enough. Let me think on this a bit. — Ched :  ?  16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that WP:PLAGIARISM is going to change much (if at all) as that's a legal issue and mostly controlled by the foundation. If someone plagiarizes, the content gets removed, and if they continue to do so, they get blocked. Really simple. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The solution to boilerplate question-inflation is more boilerplate questions? What problem is this intended to solve?  Skomorokh  19:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are a few good questions being asked. Considering they are asked on basically every RfA, why don't we discuss adding some of those questions to the standard list, and getting rid of the ones that are irrelevant to adminship?  iMatthew :  Chat  19:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can think of several questions I'd like to ban off the top of my head: age of majority, other accounts, activities off-wiki, strong beliefs, Wikipedia review, and Wikipedians' rights. I also would not object to a ban of any questions not directly relating to a candidate's previous actions. The community should be able to determine if they will support or oppose based on the candidate's editing history, his interactions with other editors, and his answers to the first three questions. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Timmeh that there are some very inappropriate questions being asked at RFA and I'm not sure that I'd describe any of the current boilerplate questions as good, IMHO even the best of them are not relevant to some candidates, and some of them seem to be subverting policies such as WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name. But I do think RFA would be a little more daunting for woefully underqualified candidates and more manageable for others if more questions could be answered before the RFA is transcluded. Turning some of the currently common questions into standard questions 4, 5 or even 6 risks fossilising current RFA fads into a permanent RFA overhead, but here's an alternative that anyone whose thinking of running in the future could try out. Perhaps we should add this to the guidance notes: "As well as questions 1,2 and 3, many other questions may be asked in your RFA, some of which will probably be asked of most candidates who run in the same month as you. To save yourself time during your RFA week you might consider copying in questions from other recent RFAs and answering them at your leisure before you transclude your RFA. You can do this in the format:

:'''4.''' Copy commonly asked question here. this question copied from a recent RFA where it was asked by [[user:(insert username)]]

 ::'''A:'''

I dare anyone whose about to take the plunge to test this out in their RFA! ϢereSpielChequers 20:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Maybe we could allow only a certain number of questions, and everyone is allowed only one question. Then, whoever the first x number of people are to post questions are the only ones who get to ask them for that RfA. It would solve the problem of an overwhelming amount of questions and allow a variety of different questions. I'm not sure how it would be enforced, but it seems to work well in theory. ;) Timmeh!_{(review me)} 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Only one question per user. Use it wisely. And no proxies. Kingturtle (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything's better than what we have now. I'd favor this, or 2 per person, or you can ask as many questions as you want, but we advise the candidate to pick only the one (or 2) per person they like best and answer those. I wouldn't mind experimenting with insisting on a diff of some kind, and I don't have any idea whether we'd wind up liking the results or not. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with somebody asking 10 questions if they are unique to the candidate in question. The problem is that people have gotten into their heads that there are certain questions they would like to have answered and they think those questions are one's the rest of the community wants; despite the repeated cries that there are too many stock questions.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised more people don't do that. If you're self-nominating, it seems the logical choice. What really surprises me is that more people don't answer yes or no - most of the "stock" questions boil down to simple "Yes or No" scenarios. Hence the lack of value. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Timmeh, would it be safe to say this is a list of questions that you'd like to see banned?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Let me first say that I'm not trying to insult Rootology or his ability to formulate RfA questions. There are a few there that look acceptable, but I do not like more than half of them. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like any of them. IMO questions should only be asked if you are trying to obtain clarification from a specific individual about a specific issue/criteria. Otherwise, you should be able to look at the candidates history and derive the answers. Stock questions lead to stock answers. And it's not just Rootology, it's everybody who has gotten into the habit of asking the same question(s) of every candidate. I've always hated the notion of one stock questions. I also don't like the idea of one person essentially imposing their will upon the RfA community by asking the same stock questions over and over again. If there was consensus to add these questions to to the RfA process, then fine, add them. But as there is none, these stock questions circumvent the community... the one thing we as a community have agreed upon is that there are too many questions. If you have a specific question for a specific candidate based upon a review of said candidate, fine go ahead and ask your question. Ask 10 for all I care, but make them about the candidate. Asking them what zoological sign they are is a waste of time. This has been a pet peeve of mine for over a year now...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't feel as strongly about the questions relevant to administrator work, such as, "what would you do in this scenario", but like I said above, I would likely support a measure to ban any questions that have nothing to do with the candidate or his/her past actions. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the first questioner had asked 10 questions in my RFA, then I would have picked the two that I wanted to answer the most, and added something like: "Most voters ask questions because they really want to know the answers; if I let the first guy be the star of my show by jumping through all 10 hoops, then someone else will want to be the star too, and by the time I've answered 20 questions, most voters won't want to add any questions to that ... which means that I miss out on my chance to deal with their concerns and gain their vote." If we point this out in the Guide, we may not need to make any new rules; candidates will stop answering a lot of questions because it's in their own interest. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with you guys (Timmeh and Spartacus) - if the questions aren't individually tailored to help voters try to figure out where they stand on the candidate, then they shouldn't be asked, pure and simple. If you know how you're going to vote, then vote and discuss, don't ask. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Timmeh ad Spartacus: questions should be individually tailored to find out information specific to a particular candidate. Now if someone wanted to have a page of questions they noticed they were asking frequently, and then choose from them based on what s/he wanted to know about a particular candidate, I don't see a problem with that. I don't think we really need more standard questions, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

←Well, I wasn't around for the "old school" RfA days, I've always seen those 3 questions, or I'd likely feel much like Spartacus toward "stock questions" in general. I do think the number of questions gets to be too much sometimes, and agree they should reflect on the individual candidate. I don't know if there is a good "stock question" in that policy area or not, but I may follow-up with WSC one day on it. One other item did pop into that little thing I like to call my mind though - alt. accounts. Other than an occasional WP:RTV thing, I would not object to asking if a candidate had other accounts that we should be, or could be, looking at. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

About the alternate accounts, if a candidate had accounts whose edit histories could harm his chances at being promoted, he probably wouldn't disclose them anywhere, let alone in a public area such as RfA. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 15:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got an extremely good point Timmeth. And not one I hadn't considered ;). Personally, if a person requesting RfA (the tools) were to avoid answering the question, it would draw questions. If a person was honest, and said "I had an account ... but prefer it not be part of this RfA because I don't use it anymore - I might be inclined to accept that. If however, a person stated flat out that they did not have another account - and it came to light at a later time that they did indeed have such an account, I would be inclined to think that it could be a reasonable justification to seek a de-sysop. The reason being, if someone lied about having an account, then my (our) Support would also be invalid. Hence, the RfA would be invalid. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Timmeh, out of curiosity, what do you dislike about the alternate accounts question? I realize it's more a trust question, but given that someone reached the highest levels of this site by gaming the RFA system, it's very valid. rootology (C)(T) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An RfA candidate is not going to disclose accounts that he is using against policy. If he was going to do it, he'd do it long before the RfA, or maybe after it, but certainly not during it. The question would not accomplish anything. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCK#LEGIT there are various types of legitimate alternative accounts, for example WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name allows an editor to stop editing under one account, open a new one and make a fresh start. If you want all alternate accounts declared at RFA then that policy would need to change. I'm not sure whether or not I'd support changing WP:SOCK#Clean start under a new name to say that clean start accounts can't become admins without being disclosed at RFA; But I am sure I'd rather we changed such a policy by consensus not by individual action. ϢereSpielChequers 19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have several "sock" accounts that I registered as they were close to my username and I didn't want people impersonating me (which did actually happen once or twice). I don't remember them all, though, so I likely couldn't give a list of them even if I wanted to. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• <* thinking *> hmmm ... wondering if I mentioned my "Gwarp", "HAGGAR", and "Wheels" accounts? ... meh, prolly not important. </poor attempt at humor> — Ched :  ?  00:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable?

Is it acceptable to ask the following questions on RfAs?

1. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?
2. Are you engaged currently, or were previously, in any activities off-wiki which (under your "real name", or your online "handle") which, if made public, could potentially bring Wikipedia into disrepute?

Regards, — Aitias // discussion 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The second one is a legitimate question, but the first is too personal, I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. God knows what sort of answer you'd get to #2 other than "No", though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two sections above regarding the appropriateness of a lot of these questions. The first one is pretty personal, like Julian said. But I don't think the second one is very bad.  iMatthew :  Chat  17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @iMatthew: My apologies, but I did not read those sections before starting this one. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Philcha (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first is far from acceptable, but neither of them serve any purpose. I don't think you'd ever get a "yes" to the second one, whether the candidate has engaged in such activities or not. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We all have strongly held beliefs, it's part of being human. The important thing is whether we are prepared to leave them in real life. As Boilerplate the first question is either irrelevant or inappropriate, not least because they might stop someone asking a similar but relevant question such as; "Your earliest edits include these two diffs showing quite partisan views on the history of Easter Island, would you use the mop in disputes on that topic?" And I think the second question challenges the principle of this being the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If your contributions show bias then you may have diffs that betray breach of wp:COI; If your contributions are good, what exactly could one do or be in real life that would bring disrepute on us if it was known that you were editing Wikipedia? ϢereSpielChequers 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I answered them I was pretty much thinking that. I had nothing particularly interesting worth disclosing, but I suspect that if I was some kind of commie-nazi-kitten-eater in real life I probably would have had the presence of mind not to disclose that fact if I was planning on using admin tools to further my nefarious goals. I'm not sure if those questions will ever really achieve anything other than infringing people's desire for privacy. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think either of them would really amount to much. Plus, if there was a concern, it would probably be brought up in the RfA. Take Enigma's RfA for example, while he hasn't said anything, I suspect that he will tread very lightly on using admin tools when working on articles related to Judaism. While the allegations, IMO, don't hold much weight, they have been made. Now, if he is really a commie-nazi-kitten-eater and has been able to work on those pages without issue, then who cares? I mean, I work on the Poker pages all the time, and I'll use the tools there if necessary (and if I'm not involved with the issue.) You don't want to block people who might be possible first responders.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first is too personal to be relevant, and the second will do nothing to actually weed out questionable candidates. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is my belief that any question that is not patently offensive is acceptable, in the sense that a user should feel free to ask it; however neither of these questions are especially useful or relevant to a candidacy. I do not think a user's personal beliefs/affiliations has anything to do with their suitability as an administrator and I would ignore it (or any subsequent comments hinging upon its answer or lack thereof) were I a bureaucrat closing the discussion. The second question is a non-starter; we may as well be asking them "Are you a bad person?" Shereth 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh what hilarious times will be had by all the first time someone says "Oppose Candidate is a bad person" (or better yet, "Support Candidate is a bad person"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

People always enjoy asking questions like this after some kind of controversy happens. It dies down eventually when people get bored of it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 19:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is Keepscases (talk · contribs)? He'd probably add some relevant content to this thread. Tan | 39 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sir, when did you stop beating your wife? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Another question that has nothing to do with adminship is

• What are the most important things you feel you've learned during your time on Wikipedia?

Do we really need that question being asked?  iMatthew :  Chat  21:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered how it would turn out if the fourth question wasn't even a straight-up question at all, but rather a hypothetical situation that gave some insight into the candidate's perspective. For example, "Hypothetical situation: You alone will be making a change to a policy. It can be any change to any policy, but it must be a change. What change do you make and why?" Useight (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple, that I have to answer a question about which policy I have to change...---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's actually really good, as a question. I'd almost say make it so you have to name a change in three areas: 1) Content policy; 2) behavioral policy; 3) policy on administrator action/tools. Since that's what we have to "police" half the time. rootology (C)(T) 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What information would this give RfA commentators? Standard answers will be 1. More references and verifiability; 2. Tougher policy on WP:CIVIL; and 3. Some way to make admins more accountable. I guess what I'm trying to say is that these questions don't really bring anything new or extremely profitable to the table. Cookie cutter responses aren't helpful, but neither are invasive personal questions that will deter users from RfA and Wikipedia in general. Should we even move in the direction of more questions? Are we looking to raise standards or lower them? Malinaccier (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think we need to start adding more standard questions, I am of the school of thought that a candidate's contributions tell the story, but if any questions are to be added as standard (which would be nearly impossible, due to the number of "cooks in the kitchen"), it needs to be a question, that, like you said, wouldn't be easily answered with cookie cutter responses and would also provide some useful insight into whether the candidate would make a good administrator. That sentence is a very bad run-on, but without a question like that, I don't see why we need a fourth question. Useight (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't understand why "Are you over or under the age of majority" is a relevant question as an editor could make anything up. I also believe there are too many questions asked these days. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 00:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that comment was not directed at me, but rather just a general comment, as I never defended that particular question. Useight (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah mate, wasn't directed at anyone. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 00:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that people are looking to add questions just as some sort of busy work that makes it feel like things are moving forward here. I support change at RfA, but needless change in areas that work fine just add to functionality creep. Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first question is far too personal, and no one will tell the truth in the first or second. IMHO, there's nothing to gain from asking these. hmwithτ 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with hmwith on the first one. The second one has two problems: First, this issue isn't a problem for Wikipedia, as far as I know. Why ask a question about a problem that doesn't exist? Second, I'm not quite sure what 'activities' would tarnish the encyclopedia unless they were a user's personal, legal (civil or criminal) woes, in which case that user should be advised not to discuss those matters anyway. I really don't want to see a user, who is so anxious to get the toolkit, reveal personal information based on some questions that clearly show the mindset of someone who takes their volunteer time at the free encyclopedia much too seriously. Law _{type! snype?} 16:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's about character and clever thinking

Let me try to explain why I use the questions at User:Rootology/RFA. Keep in mind that these are all optional. My reasoning is very straightforward on each one, and here it is in easily digestible bullet form:

1. Alternate accounts question:

Yes, the alternate account question spawned after I saw it used on another RFA in the wake of User:Sam Blacketer gaming our system to come back from being User:Fys. Will the smart socker disclose? Of course not, but that's not the point of the question. It's a question of character. Adminship, short of being, well, a total moron, an ass of the Highest Magnitude, or Really Screwing Up in tools use is impossible to lose. An RFA passed under false, pretenses, however, is tainted. Sure, a fellow can "lie" here, or innocently, or legitimately, exclude a given username. It's about the integrity of the user to stand up. Plus, if they do disclose a given name, relevant information about the operator's Wikipedia history may come into play. I am 100% behind the notion of a clean start under a new username for regular editors. I am 100% against the notion of a clean start that allows one to go up the system food chain here via such a thing if they have something major in their past. User:Fys is the textbook example of this. And of course, User:Poetlister in the past. If he could pull that off on one project, it could be done anywhere if done carefully enough. I absolutely reject any notion that this question is an invasion of privacy. It's a valid question to ask of any candidate at any level, up to and including Board Member and I disagree with suggestions it should be asked off the books. If you want a position of trust, you have to be open. If something in your personal life prevents that, or for "security risks", why are you really wanting to be in a role that could put a target on your head based on your deliberate actions, honestly?

2. Beliefs and affiliations question:

Again, character; but if your history of editing is littered with partisan conflicts--careful how you answer. There are some areas that some of us have flat-out no business using tools, period and full stop. Either for actual COI, or what would be perceived COI. I would have massive perceived COI if I used tools on Obama stuff, so I simply hard restricted myself from doing so. It's that simple. Answer true, and you're fine here, answer false and with history visible... well, if some oppose, that's their right. We don't need liars as admins. Again, I reject privacy notions on this; it's a valid question.

3. Age of Majority

How would we prove it, anyway? AoM in some nations is 14, and 25 in others. It's about the admin prospect putting trust in us, as much as him. I wouldn't oppose for being over or under, myself, but some are certainly entitled to oppose. Asking if you're either "Over 14" or "Over 25" is not invasive of any privacy. If any one question I could see myself immediately removing from my list, it's this one. As for the idea of checking a userpage (as was mentioned on my talk) before asking some of these-- I prefer to ask anyway. If someone does lie, and is caught out, again: We don't need liars as admins.

4. What do you think of BLP?

Pretty stock and vanilla, and I'm a fan of open-ended questions.

5. My flagged revs question

Flagged Revs are coming, so I think it's important we get people on the record. Once it's live, Admins will be responsible to support it in various ways, like they are required to with other policies and procedures like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

6. Admin status and policy application

Yes, I know my 'equality' proposal bombed, or was flawed, or was hopelessly ahead of it's time, or just pie in the sky naive. However, I'm strictly in the camp that I'm not any better than anyone else as an admin on here, and that I'm always now on an even shorter leash than non-admins or "lower ranked" people. If I want the leash off, I resign. That's my 'wiki philosophy', and I'm entitled to ask how people see such things.

Anyway, that's my reasoning for these questions. 1-3 can almost be stock-type questions, and the others are issues I'm passionate about. What is wrong with these, and my reasoning? I understand people can say whatever they want, but that's not the point. It's a simple idealistic test of character and thinking. rootology (C)(T) 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Each question might be, by itself, quite rational and normal for any RfA. But when you ask 12 questions, its a problem. When we've got a group of people who have separately come up with multiple otherwise rational questions, and they all post it to a single RfA, the net result is irrational even if the components were not. Nathan ^T 23:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I've actually dropped some of mine, when similar were already asked, and would continue to do so to not be redundant. There was one RFA (I already forgot which) where the alternate account one was asked in a fairly different form, so I left it in anyway, since mine is more to the point and direct. rootology (C)(T) 23:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Another point... While I don't think that people have been criticising questions for their content as much as their number (for the most part, with the exception of the two questions challenged on this page), I would quibble with your closing justification. It seems a stretch to conclude that the questions are a test of character - I'm not sure you can test character with such questions, especially at a time when the person answering the questions is under the most pressure to craft politically palatable answers. Nathan ^T 23:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm weird. If someone went off the rails with brutal honesty I'd be far, far more likely to scream support from the rooftops. But, I've never exactly been normal in my thinking on this site. rootology (C)(T) 23:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you Rootology. Why do you ask questions that can't be verified. Opinion and situation questions are different, but you can't verity a few of your questions. So why do you bother asking them?  iMatthew :  Chat  23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Which questions are you referring to particularly? Malinaccier (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On this list ^, questions two and three.  iMatthew :  Chat  00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The only thing keeping anyone from lying is the possibility that they would be exposed later and face consequences, but on the age subject it's basically a loaded question (either tell now and get opposed or revealed later and get crucified). Malinaccier (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why that's the one I'm most likely to drop, and I think I will right now. Since it's all but impossible to get Oversight/CU now without being 18 now anyway (I hope!) it's not a real concern for me. rootology (C)(T) 00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the strength of their answer. If we're not going to fix what's actually broken on RFA, to make it easy come/easy go, and do the logical thing by breaking up the rights, then anything we do to keep the really deceptive trash out helps in my opinion. Not that it will, but if/when they're caught out later, this will be a big bullet for the AC or community to pop them out. I hope. rootology (C)(T) 00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think question 1 is extremely unhelpful. Anyone who is intent on socking illegally will answer no, anyone who has an admitted legal sock has already tagged it, and anyone who has a hidden legal sock (for privacy purposes) is now faced by the dilemma of admitting its existence, allowing people to start "hunting" for it or denying its existence, and run the risk of should it ever come out, a horrible brouhaha would erupt, even though the new admin had done nothing wrong. As someone who is privy (at times) to the reasons why people create alternate accounts (CU list) I would personally recommend that everyone not answer that question, so as not to automatically cast suspicion on only those who demur. -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Avi. It serves as far more of a trap for good-faithed candidates than bad-faithed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto... but you can apply the same rationale to questions 2 and 3 as well---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If flagged revision are coming (duck and cover!), why care about anyone's opinion? They don't matter anymore. NVO (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We still ask about BLP all the time on RFA, and that's been here for a while. Admins have to enforce policy; if someone had for example an opinion on BLP that was to me offensive, I could not support them. rootology (C)(T) 23:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Historically, optional questions are not optional. The stock questions bear an uncanny resemblance to the standard job interview or even visa application questions. (i.e. Aliases, declaration of eligibility, convictions, company policy and values, etc.) - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What's next, Rorschach test? In real world, this crap somehow disappears at some invisible point in life. Kids are harrassed by all kinds of useless Qs, then it all reduces to a handshake at lunch. NVO (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Adminship is supposed to be relevant and civil, and here we are devoting hours upon hours of our time debating/discussing/arguing about it. As such, I believe I have a solution to this problem. Basically, anyone that wants to be an admin or wants to nominate someone can just throw that tag on their userpage, and there will be a link to the discussion page. Simple and easy. thanks. South Bay (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA will never be simple and easy until it's just as simple and easy to lose the tools. rootology (C)(T) 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And WT:RFA will never be silent because people like gabbing :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding something based on that to my stock questions: "Are you currently, or have you previously, participated on WT:RFA?" rootology (C)(T) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I'd pass RfA by today's standards! - Mailer Diablo 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point in that we all seem to have criteria for 'adminship' before we offer a support !vote, most of which could be automated. X edits here, Y months active, Z areas with contributions. If the bit is "no big deal" then maybe every editor who lasts out "several months" of experience should be given it automatically? Note: this isn't a view to which I adhere, I merely offer it as relevant to the discussion. Coldmachine^Talk 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No way, disruptive, POV pushing etc users can last "several months" and I doubt anyone would want them with the tools even if adminship is no big deal.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that if we automated the process with a Bot we could put in factors such as recent blocks and warnings, and those who don't get 50% currently could be screened out by a good AI system with a pretty high accuracy rate. But I'm not convinced that a Bot could replicate the vagaries of RFA, ultimately a lot is down to judgement calls. Also the current process is far from being an easily automated criteria based thing, RFA has its fads and fashions, and an ever evolving self selecting cast of participants so an RFA that would pass one month might not if it had run a month earlier or later. If you were to create a bot to automate this you'd either have to have some sort of randomisation effect embedded in it or you'd have to decide on the composite RFA criteria to use. ϢereSpielChequers 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It would have to have very, very good accuracy to be accepted as a straight yes/no. And even then there is likely to be candidates who would fail the bot test but might have passed RfA, an alternative might be a bot which gives you your "score" on how suitable a candidate it thinks you are, and also give the average score of passed candidates from the last month. The problem with this, is if the score was made "public" on, say Wikipedia many users may vote depending on what score the candidate got. And even if the score was not public, it's likely that users may go and use the tool to review candidates (technically you could make so that the tool only reviews the user who is reviewing, by requiring the password of the user, but it depends how bothered people are I guess). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a good idea, and the only problem I could see is commenters, supporting/opposing based on it. The only way I could see that not happening is leaving the info to the candidate. Also a candidate would more than likely have to request such a review so maybe something like Wikipedia:RfA Compatibility requests being used to house such requests.--Giants27 (t|c) 00:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an option. I believe bots can send emails (?), so if we had the bot send an email directly to the user requesting, that would keep it (more) private. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will add this to the bot requests page (few days). I have no desire to program such a bot myself, I have a feeling that the code will be very messy how ever it's done ;). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be good to see if someone can run one for 6 months or a year and have it "close" them by tracking how it would have closed them compared to how they were actually closed. Then, at the end of that time, there would be some hard data on how a bot could do it and people would have something to actually discuss. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't sound too bad. I still disapprove of a bot deciding is RfAs should fail or not, but I can see little harm in saving what it would have done should it be allowed to. And then if at the end of that period it's always been correct... well maybe we should consider again then - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. I suggested a longer period (I'm leaning toward one year) in order to have a lot of data collected. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. Now we just need someone to write the code for the bot. It would have the potential to be very useful. Enigma^msg 08:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even if it's only useful in laying to rest claims that a bot can effectively "close" RfAs, it would be useful to be able to point to the study as proof oe way or the other. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh, there seems to be a lot of support for this, so I'll add the request now. See if anybody's up for the challenge :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Added at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 29#Bot to judge suitability of potential admins. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fresh Meat

Fresh meat on the grill folks. If ya wanna get some questions in now before I call it a night, I'll give it a shot. Root .. I think you're probably up next. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ched Davis. I'll add my acceptance before I call it a night, and if Pedro doesn't transclude tomorrow, I will sometime late morning after a couple jobs. (I'm east coast USA) — Ched :  ?  02:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, ok. rootology (C)(T) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Get on with it, you. I've been up for the past two and a half hours waiting, not even kidding! — neuro^(talk) 03:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok already .. I accepted. Transclude at will if it's not dependent on Pedro to do so. — Ched :  ?  03:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate for RFA?

It seems like this is the appropriate place to do so. Are questions like this appropriate on an RFA? tedder (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind it personally, assuming they are friends IRL, then it's perfectly fine.--Giants27 (t|c) 13:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with being friends IRL. They are optional questions, and don't seem to matter to Steve regarding his !vote. There are multiple threads above encouraging editors not to add those kind of questions, but it's not a really big deal since Ched doesn't seem to mind.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel they are not appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but also feel that since people feel that they are not appropriate, he could totally ignore them and it would not impact his RFA negatively, so it's not a big deal. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 13:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that if he feels that if we feel that it's okay for him to feel that he doesn't have to feel obliged to respond to them, then we should all feel okay with that :D Coldmachine^Talk 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of these types of questions asking for personal info and beliefs are appropriate. -download ׀ sign! 22:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably prudent if I provide some sort of explanation here. As I noted in my edit summary, me and Ched are friends in real life. I added the first question, obviously, as a serious question, with the other two being light-hearted jokes. I discussed this with Ched and he doesn't mind, indeed, he responded to the questions in a light-hearted manner. He said he'll comment here soon. I assure you these questions were nought but an attempt to lighten up the RFA page, and do apologise if they offended or irritated anyone. Sincerely, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

←First I do truly appreciate the concern. As Steve mentioned, we are friends in real life, and I did not take offense to the questions. I agree, that they would not be proper in a general RfA, but I was not offended. Tempest in a teapot thing here, and no need to make a big deal out of this particular incident. Cheers to all. — Ched :  ?  01:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Doing it at all sets a precedent for other RFAs, even if you don't object in this instance. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Defniately understandable ... hopefully it's a "one of" instance. — Ched :  ?  02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is, this isn't something I'd do to anyone else. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 02:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Better not done at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect Rlevse, discussing it here isn't solving much. This won't happen again. If you feel compelled to remove it, please do so, if not, can't we just get back to editing? :) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 02:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ched archived this, and I'm carefully taking it out of archive, as I think it's worth explaining a little more, and I have been well and truly away from the keyboard as it's progressed. I'm a supporter of Ched's (look at the fourth support vote on his RFA), and I don't have a problem with witty comments (see my appreciation of CoM's comment). Nor do I know or have issues with User:Steve Crossin nudging a pal on Wikipedia in appropriate places. However, using the official RFA (especially question space) for light banter seems (a) something better suited for a user talk page, and (b) starts moving the RFA process in a more casual, less NPOV (aka a less objective) direction.

I really don't/didn't intend to make an example out of Ched and other supporters. However, it's a specific example that can be used to discuss the process and the goal of the RFA. It seems like concerns about why editors shy away from running an RFA are compromised when the process appears to be influenced by a fraternity. I hope this makes sense, and that I didn't just beat a dead horse or dig myself into an deeper anti-WP:AGF hole. tedder (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)