Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 02:22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lessening the need for administrators by giving most content-related tools to "trusted and experienced editors."

Perhaps we need a trusted and experienced editor that has all admin-level editing privileges except those that relate to deleted content:

These advanced editing abilities would include:

• Autopatrolled, rollback, and reviewer rights
• Edit and move fully- or move-protected pages
• Increase page protection levels for a limited time pending administrator review.
• View Special:Unwatchedpages to aide in vandalism-detection
• Any other tool I left out that is strictly an aid to editing and which does not allow access to confidential or suppressed information such as deleted content.
• A new "pseudo-delete" tool or script which would be a one-button "blank the page and replace it with a "deletion pending" text, fully-protect it, and log it to a "locked and marked for deletion"-patrol page, with a bot to undo the action for any page not deleted within a few hours. This would be the "trusted editor" version of a speedy-deletion nomination or second, the major difference being that the page would be fully-protected until an administrator reviews and deletes or restores it.

This would NOT automatically have privileges to delete or restore pages or see deleted content. It would NOT automatically grant non-editing privileges such as creating accounts, changing user rights, blocking and un-blocking users, changing the user interface, excluding bulk vandalism from recent changes, being exempt from an IP block, changing the text filter, or other rights not directly related to editing.

Benefits

• Less work for admins.

• The level of trust needed for these tools is much lower than that of some of the remaining tools. Basically any editor who had a few months' tenure and a few hundred edits and who says "I read the rules and the how-to for the tools, and am requesting access" would be granted access.

• A stepping-stone to full admin-ship that will all but eliminate "NOTNOW" nominations.

Risks

• We will have to deal with NOTNOW requests for this privilege level. We already have this issue with editors who prematurely ask for reviewer, rollback, and autopatrolled rights.
• Some editors will abuse the tools or simply make bad decisions. They are easily revoked. If this is seen as a major reason not to have these tools in the hands of non-Admins, a software change to limit the frequency of "uses" of each of these rights to a certain number per day or a certain number per 100 edits until the user has used them for a period of time will cut down on honest mistakes. It will make it harder for those determined to abuse the tools to get to the point that they can do large amounts of damage.

Additional notes

I am very aware that the idea of an "admin lite" is a perennial proposal. However, given recent trends relating to RFA, it's a proposal whose time has come.

Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Page protection, edits to protected articles, and speedy deletion are not areas that have had significant backlogs lately. And I also don't see how it would stop NOTNOW nominations, which are usually users who are grossly unqualified, as opposed to "trusted and experienced editors." That and the other objections that are raised every time partial adminship is proposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Having more people who can work on these not-currently-backlogged areas will free up the admins currently working on them to work on other areas that are backlogged. As for NOTNOW nominations, a big-red-letter note saying "Nominations by people without the experienced and trusted user-right are almost always ended early under WP:NOTNOW. If you believe you qualify for this user-right, see page instructing users how to get this user-right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, in most cases this proposal pushes the NOTNOW problem from RFA to the lesser privilege. Individual administrators will still have to say "no, you are new here, stick around and ask for this privilege in a few months" but it wouldn't clutter up RFA. This way it only takes up the time of one admin not that of everyone who monitors RFA. In a few cases over-eager new editors will insist on self-nominating for adminship but the number should go way down as most will request this lesser user-right instead. It's a worthwhile change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• On the plus side, there still is the issue of unbundling the tools (not that I'm any more confident than Beeblebrox is that there will be consensus for doing so). What strikes me as a partial shortcoming of this proposal is that there are two "big deal" powers: content deletion, as stated above, but also user blocking, which is every bit as much of a "big deal". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Any user who would want these tools, but would NOTNOW out of sysopship should not have the extra tools thus not really solving the NOTNOW problem. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This proposal would not grant either of the big-deal tools you mention to non-admins. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think adminship should be unbundled. At least in the areas you mention, there are not too many backloggs. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tofu. At the very least I give a strong no to the suggestion "View Special:Unwatchedpages to aide in vandalism-detection" as that one requires a higher level of trust than most others do. The only unbundle I could see as getting enough support would be a creation of the Commons "filemover" right on Wikipeida, as it is a) a low risk tool to give out, b) already functions elsewhere (Commons) and would be easy to transfer over, and c) is rather useful to a select group of people (myself included) that deal in files on a regular basis. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I really dislike the idea of giving out a "blank and protect" button as lots of speedy deletions are for copyvio or because the first attempt at creating an article was unsourced and didn't explain why the subject is notable. In my view there are way too many errors at speedy deletion tagging to unbundle anything there. I'm happy to see a proportion of attack pages get salted but don't like the idea of salting speediable pages become the norm and the power to do it be unbundled. I have given one or two RFA candidates tools like Rollback, but my experience is that apart from the notnow candidates most RFA candidates already have Rollback, Autopatrolled or both if they qualify for them. However there were lots of editors out there who should be made Autopatrollers and there is currently a big drive on to find and flag them. I suspect something similar could usefully be done for rollbackers, I wonder how many nonrollbackers regularly file AIV reports? ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I share the dislike for unbundling anything to do with Speedy Deletion, as it's possibly the area where I see the most mistakes - I often remove incorrect CSD tags from articles. (A lot of people just don't read the criteria properly, think "This needs to be deleted", and just pick from the most likely-sounding category title.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am generally very supportive of proposals (perennial or not) to unbundle admin rights, but I don't think that NOTNOW rfas serve as any real motivator to do so. As was said above most NOTNOW rfas come from grossly un or under qualified candidates who wouldn't be given a specific user right anyway. The actual dearth of RFAs is arguably a combination of lower numbers of long term editors in the main and lowered conversion from long term editors to admins, with a healthy debate possible about causes for the former and the latter (I tend to see bots, EF, and rollback as substitutes for admins, so the introduction of those probably has a stronger effect on admin creation than we like to think at WT:RFA, but I digress). The only serious drawback to unbundling the tools is a paradoxical one. Once a big portion of the tools are unbundled, adminship will become MORE about social status and being a "super user" (not in the unix sense) than it is today simply because the purely technical reason to give all of the bits (the byte? Ok I'm done) will be less relevant. We may find that people who like be ing janitors will want to be admins once again but if you can delete pages or protect things or whatever and not be an admin than the social part becomes more relevant. I'm much less worried about admin rights being misused if they are handed out piecemeal. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just have a dislike for unbundling anything. I don't see how it would stop it SNOWing, and I don't see how it would improve the climate at RfA so that the experienced editors that are really needed and who are reticent of running the gauntlet will be more ready to come forward and run for office. Unbundling would need a catalogue of quals establishing for the various rights, and we would end up having an extremely granular system of prmissions such as you get on phpBB, for example, leaving, as Protonk suggests, admins with more of an aura of social status and being a "super user" - a bit like in a traditional British school where the prefects don't actually do much more than prowl around looking for issues they can interfere with where they can exert their influence. Kudpung (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am not convinced that closing RfAs early which will obviously fail is an actual problem. And I think that improving the climate of RfA is only important insofar as adminship is important. If we can diminish the functional importance of admins to the site, caring about who is naughty on a project page becomes meaningless. Protonk (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• The first three bullet points I agree with. There are several content editors that I would go as far as saying shouldn't be admins, but are unquestionably trustworthy when it comes to our content. On the other hand, I see no need for pseudo deletion, and Unwatchedpages probably ought not be handed out at the discretion of just one person, however respected that one person might be. —WFC— 04:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been fairly inactive over the last year or so, but whatever happened to vandalfighter? This seems to be an extended version of that proposal, one that makes sense primarily for those who are already rollbackers engaged in vandal patrol. I don't have a problem extending these rights to more people provided they be easily losable. Perhaps the ability to protect should be limited to semiprot to remove its chance of usage as an editwarring tool, but other than that it seems sensible. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, if we're going to wade down that path, here's my suggestion:
  • Requirements: Rollbacker, reviewer, etc.
  • Abilities: Semiprot 6 hours, block non-autoconfirmed 2 hours. I think that would handle 95% of the cases vandal fighters encounter, without having enough authority to do much damage.
  • Not integrated with Huggle, etc. Requires manual use.
  • Easily losable. Any admin should be able to both grant and revoke these privileges; having it revoked once should make regaining it very difficult. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

All valid ideas, but vandalfighter and this proposal (while similar insofar as both would involve unbundling) are two very different proposals, tailored towards two very different types of editor. —WFC— 05:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just went back and re-read and saw I basically took the "this would exclude" part as the proposal. Don't know quite what I was thinking, there. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• From my perspective, this ExperiencedContentEditor is the first unbundling suggestion that makes perfect sense. I would, however, make autopatrolled, rollback, and reviewer rights a prerequisite for, not a subset of, these rights, and I would strictly map it to changing content--no deletion rights, no blocking abilities. In return, I would not restrict the time for which protection levels could be changed. An editor so equipped could work on some currently admin-only backlogs (e.g. DYK queues). --Pgallert (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would make sense to make Autopatroller a prerequisite for this. Autopatrolled is only given to editors who create lots of articles, somebody could take twenty stubs to FA and never start a single article. ϢereSpielChequers 01:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And then there are those like me. I've created more than 80 articles, and shephered more than 30 through FAC, but I have no rights at all. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
      • There's some guy on RfA right now who created thousands. And do you know what? I see you and him as both being a net positive, because you're both such nice friendly people. It's the person that shines through, not the numbers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I wish him luck then. Unless you're taking the piss of course. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we too kind sometimes?

I've been looking back over some repeat RfA failures, and something that's bothering me a bit is that a lot of us try to be very kind to newbies when opposing their WP:NOTINAMILLIONYEARS RfA runs, and I'm concerned that being too kind is perhaps setting them up for future falls. I know I do it - I write something like "I hope I'll be able to support a new RfA in 6 months or so", while in my mind I'm really thinking "There's more chance of my cat becoming Pope than you making admin". In other cases I've said such kind things when I'm talking to minors who I know will need at least several years more maturity before standing a chance. Obviously, I'm not suggesting we should be rude to no-hopers, but are we perhaps doing more harm than good by throwing them hopelessly unrealistic lifelines, and would it not be better to be more honest about their actual prospects? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, will throw lifelines to people that have spent six months doing good work, but will just politely oppose (i.e. saying something more than "NOTNOW", you know, like actual sentences) the ones that spend six hours doing good work. I would think that you can't be too kind, however you can toy with people's hopes by giving them unrealistic expectations. The kind thing to do would be to explain why they are not ready, using actual words forming a few sentences. However saying "come back in X time" to people who you don't think will be ready in X time isn't really kindness. Does that make sense? (Sorry if it doesn't, I'm kinda sleepy ATM) Sven Manguard Wha? 18:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What Sven said. "Come back in three months" isn't helpful unless the only thing keeping you from supporting them is their length of time on the project. "Improve X, Y and Z and I will consider supporting next time" is much more useful to the candidate... if they prove unable to improve X, Y and Z, then at least you haven't given them any false promises when they come back in three months or whenever. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I also would love to mandate that all candidates read, cover to cover, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list before they apply. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Probably only by pointing them in the nicest possible way to our suggestions of minimum requirements with an equally friendly hint about the maturity thing in the case of obvious minors who have appeared not to have understood that Wikipedia is not another 'cool blog' as I have seen it referred to by barnstar addicted-adolescents. I haven't checked back, but I would assume the majority of no-hopers to come from the lower end of the age spectrum. --Kudpung (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's important to avoid setting false expectations. If somebody is doing good work and likely to be a productive member of the project but so far they've only worked in one particular area and notched up 200 edits, it would be silly to say "come back in 3 months". But how often does that happen? Promising future RfA support is probably setting an unrealistic expectation in many cases, but for every !voter who tries to soften the blow there's another who bluntly says "You're not good enough". Anyway, each candidate is different so we have to use common sense and judgement in this. I don't think we have an overwhelming problem of NOTNOW candidates coming here for a second RfA whilst they're still wildly unsuitable. So it's probably not worth much navel-gazing, as we probably have other bigger problems even if we'll never get consensus here on exactly what those problem are.

For the folk here who like to !vote on RfAs, the rare candidates who are both totally unsuitable and repeat-visitors must be grist to the mill; for folk here who don't like to !vote on RfAs, what are you doing here?

There's one repeat visitor that I'm looking out for; certainly not a WP:NOTNOW but somebody who has been through many previous RfAs and appears to have attempted a clean start recently. I expect their new account will RfA sooner or later too. I also expect that they will not disclose their personal history when they apply. That's the kind of candidate that we should worry about, not the occasional affable newbie who has two months experience and lays it all on the table. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right that it's probably not a big issue - it just struck me that I was guilty of the "3 to 6 months" underestimates, and I'm going to try to be more realistic. I guess what really counts is explaining *why* people fail, and if they can grasp that then the actual timescale shouldn't really matter - although I do see some who seem fixed on the "Has it been long enough yet?" notion. (I also suspect I have the same person on my "watch out for" list too ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder if it's the same one I have on my list. Kudpung (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes think the Wikipedia community is not nice enough to less experienced users, especially in this neck of the woods. It's bad enough crushing someone's present hopes, even if it is a case of WP:NOTINAMILLIONYEARS. So give them as much encouragement as possible to spend more time getting to grips with things (if they can be bothered with it). Otherwise, they just won't, and then people will ironically moan that there's not enough RfAs. Treat people as you would like to be treated yourself, especially if you were brave enough to submit yourself to being hung, drawn and quartered by the (all too often) vicious, quarrelling and bitey RfA community...have a heart. Orphan Wiki 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "So give them as much encouragement as possible" - Yes, I agree, but it must be realistic encouragement. Saying "come back in 3 months" when they clearly still won't have a hope then? I think that is likely to do more harm than good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, yes, that can be unhelpful. But realistic encouragement can't be in short supply, ever. Nor must we ever regard ourselves as too kind in this area, when we're just not. Orphan Wiki 17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not a boolean, black-or-white choice. It's perfectly possible to say "Sorry, I don't think you have the kind of experience necessary to be an administrator, but the work you're already doing is really good". That approach doesn't set false expectations and it encourages competent editors to go away and do more competent editing. Sadly, I've seen a veteran here criticise !voters who offered such moral support; I cannot fathom the reasoning that we might somehow improve wikipedia by being mean to enthusiastic new recruits, when it's already clear that the recruit won't be granted the mop. bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, I've been zinged. Boy has that remark been twisted around a few times. My point was and is that giving "moral support" to someone who is doing something manifestly ignorant may encourage them to do it again. Since you aren't actually supporting them it's a lie as well. It's possible to be honest, fair, and friendly at the same time without the silly fiction of "moral support." They need to be encouraged to keep editing Wikipedia, while being discouraged from nominating themselves when they are grossly unqualified and have obviously not even read the RFA page. "Moral support" doesn't do that. Personal, non-templated messages in your own words can. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I broadly agree with your comments, and my frustration stems from much older (and harsher) comments by a different editor. But let's not rake over old coals; and I apologise for inadvertently burning your ears. bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue, of course, is we're rather nice and overly kind to newbies and like a bunch of baying harpies to reasonably well established editors. And that goes for all aspects of RFA. Challenging "vested editors" supports or opposes is close to wiki-suicide. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "My point was and is that giving "moral support" to someone who is doing something manifestly ignorant may encourage them to do it again". That's a good point that I hadn't really thought about. I've done it. I've given "Moral support" !votes intended to mean that I'm offering support for the candidate as an editor - but of course, it's easy to see it as moral support for a future admin run! Doh! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite my own hatred of the sheer nastiness of the RfA process, I agree w/ Sven that a 'moral support' doesn't help. An oppose does not need to be cruel; it can simply, and clearly, give good reasons - and in doing so, can explain what would need to change, in order to pass at a future time. To become an administrator, a user should be perfectly capable of accepting appropriate constructive criticism - including an oppose at RfA; if they can't, they're not a great candidate anyway. Kinda "firm but fair".Having said that, someone will probably dig through my contribs and find me making a 'moral support', and thus hypocritical. Meh; Consensushzz can change.  Chzz  ►  17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always been baffled by the touchy-feely Moral Supports that some regulars gift in the support section to obviously unqualified candidates. Since Moral Supports posted in the Support section count as Support votes in the tally, they force extra community members to cast Oppose votes to counterweight them to ensure that the RFA will close early, as is appropriate when consensus is clear. Townlake (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If we start from the assumption that a closing 'crat will interpret moral supports of obviously unqualified candidates as genuine support, and that nobody will close the RfA as NOTNOW... then perhaps the only way to prevent new-but-idealistic people polluting the project is to ensure that 90% of their rejections are direct and explicit. But those may not be entirely appropriate starting assumptions. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never known an RFA to rise into the possible pass area through moral supports. So I'm not sure Townlake's statement is something which is a real worry.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Addihockey10/Admin-by-function

Yet another proposal for unbundling the Sysop tools, I don't think the Anti-Vandalism admin is going to go anywhere (personally), however, I believe the commons helper "right" has some potential as there is a HUGE commons backlog (dating back to 2008). --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 04:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment, criticize, and/or make suggestions on the draft. Thanks. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 04:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Limit questions to one per user

Just seen this and think it is completely inappropriate to post that many questions to an RFA - especially as they are all bog-standard questions that can be found on any RFA. What is the point in asking all those questions? I'm particularly interested in the purpose of question 11, which seems to just be adding yet another question for the "fun" of it. I propose we limit questions to one per user, and if users have any genuine questions they can ask the candidate on the talk page. RFAs are long enough without loads of questions, which many people don't even read. AD 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a maximum of two per user as a compromise. That wouldn't necessarily prevent an RfA being overloaded with silly questions. However, it would have prevented the problem you refer to. In addition, some of the sensible/useful questions at RfAs do sometimes seem to come in pairs (either both at the same time or with one initial question then a supplemental question from the same user) and I don't have total confidence that the same coverage would be achieved by more editors stepping in with similar questions, if editors were strictly limited to one each. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea would be to lower the number, not keep it the same, so one would be plenty. Follow-up questions would be fine, but any person can ask a question on the candidate's talk page if they are genuinely interested. If they are not interested, and just posting for "fun" or to boost their edit count, we don't lose anything. AD 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I don't necessarily see a need for an arbitrary limit, but I do think people need to think harder about whether questions are actually useful, or just trying to be clever. I've mentioned why I don't like one of these questions, and no 11 is equally silly. Does it really tell you anything about the quality of a potential admin? Clearly not.--Korruski^Talk 13:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative idea: how about not putting a limit on the overall number of questions each user can ask, but instead put in a guideline saying each user can only ask a question at a time and can't ask a follow up or a new question until their first/previous question has been answered by the candidate? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with that. My concern is people seem to have so many questions to ask, but often don't even bother voting or refer to the questions again. Questions should be asked considerately, it takes time to answer carefully, and when many enjoy putting trick questions so that they get to oppose, it needs even more time. AD 14:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea too - it means people can still ask valid extra questions if they need to, but it will help prevent the kind of flood we're seeing in the latest RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Optional" questions should be banned entirely. The candidate's record should stand on its own merits. The standard RFA gauntlet quiz, be it one question per user or six, presents voters an easy pathway to reshape the voting process into a mini-job interview, contributing to RFA's perceived difficulty with little real offsetting value added to the process. Legitimate questions should appear on the RFA talk page as discussion items; talk pages exist for a reason, which isn't solely to be a repository for user statistics. Townlake (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As much as I like that idea and would support it wholeheartedly I doubt it would gain much traction because some people live for asking questions at RFA. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 14:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That strikes me as an additional reason for, not against :) Anyway, people will ask questions in their voting rationales if they can't ask questions in a Q & A section. I'm generally in favor of experimentation followed by fact-based discussion of the merits, and this is an experiment I'd support; even if it didn't work as planned, at least we'd know a little bit more about why it didn't work. But if we can't get consensus for the experiment, I can definitely support the suggestion that we require questioners to wait until their first question has been answered before they ask a second question. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the beauty of the "One question at a time" idea is that it is a relatively minimal change, and would stand a much better chance of gaining consensus approval than anything more drastic - a journey of a thousand miles, and all that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perenially bad idea this suggestion is brought up ever few months and is always shot down as a bad idea. Are too many questions being asked? Yes. But limiting the number of questions asked by participants is not the way to fix the problem. We have too many people asking questions instead of reviewing candidates. The questions, and ability to ask them, are necessary to help people who have legit issues/concerns/questions about candidates. They should be, IMHO, relevant to the candidate in specific, not a generic question that gets recycled every RfA or completely irrelevant to the candidate. But if I have 3 legitimate questions for the candidate based upon investigating his/her edits, then I should be able to ask those 3 questions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When have we had a straw poll on requiring a voter to wait until the first question is answered before they ask a second question? - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ask them on the person's talk page if you have so many. Limiting "canned" questions, such as the example I gave, probably won't fix the problem, but it will at least be a step in the right direction. AD 15:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Asking on the users talk page is not a good solution. If the questions are relevant, we want the questions preserved on the RFA as part of the record so that people can determine if the issue has been addressed. It isn't that important on RfA's that pass, but can be an issue on RfA's that fail and the person comes back in the future.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

PS wheeling out the "perennial topic" argument in an attempt to end the discussion isn't helpful. So what if it has been brought up in the past, until you mentioned it everyone so far was positive. AD 15:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree on both accounts. Limit the number of questions and make people look at the candidates actual editing history instead of relying on a quiz. Second, while WP:peren can be used effectively at times, there are times when it's not appropriate. If it were up to me I'd ban optional questions. RxS (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions can be useful - such as asking about a particular incident, or an edit the candidate made. However, the vast majority of questions add nothing useful to the discussion. AD 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably right, but I agree that the vast majority are pretty vacant. RxS (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Are the vacant ones harmful? I don't think I understand the problem. I find the useful ones very useful, so I would hate to discourage them. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)But that is not something that would be solved by imposing artificial barriers on the number/frequency with which people can ask questions. It has more to do with our allowing canned questions. I personally find more value in some of Keeps' ridiculous questions than I do in some of the canned questions that get recycled every RfA. Any proposal to limit/infringe upon legitimate questions will get an oppose form me... if you want to address the issue, the we need to limit canned questions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They are harmful because it leads to editors judging candidates on single issues when they should be judging them on the larger editing history. A recent RFA ran aground on an off the cuff answer on cool down blocks. It's not a bar exam. If you can't review the editing history you shouldn't be expressing an opinion on the basis of an exam question. There are exceptions of course but overall the value of lots of extra questions is minimal and leads to editors not taking a deeper look into a candidtate. RxS (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Therein is the reason for candidate specific/legitimate questions. Personally, and I've been saying this for years, questions need to be candidate specific. Generic "exam questions" I have a problem with. Like I said, I see more value in Keeps off the wall questions because they are unique, than I do in some of the questions that are regurgitated on every RfA. But when a person does do their due dilligence and has specific questions based upon the candidates edit history, then those questions should be askable. Telling a person with specific questions about a candidates history that they can't ask more than one question is not the answer.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No overall limit, but one question at a time per user?

Originally proposed above, re-proposing this down here in its own subsection since I think it's a more viable way forward than the original idea. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 15:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative idea: how about not putting a limit on the overall number of questions each user can ask, but instead put in a guideline saying each user can only ask a question at a time and can't ask a follow up or a new question until their first/previous question has been answered by the candidate? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with that - to start with. AD 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd support that.--Korruski^Talk 15:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd oppose that per creep and babies and bathwater.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not exactly throwing out the baby. More just saying that even for those of us with a beautiful set of triplets, it's better if they come one at a time. :)--Korruski^Talk 15:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then why don't we make it a law that you're only allowed to have one at a time.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a terrible thing to say :( Actually, my point was really that nothing is lost by this proposal, since those people with worthwhile questions still get to ask them. After all, RfAs last a week - there's no hurry to ask all your questions in one go. So no babies need be harmed in the making of this proposal.--Korruski^Talk 16:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My point was that even if in most cases it's "better" if they come one at a time it's not something you legislate. Just as I would oppose restrictions on your 2nd and 3rd baby I'd oppose trying to legislate and police someones 2nd or 3rd question.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but that goes more to scope creep than throwing out babies, I suppose. In any case questions are not babies, and the reasons we don't legislate to prevent people from having babies, even when having babies might be very foolish, are largely not applicable here. So perhaps this metaphor has outlived it's usefulness...--Korruski^Talk 16:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, So we can boil it down to the metaphorless Idea that everytime we see something that isn't optimal we don't need to outlaw the ability to do it productively as well as unproductively, and doubly so when it doesn't impact on article space.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I echo my support here, from above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, as an experiment, with a caveat: people will ask questions in their voting rationales if they can't ask questions in a Q & A section, so we'll just have to see how the candidates and voters respond if the extra questions wind up in the voting sections. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, definitely - it seems like a low risk thing to try. If it works well, great, but if it doesn't, it won't do any harm and we can easily drop it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. It will create unnecessary drama, when one user asks a two part question and we debate whether a two part question is allowed. A two part question might well be a good question, and might well be best structured as two questions asked at the same time.--SPhilbrickT 17:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just collapse the questions section (starting with #4) and be done with it? People who want to ask can ask, people who want to read the questions can uncollapse and read them just like they uncollapse the RfA/RfB toolbox, and people who don't want to see the questions don't have to. 28bytes (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose if you have legitimate questions, there is no harm in asking all of your questions at once. There may be harm/gaming the system if we require questioners to wait until their first question is answered or limiting questions to 1. "I'm sorry X that you didn't get to ask your pertinent question because I didn't answer your first question." Or, "Why didn't you ask THAT question first, if I knew about THAT, then I would have opposed. But you chose to ask another question first that isn't as important." No the problem is not with the timing of questions nor with the number of questions. If a question is valid and pertinent, then there should be zero restrictions on who/when the question can be asked.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There may be, but there's only one way to find out, and finding out probably won't break anything. This certainly isn't directed at you, Balloonman, but I think WT:RFA is going to continue to be an unpopular page as long as it continues to contain mostly arguments about whether something might or might not work, rather than a place to set up experiments and discuss the actual results of the experiments. If we know we're unlikely to get consensus for something, then let's not waste the reader's time; but this latest proposal seems reasonably benign and inoffensive. However, if we don't get consensus for it, then let's propose something similar that doesn't require consensus; for instance, we might agree as a group to leave messages on the talk pages of voters who post a large number of simultaneous questions to an RFA, and see if the results are helpful or not. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If a person has legitimate questions, then I oppose any effort to limit/relegate them. The problem isn't with legitimate questions, but rather with the canned regurgitated questions that can be used on a multitude of persons. If a person has legit concerns, based upon a review of a candidates, then there should be zero restrictions to his/her asking questions.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Who decides what is legitimate, and what is not? I think most questions could easily be not asked, but others who ask them will no doubt disagree. Point is, candidates are overwhelmed with silly questions, on a process that's stressful enough. Five questions at once, all of which are "canned" from other RFAs, is completely unacceptable. The only way to stop this is to limit questions being asked. I have never known a case where so many questions were desperately needed to be asked in one go by one person. I've already said several times, but such questions can be asked on the person's talk page. Most people don't care about questions or the answers, unless the answers are horrifically wrong. All this "no harm" is complete nonsense too - it's a stressful situation, and when a candidate sees there are 10 questions that need answering by impatient people who might not even bother voting, it makes it worse. AD 18:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the crux of the problem. I agree, we have entirely too many questions---most of which do not need to be asked. If I were to throw out a definition of what I consider ot be legit, it would be the ones that are specific to specific users based upon the specific user's history. I don't ask too many questions at RfA, but when I do they are based upon the user's history and are always specific to the user. I'd be much more willing to try to go after the generic questions that get asked every RfA. If the same/similar question is asked on 3 RfA's then it should be vetted by the community for merit. If it is worth including as a standard question, then we add it as a standard question.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)All things seem benign and inoffensive when you agree with them. If I or I Imagine Balloonman felt it was benign and inoffensive we wouldn't be wasting out time opposing.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

huh????---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That was in response to Dank above you where he said but this latest proposal seems reasonably benign and inoffensive.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now it makes more sense, I thought it was a response to me and that I was too dense to comprehend it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cube lurker, sometimes I add "to me" after my opinions and sometimes I don't; either way, I mean "to me", I didn't mean that your POV was invalid. The reason it seems benign by comparison to similar proposals (to me) is that we're not stopping anyone from doing anything ... they can still ask 5 questions inserted: in the voting section or even in the Q&A section, as long as the candidate chooses to reply, and as long as they space the questions out.

By the way ... we're not the first people ever to consider this question, and we don't have to operate in the realm of speculation here. If you watch legal dramas on TV, you know that in the Western tradition, the lawyer can't ask as many questions as they like without giving the witness a chance to respond, because asking a lot of questions without waiting for answers allows you to implant ideas in the minds of the jurors not based on facts in evidence, and also because every question has a small chance of going wrong in some way (such as, diverting attention from the witness to the questioner), and these small problems can stack up fast if a series of inappropriate questions are asked all at once. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a different venue. The lawyer isn't going to be told he can't ask question #2 because 48 hours later the witness still hasn't answered question #1. The lawyer isn't going to be asking questions and logging off for the weekend hoping to have both answered when he comes back. There's absolutely no comparison to be made.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with your last sentence. Rules of evidence (developed over hundreds of years by Western jurists and designed to frustrate people who try to manipulate the question-and-answer process to their own ends) may in theory be enlightening, or at least, more enlightening than what you and I can come up with in 5 minutes of thought. And no one has proposed telling the voters they can't ask as many questions as they like, only that their additional statements and questions will have to go in the voting section, along with everyone else's. Some people only got the idea that they have a right to have every one of their many concerns highlighted and spotlighted, above everyone else's, because our quirky Q & A section gave them that idea. It's not an idea we should be encouraging; the poor results speak for themselves. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure there's a sentence in there that I do agree with. Except the first I guess which is your perogative. <shrug>.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this proposal, but given it seems to have run into opposition, how about this for a modification: after a user has asked a question at RFA, they may not ask another until either their previous question has been answered, or 24 hours have passed, whichever happens first. That would resolve the 'issue' Balloonman suggests of candidates dodging potential followup questions by refusing to answer the first ones; if they tried, the followup questions would get posted soon enough anyway. People would still be able to ask all the questions they want to at RFA, they'd just have to do it at a more reasonable pace. That might make them take more time to think about what they ask, and make sure they put the important questions first. Can anyone seriously object to this? Robofish (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that this is better. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Like Balloonman I want to get rid of the boilerplate questions that don't seem to be based on the specific candidate, some of which I suspect are asked without even properly reviewing the candidate's edits. But I don't want to restrict questions that actually matter. However there is another drawback to this proposal, people could get round it by simply asking complex questions such as: "Using this or any other account, have you ever edited whilst intoxicated or in the pay of someone else, and in what way does this relate to your favourite colour?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by WereSpielChequers (talk • contribs)

I agree with your and Balloonman's objection that if you in any way reduce the visibility of the good questions, then a possible consequence is to increase the impact of questions that aren't helpful. So the question is: can you define one or more classes of unhelpful questions that almost all of us will agree are unhelpful, and can you define the classes precisely enough so that crats will know when to step in and remove a question? If it's any help, "rules of evidence" in the US often exclude: questions that are irrelevant in a prejudicial way, questions that badger, questions that assume facts not in evidence, and questions that are obviously designed to further some goal of the questioner unrelated to the matter at hand. I was thinking this would be hard, but maybe it's doable. (I don't think any crat would have trouble identifying your sample question as an attempt to game the rules.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree also with everything WSC and Balloonman have said above. It does appear as if the multiple questions posed by a single user have now have simply been condensed into single multi-element questions. The effect is the same as multiple numbered questions, but with the additional disadvantage that when the questioner gets the longer answer that addresses all the elements, they complain in their ensuing oppose vote that it's TLDR. Kudpung (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

One other very real problem for the candidate is not only the dilemma of answering policy question the right way to appease a deletionist or an inclusionist, to avoid an oppose vote, but also how to address one that is based on the questioner's personal philosophy, is a leading question, and is possibly not directly relevant to RfA. The candidate is left wondering whether he should give the answer the questioner wants, in order to avoid an oppose vote, or to give the correct answer that complies with Wikipedia policy and/or philosophy. To refute, however politely and accurately, for example, the questioner who clearly believes that bus drivers should only write articles about busses, and who suggests in his question that sysops should impose such limitations on other contributors, is going to court an oppose vote. How does one single out such questions before they are answered, to avoid possible pile-ons? We probably just have to rely on the closing 'crat's judgment on such votes.Kudpung (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There can sometimes seem to be a fine line to tread at RFA. But in my experience an otherwise qualified editor who sticks to policy should be able to get through. Deletionists who fail tend to be people who try to delete articles that clearly shouldn't be deleted, or at least not without proper discussion and an opportunity to source them. Inclusionists who fail tend to be people whose views on sourcing or notability are clearly out of consensus. An isolated mistake in CSD tagging shouldn't scupper an RFA unless it reveals a pattern. There is a worse problem with saying whether you would be open to recall as I've seen people oppose for either possible answer to that question. ϢereSpielChequers 11:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any restrictions Questions are optional for a reason, nonconstructive ones can be ignored, constructive ones are completely worth it. RfA is a one time shot, we shouldn't be limited to what we can ask the candidates. Swarm ^X 23:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How big a problem is the question section?

I'm concerned that irrelevant or ill-considered questions clutter up the question section at the risk both of burying questions that matter, and also of distracting RFA !voters from properly assessing the candidate. My fear is that not only is RFA broken in the sense of producing far fewer admins than needed to maintain the number of active admins, but I also worry that the emphasis on stats and questions makes RFA less effective at screening out bad candidates than if the emphasis was still on checking the candidate's contributions.

One current RFA had eight "optional" questions within an hour and a half of transclusion, several of which looked to me as if they'd been asked without any more assessment of the candidate than reading their nomination. I'm tempted to suggest a restriction on asking questions in the first 24 hours of an RFA so as to prevent people asking questions before they've properly assessed the candidate's contributions. But it would be creeping bureaucracy and risk provoking people to oppose over a diff without first asking the candidate and seeing if there was an acceptable reason for it or lesson learned from it.

Also the increased number of questions and their decreasing relevance may simply be a symptom of something deeper. We have far fewer candidates running now than in 2004-2007, so the total number of questions asked per month is actually down, even if the number of questions per candidate is up. My experience is that asking lots of questions at RFA is a phase that many new RFA regulars go through, I certainly did. If that's the case this is something we need to gently guide rather than create complex policy on. I'd be tempted to write an essay on the subject of RFA questions, but the best examples are ones on which RFAs turn and it would be rather unfair to trawl them out again, whilst the worst examples are not things that editors should be pilloried over. So my suggestion re irrelevant, boilerplate and ill considered questions is that we talk to the people asking those questions and explain our concerns, and also that we lighten up somewhat. One "Keepscases style" question in an RFA isn't going to hurt anyone and can provide light relief - it also serves a useful purpose by satirising the cookie cutter ones. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all that, and well done, but as with any other suggestion, I can't get too excited until I see what it does in practice. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not the same people asking the questions all the time, although they often use the popular boilerplates. Every single RfA has new names cropping up among the questioners and voters that we have never heard of. Should one ask them all as to their motives? Not everyone considers all those questions to be irrelevant. One Keepscases type question for example, can cause a lot of peripheral damage. In the absolute hypothesis that an RfA concludes on a majority of oppose !votes due to 'Don't like the answer to Question X;' irrelevant, boilerplate and ill considered questions, what is the 'crat supposed to do? Kudpung (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, the majority of participants do little in terms of research. I can think of at least one RfA in the last six months where the candidate was clearly treating AfD as an out-and-out vote, yet it took a poor answer to a deletion question for people who had previously blindly supported to realise that the user was unsuitable to close them. —WFC— 13:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There are some interesting points made here, and I find myself with contradictory opinions. One current RfA did get a bit of a flood, with one or two blatantly silly questions. But then, I can't help feeling that candidates should transclude their RfAs when they have time to answer the early questions, and not transclude and then disappear for 24 hours - when I transcluded mine, I made sure I did it when I had a good 5-6 hours free that fitted in with US and UK time. I think the questions I've had have all been pretty good - and the Keepscases one was quite apt for me! Also, I can't help feeling that the overall quality of questions has improved in the past month or two - possibly related to Kudpung's analytical notes? The point that it's a widely varying set of people asking questions is also very pertinent. It means that any attempts at persuasion by discussion here may well only have a short term effect - who knows when we'll get a bunch of "trick question" people turning up? So I find myself torn. Sometimes I think the questioning process needs to be reformed some way, but sometimes I think it's best to just leave it alone - in part, at least, because it is always easier to identify problems than solutions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably too soon to say that my notes have had much effect. Although the page has had nearly 500 hits in the short time its been up, it's generally only known to the regulars here, so because it's packed full of resources, the same people may be consulting it several times. I have noticed that I only have to put a blue link to it though, and the hit stats soar for that day. I've been accused of 'talking like a cracked record' on this talk page about RfA questions, and I'm more inclined to think that's got something more to do with it. Kudpung (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd much rather approach this subject from this angle than trying to limit the number or timing of questions being asked. Limiting the number of questions a person can ask or forcing them to ask one after another won't be affectived because we have too many people racing to ask the "cool" questions. Right now, the "Oppose/rebuttal" question is in vogue. There are currently 3 candidates running for Admin, and the Opposer/rebuttal question has been asked by 3 different people on those 3 RfAs! IMO, if a question is asked on more than 3 RfA's then it should be reviewed by the community to determine if it should be added as a "standard question." Questions shouldn't become "standard questions" because a handful of users insist on posting the question du jure on every RfA. I've said it above, but Keeps ridiculous questions are often more meaningful than some of the canned responses I've seen. I'd rather have one of Keeps irresponsible questions than to have the dozen text book questions that are asked of every candidate!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the "Write something bad about yourself then contradict it with something good" question is nonsensical, to put it nicely. It doesn't help me as a veteran RfA participant – nor anybody I'm sure – assess the candidate. One person asks a clever-sounding question, which might very well have been useful for that particular RfA, and then it becomes a way to show off the accomplishment of being the first person to copy-paste it into a new nomination. Juliancolton (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with that, I've brought it up during an RfA before. The oppose/rebuttal questions are becoming some sort of standard RfA question, when they're really not helpful. Making the candidate jump through hoops in their RfA questions isn't constructive. Swarm ^X 04:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that I would rather have a dozen text book questions than to risk not getting a truly insightful question from somebody who has done their home work and needs a naggling point resolved. I'd rather have a person ask the question on an sticking point than to default to oppose because they didn't want to jump through some beaucratic hoops.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The oppose/rebuttal question is, IMHO, totally irrelevant - nobody is expected to expose their weaknesses at a job interview and run the risk of talking themselves out of the appointment, and that's what too many of the RfA question types effectively do. The questions are nevertheless answered to appease, and to avoid an 'oppose' vote. Asking plainly and civilly how they would address certain crises, is probably more constructive, but even then they should not be trick questions, or questions to which the posers do not have an answer themselves. The Keepscases type questions have been know to cause a lot of peripheral damage to an RfA. Kudpung (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The "what is your biggest weakness" or "What would your boss say is your biggest weakness" is a standard interview question. But anybody who has any clue is prepared to answer it... and knows to take an issue that isn't really a deal breaker and turn it into a positive.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure now where you stand on this. In response to one of your posts above, Julian writes: Agreed, the "Write something bad about yourself then contradict it with something good" question is nonsensical, to put it nicely. Kudpung (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My criticism isn't with the specific question, but with generic text book questions that are asked in multiple RfA's. These questions don't add much in the way of resolving issues, but are intended to trip up the candidate. This specific question, is a play on a standard interview question. If you are ever thinking about interviewing for a job, you need to be prepared for this (or variations) of this question. The key the pros give is to come up with a problem/issue that really isn't a negative and made it sound as if you are the golden boy. "My biggest problem is that I am too much of a perfectionist" or "My biggest problem is that I work too hard." You don't really give your biggest problem, in the same vein, a person who is running aren't going to tell you about that one time where they told a newbie to take a flying leap off a building. They are going to give a raeson they can easily rebut, not real value added.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, if you found that particular question to be useless, why didn't you either ignore it, or simply answer "No."? That's meant as a rhetorical question, but if RfA candidates only dignified questions that they deemed relevant with a proper response, useless questions would soon disappear. —WFC— 11:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm trying to convey below. If candidates don't feel compelled to answer every question, then silly questions or too many questions won't be a problem. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If candidates don't feel compelled to answer every question then they'd better prepare to fail. Therein lies my biggest problem with the so-called "optional" questions; they are by no means optional in practice, and seldom even in theory. Juliancolton (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WFC, Julian, Adrian, I agree wholeheartedly with all your comments, it's a suggestion I made in a long since archived thread. But who is going to take the risk and start the new precedent? I had lost a lot of sleep wondering if I should be the first, but the coward in me finally decided I didn't want to be a guinea pig.Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And if you didn't answer the questions, the response would have been, "Oppose, candidate appears not listen to consensus or work well within the community."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a culture where, rather than putting the load on the candidate, other editors make short comments on the question like "Don't bother answering this one, it's silly" or similar. With 2 or 3 such comments, a candidate is more likely to feel able to ignore a question. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So... Are the optional questions optional?

The above threads indicate widespread dissatisfaction with the number and type of questions admin candidates are asked, as well as some reluctance to deal with the problem by imposing limits on the questions. Beneath the discussion lies an unstated assumption: that candidates are obliged, in practice if not in principle, to answer every question. But is this assumption an illusion? I have a few hunches:

• If any candidate were brave enough to respond to this barrage of boilerplate questions with, "I'm sorry, but I don't see how my answering those five questions will help anyone judge my suitability for adminship. Perhaps you could ask a question about something from my editing history instead?", that candidate would garner more support, not less;
• Any bureaucrat would place little or no weight on a !vote that read "Oppose he didn't answer my question about the difference between a ban and a block";
• Most RfA participants would be perfectly happy to support a suitable candidate who had declined to answer a few generic questions.

Am I right? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A much debated question:

To the first one: I think that where any auto-confirmed editor can say (almost) anything on RfA, that a major problem is with irresponsible or unreflected !votes based on the questions. I am not personally offended one bit about your suggested answer, but there is a risk that someone, or several, will oppose with something like 'what a pompous, obtuse jerk', and others might well pile on their agreement. Would the closing bureaucrat discount such !votes?

To the second one: Are we sure? The grey zone is 80% - 70% where the pass/fail is subject to the closing bureaucrat's discretion where s/he can discount !votes, but what if a significant majority of oppose votes were based on such responses?

To the third one: 'Most RfA participants...', I think that apart from the regular !voters, who are often in the minority, the rest is an eclectic group of editors whose reactions are unpredictable.

Optional questions are a bit like "You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you say may be taken down and used against you" - and anything you don't say will be held against you.

Kudpung (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fairly active nominator, and my typical advice to nominees and anyone else running for RFA is to answer all questions in the order they are asked. But also to remember it is an open book exam. We want admins who will check the policy when they are unsure or unfamiliar with it, so take the time to reread the policy before answering each question; Especially if you haven't spotted the trick part of it. I also advise not transcluding when you've finished RFA and it is ready, save it for the start of your next editing session, give it a last read-through and submit it. That way you have an opportunity to answer some of the early questions fairly quickly, whilst avoiding the sort of 3am editing marathon I experienced on my second RFA.

But I don't share the unstated assumption that you posit. I don't believe that the deluge of questions is deterring candidates, I've sounded out a lot of potential candidates and I can't remember anyone saying they won't run because of the number of questions. My concern is that the size and prominence of the question section in recent RFAs has reduced RFAs effectiveness at distinguishing between good and bad candidates. I don't like to see questions being asked unless they are based on the candidate's edits because I fear that means that the questioner and many of the !voters will be voting according to the Q&A of the candidate. In my view it would be much better if they looked at the candidate's edits and judged whether or not they would make a good admin. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is not a closed book test. During my RFA, I checked policy freely. With one tricky question, I went to my nominator for advice, giving him my proposed answer and asking him what he thought (he thought well of it). We do not want admins who will reflexively act in a cowboy fashion. We prefer that they check the policies, consult with each other, share the responsibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are the optional questions optional? No. If something is so terrible that it gets removed by another editor, it's not worth answering, but optional questions that remain on the AfD are not really optional. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There has never been anything in the rules that states additional questions need be optional. I do not label my questions as optional. Keepscases (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Equally, there is nothing in the rules that say the additional questions must be answered - regardless of how they are labelled.--ClubOranje^T 09:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is optional. The right of a Wikipedian is to withdraw from any area or activity within the project at any time. After all, how can you force an anonymous computer user to do something? Juliancolton (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, at that level they're obviously optional, but that's not what people are asking - what we are discussing is whether the questions can really be considered optional if you want to succeed at RfA -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, which is a different story. If "optional" means blackmailing candidates into answering questions with the disclaimer that we won't hunt you down in your sleep if you opt not to respond, that's even worse. Juliancolton (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The way questions are answered gives a clue how a potential admin will respond to questions as an admin. So as it is important to respond to questions, there should be some response to good faith questions. But I agree excessive numbers of questions are a burden and do not match what happens in real life. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Adrian, you ask "Most RfA participants would be perfectly happy to support a suitable candidate who had declined to answer a few generic questions [....] am I right?". Well I think that's pretty doubtful. My personal opinion - and this is only a hunch but with a lot of experience added in - if a candidate ignored all questions (noting that the "standard" first three are "optional") I doubt they'd get anything like unanimous support. Memory says there has been more than one RFA where not answering questions has caused significant opposition. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that people wouldn't mind too much if a candidate specifically declined to answer a question they felt was irrelevant or inappropriate, by saying something to that effect next to the "A:" prompt, but appearing to ignore the question and leaving the space next to the "A:" blank would likely raise eyebrows among some voters, no matter how bad the question is. 28bytes (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right on that 28bytes. It's the appearance of being uncomunicative that is often the issue, not that one refuses to address a particular question RFA. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I caused some confusion here through ambiguity in my opening post. By "generic questions" I was referring to questions from RfA participants that were not tailored to the candidate; it hadn't occurred to me that the three standard questions are also, technically, optional. By "few" I meant three or four out of the dozen plus that are normally asked, and by "decline" I meant in the manner described by 28bytes, not flat-out ignore. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: we officially rename the optional questions (that are not optional) to additional questions. Thoughts? AD 22:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused about what problem this is meant to solve?--Korruski^Talk 22:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's quite clear - the so-called optional questions simply are not optional, so the name is misleading. AD 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

All questions here are optional, as nobody can force you to answer them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The questions are optional, the questioners' support for candidates who decline to answer is optional, the supporters stating their displeasure towards questioners who have declined to support the candidates who have declined to answer the question is optional... it's turtles all the way down. Just a big ol' messy ball of free will. 28bytes (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Discworld? Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Russell. Discworld is on my to-read list, though. 28bytes (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly are the additional questions called "optional questions"? If questioners wish to label them that way, I think that should remain their right. Keepscases (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why bother asking if you don't care whether they answer or not? There are enough questions as it is - we don't need extra ones that are just added carelessly with no thought put into it, and no interest in whether or not an answer is given. AD 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If I have to read about the "is it really optional" problem again, I'm going to scream. Bam.[1] No longer mentioned as being definitely optional. Let the instructions actually reflect reality for once. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on, you've been here long enough to know that these discussions follow a lunar cycle... once ever 28 days or so we reraise all of the issues we've discussed before and accomplish nothing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So perhaps I should have said that if I read about it again, I'd become a lunatic? Eh? Eh? No? Oh well. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I figured that I would toss in my 2¢ here: one of the reasons I've never nominated myself (or hinted strongly to another editor that I'd like to be nominated) is that I consider AfD to be marginally less painful than enduring a feeding frenzy with sharks, and posing optional questions is essentially chumming the waters. I'd be a bit less cynical if I saw more questioners posing relevant and thoughtful questions that require a thoughtful answer, and not just a policy scavenger hunt. I'm an intelligent man, and an oppose based on the fact that I couldn't wade through the maze of image copyright rules to answer a notionally "optional" question would probably make me so angry that I'd pull my hair out (in this hypothetical, if the !voter had considered more than just the answer to his canned question, he'd see that I freely admit my ignorance to image copyright, and owuld never meddle in it, instead passing off any issues to individuals who are knowledgable there). The pre-made template/form questions that I see some editors pose at every AfD really grind my gears: there is no consideration about who the nominee is, his or her editing history, or what thier intents and talents are. Worst of all, most nominees are smart enough to either do a bit of research, or get coached, and figure out how to feed back the same thoughtless drivel to satisfy what has become a process. These discussions should be more like a job interview than a questionaire, and this trend towards increasingly automated opinion-forming alarms me as to what kind of people are being given the mop because some of the !voters aren't considering things fully.
We can't realistically dictate how an editor is or is not allowed to consider thier vote, but I think that restricting editors from excessive questions, and discouraging thoughtless voting and questioning would make me happy. But as it stands, I would feel entirely comfortable with posting something along the lines of what A.J. Hunter suggested in his first question above, even if it did cost me consensus to succeed, simply because I wouldn't want the mop awarded based on the fact that I know how to do research, and garnered support without regard for my actual suitability for it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)