Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 155

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 150

←

Archive 153

→

And now for something completely different

Does anyone remember this little number-- Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I still listen to it pretty much every week. Best song ever, but a painful reminder of how far we've fallen. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a very nice song. And its quite sad as well :( NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it way back when. Thanks for the reminder. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The candidate would no doubt have his candidacy fail because two years ago he made an off the cuff remark while reversing vandalism on his own talk page which he will now be crucified for. Wikipedia has done more to revive trial by ordeal than any other organization.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the candidate should have buried it under a pile of 10,000 "semi"-automated edits. Then the edit counters would be absolutely compelled to support them. It's sad that while RfA often hinges on "experience", the only kind of experience that seems to count is the experience of clicking a button thousands of times. Doing anything interesting counts against you, either because you piss off someone who can start a pile-on of oppose votes, or you don't rack up enough edits to any given voter's favorite page of process wonkery. (I might be voting with RyanGerbil for a while.) rspεεr (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the number of button clicks that count, but the thought behind the click. Dloh cierekim 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the process here has taught us all anything, it's that while the candidate's minor indiscretions may haunt him come RfA time, a clean record over a period of several months is enough to clear the way for a 2nd or 3rd nomination. I don't think that RfA is unfair or cruel. Andre (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Depressing thought

We're down on active admins since last year: according to this, there were 1012 active admins this day last year. Today, we're at 946. WTF has happened to cause numbers to go down? We lost 44 admins of course. But we still promoted 201 people. Where is everybody? Majorly talk 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here, but no computer at home. I am mostly tending to any issues that pop up on my watchlist while I am online. Thankfully, I haven't been seeing as much vandalism, as perhaps I was dealing with in '05 and '06. Anything I can do, please drop me a note. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the levels of vandalism have decreased since a year or so ago. Some article histories from 2007 TFAs include several hundred vandalism revisions, while in recent times, a main page FA averages around 100 revisions. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the level of vandalism has decreased, or if the level of vandalism patrol (and subsequently, quicker blocking of IP vandals) has increased. Maybe both. Tan | 39 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what proportion of IPs in the English speaking world are indef blocked, particularly ranges of IPs and school IPs. Were Spiel Chequers 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

EC I think part of it is normal attrition. RFA's are not succeeding as they once did. But part of it is the harshness, the viciousness, of discourse in the project. People sometimes seem bent on running of those they disagree with. I don't see this as getting better with time. I think we have better tools for dealing with vandalism available. Maybe both declines have a similar cause-- could Wikipedia's popularity be declining? Dloh cierekim 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's editing activity is declining, but I'm not sure about popularity in general. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree here; perhaps its "newness" is declining; the idea of "oh, anyone can edit, so I'll go put that my friend is a jerk for giggles" might be losing its appeal. I definitely don't think that the popularity is declining; if anything, we're settling into a role as a dominant and established source of information. GlassCobra 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to look at the current contributions of all the admins to see how many are actually active. David Shankbone 19:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
user:Rick Bot looks at the current contributions of all the admins once a day and adjusts the WP:LA sublists and the "active" count in WP:LA accordingly. "Active" is defined as more than 30 edits in the last 3 months, "semi-active" as less than that but more than none, and "inactive" as no edits in the last three months. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
30 edits in 3 months is hardly "active". I consider active to be editing more or less every day. Majorly talk 19:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:HAU lists some of those, so that's a start. Useight (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I sort of agree with Majorly, although coming up with a consensus for what constitutes "active" would be a predictable debacle. It should probably be more in the realm of 200 edits a month or three months - at least five edits a day, roughly. I don't mean to hijack this thread in that direction; just commenting that it would be useful to see how many admins are really active. Maybe active admins = using admin tools in the past month? Tan | 39 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It takes five edits a day to be active? That's not a bare minimum, that's being more involved than 99% of Wikipedians. These people aren't running for RfA anymore, so there's no need to make silly quotas based on counting edits. (Also, 200 edits/month is closer to 7 edits/day.) How many other websites do you use five times a day, every single day? rspεεr (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, aside from Wikipedia.org, I'd also have to say Hotmail.com, Digg.com, ESPN.com, and MSN.com. Useight (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, the only other websites that I use that much are Facebook and Twitter (though both are usually accessed thru my iPhone, Twitter almost exclusively so). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
To Rspeer - you're assuming that "active" has positive connotations. No one is counting edits in order to judge the admins; saying this discussed limit is "silly" is misunderstanding the conversation. We simply want to know how many admins should be considered active in the context of everyday occurences here on Wikipedia. Tan | 39 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Finally some hard numbers. Okay, I took the list of "active" admins listed at WP:LA. Of the 66 admins with a username starting with either an "A" or a number (I figured this was a decent sample size), 2 (3%) of them have 1000 or more edits in the fourteen days so far this month. Two others have between 500 and 999; 7 (10.6%) have between 250 and 499 edits; 9 (13.6%) have between 150 and 249 edits; 25 (37.9%) have between 50 and 149 edits; and 21 (31.8%) have 49 or fewer edits. It has been half a month, so assuming each edits somewhat consistently, each of the editors should about double these figures by the end of the month. So my assessment is that the 946 "active" admins are bottom-heavy; nearly 70% make less than 10 edits per day, on average. Note that this study did not include admin actions, but solely focused on edits. Useight (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 30 edits in a week is "active"; maybe in a month if you wanted to be generous. 30 edits in 3 months (!) is what I'd expect from someone on a semi-wikibreak for the entire duration. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I arrived at the 30 edits in 3 months threshold based on manually updating WP:LA (some years ago). There seem to be a fair number of folks who consistently edit, but only a few times (less than 10) a month. It's hypothetically possible, but I think fairly unlikely, that there are users doing admin-only tasks (deleting pages, etc.) but making few (or no) "normal" edits. Such users would not show up as "active" admins. On the other hand, I suspect this algorithm actually overstates the number of active admins. Consider someone who customarily makes more than 30 edits a day and then quits altogether. This user will continue to be shown as "active" for 3 months and then go straight to "inactive". I've thought about extending the tool to count "admin" functions since "active" (as defined) really means "active as an editor" rather than "active as an admin". I don't have any real idea but I'd suspect the number of users "active as admins" is significantly fewer than what the tool currently reports as "active". -- Rick Block (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I would consider myself to be "semi-retired" by all rights but it lists me as active... –xeno (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You're hardly semi-retired: more than 50 edits in the past 3 days suggests that you are quite active. :-) Majorly talk 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Bah! Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in! –xeno (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan. To me, at least 5 edits a day is "active". Then again, I average about 150–200 edits per day, so I might not be the best person to ask. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am an extreme exception to this decline. I've been an admin for one year, I'm listed at WP:HAU, and average over 60 edits a day, but I guess part of it is the fact that I am one of 12 Coordinators of WP:MILHIST. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider lurking to be active as well. It isn't a logged metric, so you have to rely on some level of self-reporting. Wikipedia is open in a Firefox tab on my computer all day, but I'm not making edits nearly that amount of time. I am, however, aware of my talk page if my assistance is required, and I jump into AIV when it backlogs. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Majorly, I agree. It is frustrating that the rate of active admins is not rising at the same rate of active editors. It is distressing that we went from 1012 to 940. What is curious to me is that on 1 November 2007 we were at 920 and by 15 December 2007 we were at 1000. What were we doing right that created such growth? This is a serious thing to look at. Why was there so much success at that time? We peaked at 1021 on 28 February 2008, and it's been down hill ever since. Why the decline? Is it something we're doing? Have we reached saturation? When a beehive gets too big, not everyone can sense the queen anymore, and morale drops, and it is somehow decided that some must move on to make another hive. Hives populations have a finite end. Maybe admin populations have a finite size.

Or is it the economy that is decimating our admin numbers? Are there less people now with the free time to devote to being an administrator? Are people having to make career choices over Wikipedia? It is interesting to think about. I mean, to attain adminship here one has to have dedicated a great deal of time to it. That might be viable for a year or two, but is it viable for that many people to stay dedicated to this volunteer project indefinitely? Things happen. You get fired or laid off. Or you have kids. Or your relationship needs serious attention. Or you get bored with Wikipedia. Or you get gravely ill. Or your dad gets ill, and you need to devote time taking care of him. Or you get a promotion or a new job. Or you get accepted into law school. Perhaps it is more likely that an admin will phase out rather than stick around. Maybe the life expectancy of an admin is 2 to 4 years. Sure a few of us are here for the long haul, but that's not the norm. Hopefully, some will come back. I had to disappear from Wikipedia after I got married and moved across country and started a new job. But once I got my ducks in a row again, I was able to come back. But when we have a kid, that may take my time away again.

What we need to realize is exactly that: admins are likely to phase out of Wikipedia. We need to always be replenishing the pool of admins. We should do our best to welcome people into the fold. Maybe some people are looking for the perfect admin to pass RfA, but maybe what we need are people know their shit, but also who are willing to learn, who are not afraid to be bold, and who make honest mistakes and learn from them. Kingturtle (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that both the amount of active admins and the amount of active editors are decreasing. Enigma^msg 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am someone here for the long haul. I have been controversial, and of course let's not forget, I had a rather dramatic desysopping. But I have the time, knowledge and passion for being a good admin again. As some may be aware, I have attempted to turn over a new leaf this year. This does not mean I'm going to change my personality - I'll still call stupid when I see stupid. But previously, I may have attacked a person instead of discussing the idea. This is of course out of the question now. I have tried to make amends with people I was formerly "enemies" with in an attempt to keep the peace. I'm not a bad person at all, and I seriously care deeply for this project - out of all the wiki projects I edit, I believe it has the most potential by far. It has its faults (too many to mention), but when I was an admin, I was proud of it. I've not told anyone this, but while the whole desysop drama was going on I was very angry with everyone, and when I looked back on it, I was really ashamed it went the way it did. Considering how I was once well-respected by a great many more people than do now, I have made things worse for myself. So while I do not intend to run again right now, I seriously feel I can contribute positively as an admin again, as I once did. Majorly talk 21:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have two children under three, directorships of two companies, a wife (*still*) on maternity leave meaning I must pay all the bills etc. I still maintain overall activity (with monthly swings and changes) because this is my hobby. However I agree with Kingturtle - there are changes in the economy affecting many, many people and so my input may decline as I have to put further efforts into RL commitments. People grow up (no disrespect to our younger editors and admins), move on, lose interest, have better things to do or get other hobbies - this is inevitable. The current picture at WP:FORMER is not happy. I spent a miserable morning the other day at CSD with precious little other assistance because I edit during a relatively slower period. I do not believe the project has become stagnant and I believe it becomes ever more prevelant in the general publics mind. To keep the work credible (which I assume we all wish to do) more admins are required.

I've tried to make this point before - if we shut Wikipedia down from editing right now it would be a useful and credible work for years. If we left it open and had no-one to revert, block and protect it would be worthless in 30 days at best. Pedro : Chat 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Majorly - if this thread is you after a nom. then talk to me. However you know well the current editor I have in mind who needs the bit, and this thread is an interesting reference. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Pedro ( ;-) ), most vandalism is dealt with by regular editors, not by administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, the moment I put that part in (and I promise you "revert" was an additional refactor!) I know some smart alec would comment :) - not many non admins that can block/protect though, so my point stands. Pedro : Chat 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course. But if you're ever looking for a "smart alec", then I'm your man. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you want a counter to the depressing thought of the decline in admins and regular users, just look at Wikipedia talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial#Straw_poll_on_implementation. Over 560 people have participated in that poll. And they are all dedicated to this project. 560! That's like at the end of Miracle on 34th Street when they dump all the letters to Santa on the judge. Kingturtle (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that we need to find new blood to contribute to the project. I agree with Kingturtle, most people eventually would leave the project because they don't have the time anymore. Myself is a perfect example. I'm taking two college math classes in the same semester and I need to stay away from the project for a while. But it's always been the case. Admins don't have the time anymore so they become inactive, but we had new admins to replace them. But now the list of users contributing has diminished. We need to focus to fix that first. I tried to create User:Secret/Attract More Editors, but discussion died down on that. Secret ^account 21:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been pointed out many times before, but one reason for decreased activity is that there's less obvious work to be done. I'm sure there's plenty more that belongs in Wikipedia that isn't here yet, but the low-hanging fruit have mostly been harvested by now. It's always a work-in-progress, but overall I suspect there's general agreement that Wikipedia is more complete and generally in better shape than it was a couple years ago. This counts for more than having X number of editors. The number of editors or admins isn't by itself important- it's only useful insofar as it improves the quality of the content. Friday (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes I need a reminder. Dloh cierekim 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the admin cloning program seems to have been faltering recently. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have avoided the Coaching version of becoming an admin. I toil away in WP:WQA and WP:DRAMA instead, plus regular work with AWB, some welcoming ... you know, the things one should so as opposed to rote. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Secret - your recruitment thread eventually morphed into Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Outreach Were Spiel Chequers 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We could try attracting new users through the national chapters, specifically through promotion at universities. Advantages: 1) as part of a 'chapter' framework they have points of contact should they need help and 2) as grad/postgrad students they are likely to be knowledgeable in areas not currently covered very well (I'm slowly planning on improving our dire coverage of contract law, for example). Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of our best editors are lost after they run through the lion's den and are eaten. iMatthew // talk // 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is that too. I very much doubt if any long-standing editor could pass RfA as it currently operates. For the same reason that very few, if any, current administrators could pass RfA again. The process is clearly geared towards newish editors who have had adminship in their sights from the beginning. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the process it to brutal and strict, and threads upon threads about a lack of admins will not help. The only thing that can ever say the RfA process is it !voters loosen up their requirements. I'm not suggesting we support editors who were blocked last Tuesday, but if they were blocked four months ago, and have clearly learned from their mistakes, why not support? iMatthew // talk // 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

.. because it's currently a job for life, that's why. Fix that, and the problem goes away, but have you ever seen a turkey vote for Christmas? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nod, make it easier to desysopp, and it truly becomes no big deal... I mean, if it was something where we could turn the lights on and off again, it really doesn't matter who you give the bit to. Make it a for life issue, then it is a big deal.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Kingturtle has it right. It's a natural process that might be analyzed but is nothing to be concerned about. There will always be good dedicated volunteers to fill the void. Andre (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just like there will always be Passenger pigeons? Wake up, smell the coffee. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could see admins being used as cheap food for slaves and the poor. You should submit another RfA, Malleus, for fun. You know, like taking a cheese grater to your nipples sort of fun. Tan | 39 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the kind of fun I'm quite happy to leave to those who enjoy it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheese grater to the nipples? Am I to presume that there's some sort of experience factor here? bibliomaniac 1 5 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely not more than twice?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

After the second time, you switch to the backs of your knees. Tan | 39 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So, we're reserving "using a potato peeler to remove your contact lenses" for the 3rd or 4th attempt? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if there really is a problem with admin numbers, an easy way to resolve it would be to lower the "consensus" threshold. At the moment about ~~70%~~ 75% support is a success right? Just lower it a few percentage points to ~~65%~~ 70% for example. Its safe to say, for the most part RfA is a vote, then there's the admin discretion zone. Maybe that magical ~~70%+~~ 75%+ figure is just too high in these hyper sensitive times, who set it at that anyway? — Realist² 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

75% is the traditional support level; below that (depending on the degree), the bureaucrat is expected to explain why they closed the way they did. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Shows how much I know about RfA ;D — Realist² 02:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The closet, as in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3

Must this really be in a scroll box? 'Twould be better, IMO, without. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, it would make the RfA only much longer without and most regulars don't need to read that anyway, if they know the candidate and the previous RfAs. Regards So Why 14:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I tend to read top down on an Rfa and the scroll box interferes with that. Don't generally like em and, while I see that there is a length issue here, am concerned about the precedent. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We could place it into a show/hide div-thingie instead. That would be a good idea as well, wouldn't it? So Why 14:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like scroll boxes either, but I don't mind the hide/show boxes---but it is a matter of preference---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hide Show would be much better. The scroll boxes make the RfA more of an effort to read. Townlake (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose for a blatant MOS violation, to wit, and I quote, "because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing". Sentenced to 6 months transcribing Wikipedia to vellum to further the WMF's goal of worldwide accessibility. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC

Note to self: go more over-the-top when I don't want to be taken seriously! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your discipline mete out and I hope you don't mind but I've upped the punishment to transcribing WP onto tablets of stone. That way, Wikipedia will remain the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but nothing in the rules says we have to make it easy!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea, but I like it -- the page is much easier to read this way. Uh...am I supposed to be here? Or do I have to wait in the green room? :P Ecoleetage (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I think a collapsable box works better than the scrolling box for stuff like this, but since the whole thing is a bit of an experiment, it's not a bad idea to try out something new... evenif it appears that some people don't care for it. *shrug* Just as long as nobody opposes for them being scroll boxes. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we start putting our !votes in scroll boxes?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results

I think that they if they are in scroll boxes, there's a higher chance that they will be read as opposed to a show/hide box, because not everyone spots those immediately. I actually like the blue border around the scroll boxes, too, since it makes it more obvious that it has a scroll bar. Also, this is an RfA, not an article, so we should be shooting more for functionality rather than aesthetics. Gary King (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

a collapsible box for the !votes. Dloh cierekim 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Disinterest in accessibility is a compelling reason to oppose. MOS and ACCESS have been established for a reason. My screen already has a scroll bar on the right hand side I can use to go up and down pages; I don't need two other random ones stuck in the middle of the RfA. Does anyone? This looks like it was done more for novelty and looks than for functionality. Townlake (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, trying something new in an RfA is hardly something worth opposing over. Now, creating inaccessible problems in the main article namespace... that's something I can see as being a valid argument. Let's assume that a person isn't aware of the accessibility issues and was merely trying to be helpful and prevent a page for scrolling for miles; under that mindset, it's hardly a sin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought

"95% of the time, problems with admins occur when they get too cocky and think they can do anything they want, not because they are 'unfamiliar with policy' in some area."— Barneca

I just feel like this needs to be quoted somewhere. I think the community may have lost sight of the benefits of on-the-job training, to a certain degree. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

While I definitely agree with this, I'm not sure my RfA !votes reflect this. I should re-examine my judgment. It does seem like RfA is performed in a vacuum, seperated from the reality of everyday Wikipedia. Tan | 39 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. What's the take home message here? Perhaps we ought to pay closer attention to behavioural concerns (especially candidates treatment of new, inexperienced and problematic editors) and less to experience and fluency in policy. Skomorokh 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Policies are all very nice, but I never read a single policy before I became an admin, and there's some I still haven't read. Probably why I was so bad :-) How the candidate acts is much more important, which is why I think template questions are so silly - they're unrealistic as to what actually happens on the job. Majorly talk 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, many, many times I'll ask for second, third opinions for complex or unique situations; a perfectly acceptable practice. Hear hear, Barneca! Tan | 39 23:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Hiberniantears (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I never gave any thought to being an admin until I was approached, so I had no pretraining, and during my rather dramatic RfA, I was much too busy monitoring it (and inserting a few comments when people misrepresented facts) so I basically got the mop without any training to use it. I've been cautiously using it to delete expired prods and helping out at WP:AIV and slowly getting into what an admin does. Very much on the job training. I've made a few small mistakes, but since I've been cautious, they've been small and I've learned from them, and I don't think I've pissed anyone off too badly in the month I've been an admin. My article writing has been suffering though, though I did manage to push through a GA. Live and learn, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If anything, I feel that our controversially promoted sysops end up being more careful with the tools. I've been trying to make this point for a long time. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no big deal or big deal, it means something for me because I had to fight for it and my friends fought for me and people I didn't know fought for me. If I had sailed through 98-1, it probably wouldn't mean as much. Something you value, you're careful with.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions are getting ridiculous

In a State of the Union address, American president George W. Bush once said, "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research...creating human-animal hybrids." If such human-animal hybrids are created, do you believe they should be allowed to have Wikipedia accounts?
Do you believe in the Axiom of Choice?
What's your favourite lemma/theorem/principle/etc. that's equivalent to the axiom of choice?
Do you believe that .99999... = 1? Why or why not?

And that's just a few I randomly copied and pasted. They don't have anyhting to do with adminship. Why do people ask them? Why don't we just remove them as irrelevant? To think people oppose for not answering questions like these...--Patton^t/c 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And is the Bush question an attempt to get a flippant answer? Or to provoke Moresechi? Given the drama already there, it looks like pot-stirring. dougweller (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All templated questions should be banned from RFAs. It is not a test or a quiz. It's not an exam. I have no issue with asking questions that are relevant to the candidate, but wishy-washy "What's a block or ban?" "Can a non-free image of a living person be used?" blah blah blah are completely irrelevant, and help to break RFA. The process is fine, it's just when people start piling on questions needlessly. More of my latest thoughts on the topic of the community destroying RFA are expressed here. Majorly talk 21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen those questions like the George Bush one and the Math ones asked at RfA before. We really need the crats to clerk at RfAs and remove bullshit questions like these. I have less issue with the templated ones, as they can help analyze a candidate('s ability to copy/paste) but those other ones are just a monumental waste of time. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The first question was hilarious. It was also inappropriate. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec, agree with Ottava) And "Are you above the age of majority in your country?" and variants. My removal of this crap question was one of the reasons my RFA failed. Judge people by their edits, not how old they are. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it Keepcases (or whoever) that keeps asking the really random shit? Tan | 39 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it, yes.--Patton^t/c 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think at least two of the four up there are Keepscases'; I'm not really sure why we continue to let him do it, but it doesn't seem to be doing any awful harm. It should be noted that all the questions brought up by Patton were either Keepscases joke questions, or ones that were clearly intended to be relevant to the candidate (again, as a joke); the two math questions are both from a current RFA, where the candidate is a mathematician. GlassCobra 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I rather enjoy reading questions from Keepscases, I think they help lighten the mood of a tense RFA. Useight (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on when the questions are asked. Questions 21-26 in my third RfB were fine and dandy towards the end of the process (when it was obvious that it would pass), but if I'd been asked something like that in the first day or so (and had responded in a similarly silly fashion) probably would have pissed off just as many people as it amused. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just do what is done everywhere else on the wiki, and remove off-topic nonsense as needed? Friday (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We haven't had a good discussion of questions in a while, let's go for it. I can't say why CRGreathouse was asked the math question, but he seemed to enjoy answering it; no harm no foul. I can tell you that the ridiculous number of questions in his RFA, and the way he handled them, switched me from oppose to support, because the issue that many of us had with him is that he didn't seem to push himself outside his "comfort zone" often, so there were things we ideally wanted candidates to know that he didn't know yet; but I think I see in his RFA the same thing that I see in his contributions, that he will push himself to do things he doesn't want to do when he has to, which nails the "maturity" issue for me. As to "it's not an exam": I agree that questions have sometimes been used as a quick-and-cheap substitute for doing the hard work of examining a candidate's contributions, but I actually think that people usually do a good job of asking questions and that the questions make RFA easier to contribute to and easier to understand. The questions I don't like are the ones that are unresolved and tend to generate heated discussion on Wikipedia, such as certain BLP and admin-recall questions. Those seem like a "gotcha"; since a lot of people have strong feelings about them, they're almost guaranteed to generate negative feeling for the candidate no matter what they say. Since they're hard to answer, they give the impression that RFA is some kind of final exam that can't be passed unless you study a year's worth of RFA questions and answers. I don't want candidates who know RFA, I want candidates who know Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it might offend the !voters.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the math questions were harmless and added a bit of levity to what at that time looked like a TFA that would easily pass (it's done a bit of a rollercoaster since then). I think what was more harmful was Moreschi's sardonic answers to some of the real questions posted in Judith's TFA. It pissed off at least two editors, including me, and caused us to sit on the neutral sideline, in my case because I wasn't sure if Judith was emulating her conom in some of her answers.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I passed the Math questions off as joke questions form the Math Cabal, as he is a mathematician. Just having some fun. Dloh cierekim 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed the part where Moreschi answered her questions. That was a poor choice that hurt far more than it could possible helped. Some questions are good as assessment tools, but should not be used as litmus tests. Dloh cierekim 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So are we agreed that any joke/irrelevant questions can just be removed? And besides, "joke" questions are never funny they're just stupid. Stuff like that is funny...--Patton^t/c 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The harm that can come from removing arguably irrelevant questions isn't worth it. As for jokes, that's a minor irritant. This is a solution looking for a problem. There's no need to do anything at present.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What harm can be done? It's not persona, and all editors are valuable, exceptthose who throw tantrums at having one of these questions removed.--Patton^t/c 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

2x(edit conflict)Ironically, CRGreathouse says he's fine with all the questions. His dignity and aplomb no have me leaning toward a strong support. But no, we all don't agree tat joke/irrelevant questions should be removed. As dumb as some questions may look, they should be given the weight they deserve, even if that means automatically leaning support because of them. Dloh cierekim 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Joke questions are rare, so I don't think it matters much what we do, but now that you mention it, I think I'll leave a message on the talk pages of people who post them asking them please not to do that. Some candidates honestly don't get that many voters like to take a serious, job-interview-style approach to RFA (and I see nothing wrong with that), and being flippant may provoke a flip response from the candidate. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have defended User:Keepscases' offbeat questions repeatedly, and I continue to do so. While RfA can be stressful, I think the curveball question serves to judge how a candidate will respond to any number of curveballs real users will throw at admins just because they are admins. I think there should be a limit, and perhaps that's hard to define, but one question like that each RfA isn't going to hurt anything. It's clearly an offbeat question and most often they don't have any "right" or "wrong" answer. One time we got haiku. Several editors supported on that basis, or at least claimed they did. There are plenty of RfAs that failed because of a candidate's response to opposers, quite apart from any questions like this. Plenty have received positive comments for keeping cool under pressure. It's fair to judge a candidate at least in part by how he or she responds under pressure. There's a lot that is far more wrong with RfA than questions like this. Frank | talk 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the latter part, Frank, in that there are much deeper issues than this. However, for the sake of arguing, I disagree with your main point about Keepcases' "offbeat" questions. These aren't curveball questions; they're not in the ballpark, they're not the same sport. Say you're in a job interview. A standard question would be, "What do you consider to be your biggest accomplishment at your last job?" A curveball question would be, "Is there anything about you that no one would expect?" A curveball (or offbeat, whichever) question still serves to probe the capacity and poise of the interviewee. Keepcases do neither, and as far as I can judge, they are not even meant to do so. Perhaps they are meant to bring a whiff of levity to the proceedings, or maybe he's making some point about the absurdity of other questions. I don't know. However, I certainly think that they are frivolous and I really wish he'd stop. Tan | 39 22:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You can hear a lot just by listening. The oddball question - I agree nowhere near the ballpark - can nevertheless be enlightening. As a parallel, I recently looked at a piece of rental real estate as a potential buyer. I was speaking with the property manager, who was lamenting the distance from his home to the property, especially when he had to come over for repairs or to chase after rent. I don't think he realized that uttering the words "chase after rent" were a major downside to his case for selling the property. All I did was let him speak. For many, RfA is the only place to judge a candidate. It pays to read what they write. Frank | talk

I understand that, Frank, and you raise some valid points. However, I still disagree - are we to ask random questions, hoping that the candidate will somehow commit of one of the many RfA faux pas? Or are we asking random questions in order to give the candidate a nice base on which to present their spit-and-polished decorum? Either way is inappropriate, I think. In the natural course of the RfA we should be able to draw an opinion of the candidate. If something is missing that pertains to possible adminship, a precise topical question can be asked to fill that gap. A thorough vetting of the candidate's contributions (something that happens far, far less than it needs to) should reveal any "chase after the rent" comments - i.e., latent immaturity, prone to edit warring, etc. Remember here that this forum is much more specific than everyday events like conducting business transactions - what we need to know is how the candidate will use the tools. Asking completely off-topic questions in the hope that something juicy will be revealed is inappropriate, IMO. Tan | 39 23:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tan - whether you know (or care) or not, I agree largely with and respect your attitude and activity around here, and not surprisingly, I see you have valid points here as well. I would just say that "juicy" is not what I think is useful - but "temperament" is. How many times have we seen opinions formed based on a candidate's response to the discourse rather than on contributions? I think that's valid; some others don't. I am not ashamed to admit that - despite the annoyance - Kurt's predictable, gadfly participation in RfA was useful. If a candidate can't handle prima facie evidence, "WP:CDB is actually OK", or is the moon made of green cheese? with grace, how are they going to handle this, this, and some of these gems from others' talk pages? Frank | talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"There's a lot that is far more wrong with RfA than questions like this". RFA is in fact perfectly fine. We've used the same system more-or-less ever since it was created nearly six years ago. It's the voters' attitudes that are "wrong". I've written more about this on my blog. Majorly talk 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's what I meant. If people consistently drive a car improperly and ram it into trees at high speed, it's clearly not the car's fault, but the clueless people driving it. However, perhaps a better-designed car would prevent stupid people from driving it into trees. At any rate, I think we agree on some level, maybe just not the labeling. Tan | 39 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I don't think this analogy worked like I had hoped. Please take it at face value and try to see my underlying theme ;-) Tan | 39 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilized countries tend to have licensing to determine who can drive a car on public roads. Likewise, if someone repeatedly interrupts RFA with nonsense, they could be invited to not participate there anymore. Friday (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And just how long did it take for us to ban Kurt Weber from RFA? Majorly talk 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Tired sigh) Tan | 39 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "offbeat, probing" questions are appropriate. They're really to work out who's the best candidate for the job from a selection of candidates, not to decide if a particular user is good. They're making adminship precisly what it shouldn't be, a big deal. And besides, none of the uestions I posted above are probing. they're jsut stupid.--Patton^t/c 22:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, Geometry_guy, NuclearWarfare, Stifle, TheIntersect, flaminglawyer, Wehwalt, Keepscases and Dlohcierekim should realize that, well meaning or not, they are contributing to the problem by turning the CRGreathouse RfA into a panel examination. The candidate isn't a nominee for the Supreme Court, nor is he defending his mathematics dissertation. Avruch^T 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, all I asked was "Are too many questions being asked", as the 31st question. If you feel like that is a controversial statement, I'll redact it (if the candidate hasn't already answered; I haven't gone back to check yet). NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I read a great deal of intelligent and thoughtful debate above. What's wrong with that? Plus I never questioned the number of questions. If I have made a misstep, please comment on my user talk, thanks. Geometry guy 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps ashamed is too harsh. I've refactored what I wrote, and commented more extensively below. Avruch^T

Since my name's coming up here, I would like to point out:

I specifically marked my math questions as very optional because I wanted to make the point that they were not related to my decision on the RFA.
I did not wait for a reply before supporting.

Yes, they're not strictly relevant; refactor them to the talk page if you must, but I have a mathematics degree and I guess I just sympathize with folks who share my interest in the subject. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Really it alls comes down to this: Do these questions improve the encyclopedia in any way? No they don't, so they are innapropriate. Normal questions help us gauge who would make a good admin, and thus help the encyclopedia.--Patton^t/c 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've said it before, the only questions that I feel are appropriate are the ones that go along the lines of, "I've been looking your contributions over, and here is my concern. Can you alleviate it?" Ok that's not the exact wording, but unless the question is directly related to the specific individual, his/her specific circumstances, and a specific concern/question you have of said individual, then it shouldn't be asked.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go as far as saying they shouldn't be asked, but I agree that the cookie-cutter questions are not as helpful as the candidate-specific questions of which Balloonman speaks; however, if I see a couple of contribs, for example, that show that the candidate may not have a solid grasp of how a block differs from a ban, I see no problem with asking the always-popular "What's the difference between a block and a ban?". But, then again, I almost never ask an optional question, I strongly prefer digging around in the candidate's contribs and give what I find far more weight than their answers to the optional questions. Useight (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your public shaming, Avruch, but RfA isn't your personal subpage, it is what the community says it is. If the community chooses to ask questions, serious or lighthearted, that's the way it is. Setting yourself up on a soapbox with judicial robes and telling people to be ashamed isn't going to change or improve anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And when it's all said and done those 30 questions, and his magnificent insouciance in the face of it all, his disarming self effacement in responding to me, his lack of ego in the worst sense of the word-- have me moving toward strong support. Dloh cierekim 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really couldn't agree more with you Wehwalt. RfA is what it is, good or bad, because that's what editors want it to be. It's not for anyone to stand in judgement of others. I'm critical of the process, but not of individual editors. If anyone ought to be ashamed it's Avruch, IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I was going to not write this, but Malleus tripped a switch. My hope is that Avruch is preparing to cast a !vote in this. It's really close, and the matter good hang on a single comment. Dloh cierekim 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying "its the community that decides" is, in this case, effectively saying that no one can tell you that you've done something wrong. Individually, a chunk of the questions posed to that candidate are not bad. If they were question 4 or 5 or even 6, there would be no problem. But when you find yourself adding questions that are completely, and entirely, and without question unrelated to a request for adminship... Or adding question 18, or 25, or 30... Even if its a perfectly normal question, you should (and should have) stopped to think "Maybe this person has been asked enough questions? Maybe I should ask this on their talkpage, if I really need to? Maybe I don't really need to know the answer to this question in order to come to a conclusion?" That the people adding multiple questions didn't take the time for that sort of personal double check is unfortunate, for them, for RfA in general, and for the candidate. That the candidate chose to answer them anyway shouldn't surprise you - of course they did, what else can most candidates reasonably do? I would be surprised if a critical comment about questions comes from any candidate durign the course of an RfA.

If you're insulted that I used your name, well... All the people who asked a question thought their question was relevant and deserved an answer. The result of all these well meaning people is that the candidate has been peppered with 31 questions, and it will likely go up from there. Since we see this recurring problem at RfA, and the only way its been stopped is for the people posting multiple questions to personally realize an error and stop doing it, I hope that actually pointing out who contributed in this instance might make the turnaround time a little faster. We've never come to a consensus on removing questions, especially once they've been answered. It would be naive to think that we will this time. The solution, then, is for the questioners to realize how their well-intentioned questions contribute to the problem. Avruch^T 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I asked one question, a joking question to a mathematician asking him to solve Fermat's Last Theorem in the margin of the screen, which the candidate handled very adroitly. I do not make a practice of asking questions; I think the only other one was in Suntag's TFA which led directly to my oppose to his candidacy (which was up at one point 53-4 and failed, with several people citing my comments). I'm not insulted, I'm just fairly disgusted that you've taken it on yourself to decide that the people writing questions should "personally realize an error and stop doing it." And so you named everyone who asked even one question even the joke in house (since I majored in math myself), and tarred everyone with one brush. Forgive me if I don't wear a scarlet Q on my clothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone out there besides me appreciates the irony that some people are taking the concept of jokey questions too seriously. But, then again, this was supposed to be no big deal. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not in asking questions, but in expecting replies. When we say a question is optional, we should really mean it. Opposing for lack of response to an optional question is unacceptable. Most editors asking questions did not self-righteously think they deserved an answer. I certainly didn't, as the heading plainly shows. The problems start when editors oppose when questions are unanswered. Those opposes should be opposed! Geometry guy 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why we have consensus and not votes. You can oppose for that reason and the closing crat can and hopefully will say "Well, that oppose does not make any sense, so I will discard it". If your only reason to oppose is that someone doesn't do what he does not have to do, then we can pretty much ignore that person's !vote. So Why 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the "Going neutral until I've seen the candidate's answer to Q#" votes? Personally I think all neutrals are absurd, but that type in particular is even dishonest. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, why do that? Just hold off till you can make a decision. Dloh cierekim 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The quiz show format of the "optional questions" does serve as a net negative, in that it no doubt dissuades otherwise qualified candidates from contributing as administrators. I personally think we'd be a lot better off shutting down optional questions beyond 1-3, and having people discuss the candidate in the discussion section while eliminating the I-know-the-answer-do-you? section entirely. Of course everyone here has at least one solid idea on how to fix RfA, ha. Townlake (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I've been saying it for months. If you have to ask a question because you're on the fence, at least make it a question that has to do with the candidate as opposed to the throwaway ones that everyone uses that really mean nothing. Wizardman 03:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't advocate throwing constructive additional questions away, even if they are the "one-size-fits-all" variety. In my admin coaching I've had some very impressive answers and new perspectives given to me. If anything, I feel that questions are a true window to a contributor. Edits can be tailored to fit the unspoken "criteria," but a good question reveals a lot about a user, from what I've seen. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  - Look, the questions that are asked regularly aren't so wonderful. Xeno's infamous question is self contradictory, since it implies that in spite of WP policy, the blocking editor has to make the decision to unblock, and has led to a lot of confusion. I feel, however, that the questions are a relatively minor issue, and if they started getting deleted on a regular basis, people would sit on the sidelines or oppose. Right now, the number of questions is high, probably a month from now only the standard questions will be asked. On WP, things come and go. The mistake is to say CRISIS just because you've hit the high point on the curve.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Like everything else, the decision as to whether a question is "irrelevant" and should be removed is itself going to lead to a fight. RFAs already have fights over SPA designations and other nonsense, but wholesale removal of questions (especially if by (co)nominator(s) and/or supporters/opposers) is just asking for trouble. Even the idea of an clerk in my view doesn't solve the problem. Things like the math questions only for math people are not a solution. Keep the questions, allow people to ignore them if they wish, and leave them be. If it's too disruptive, start a discussion on WP:ANI or something like that for Kurt and we can move on. Take this as a view from a guy who probably hasn't voted in an RFA in months. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I defend strongly questions like "under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used in Wikipedia". Non-free content discussions are something that many admins will spend a lot of time on, and it is very important that admin candidates have some understanding of the policy. However, I only ask it if I'm on the fence — I won't ask it if it won't change my !vote. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And what if the candidate expressed no interest whatsoever in working with images, as most admins do? Asking a question like that is a complete waste of time if they have no interest. It's like a job interview for working in a factory - it's similar to asking a question like "Are you good at typing?" It simply has nothing to do with the job. There may be an office in the factory that does require good typing skills, but if the candidate has no interest working there, why would they need to be asked it? They wouldn't. It's pointless quizzing for the sake of quizzing. Majorly talk 13:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is... um, I have a question for you then, under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used in Wikipedia? I need to know, I've been an admin for a year and a half and I haven't touched images since!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think such things are still a useful test of the candidate's willingness and ability to go look up policy, understand it, and apply it to the question asked. This is not a closed book exam, after all!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Majorly, when we lack a way to give only a subset of the tools to an admin, it's necessary to be confident in their use of all of them. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But why would anyone need to be a subject matter expert in all aspects of this volunteer position before they're allowed to start? Expertise and community trust are very different; adminship is for trusted users, and we can assume a trusted user has already proven him/herself capable of looking up and interpreting a policy when circumstances warrant. Townlake (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that being said, the only caveat is if they explicitly state a desire to work in an area. If they plan on working in an area where they have zero experience, then they should expect an oppose. If they plan on working in an area, they should get some experience there to show a level of understanding of that area. At bare minimum, it shows that they are serious.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally would expect some involvement in the areas stated in answer #1, but I would never oppose over that. Doing so would be hypocritical. On my own RFA, I said I'd get involved in page protections. And guess how many edits I'd made to RFPP at the time? 2. Majorly talk 17:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe Wehalt is defending "In a State of the Union address, American president George W. Bush once said, "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research...creating human-animal hybrids." If such human-animal hybrids are created, do you believe they should be allowed to have Wikipedia accounts?" That is a downright silly and time wasting question to ask. Questions like it should be removed on sight.--Patton^t/c 16:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it is merely your opinion that the question is "downright silly". I'd further suggest that what ought to be "removed on sight" are those editors who feel the need to censor the thoughts and actions of others. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(refactor below Malleus) I agree with Patton. The trend of adding goofball "strictly for LOL" questions is a real problem. I know the people who add them think they're adding quality giggles to the process, but candidates already have to mess with plenty of "optional" questions in the Q&A section; adding a whimsical silly puts a candidate in the position of looking like they have no sense of humor if they don't answer. Townlake (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that RFA has begun to display a distinct trend toward over seriousness. The joke questions bring a little lightness to an unduly heavy, grueling process. Were there 30+ nitpicking, pin-'em-down-and-kick-'em questions, then the complaints would carry more weight. The fact that the candidate in question actually seemed to enjoy the levity has been lost in the discussion. The levity probably made this easier for the candidate. The criticism of appearing to lack a sense of humor seems a bit strained. They are optional questions, and given the criticism those questions have received, the candidate would be quite within reason to ignore them except to say, "I'm would prefer to only answer serious questions." Dloh cierekim 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My feelings are the matter are simply put: if someone feels that "no big deal" is an acceptable support, do they also agree that silly questions are allowable? I feel that both are inappropriate for the same reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We have in place a process that allows community members to judge the qualifications of admin candidates without having met any specific set of standards to indicate whether said community members even understand what an admin does in the first place. That we have a host of stupid questions inundating many RfA's is the least of our problems. Probably 90% of the questions are just vainglorious grandstanding meant to indicate more about the questioner, than those being questioned. Humorous questions that point out the general absurdity of the "serious" questions AND help put the candidate at ease are nowhere near the top of my list of things that irk me about RfA. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is quite an interesting opinion. I understand the frustrations that many share about "quiz" questions, such as ones that ask the candidate to specify between a block and a ban (though, to be honest, the proportion of candidates that get this question incorrect is rather shocking); however, could you elaborate on questions that ask the candidate to consider hypothetical situations, and why they're unhelpful to RFA? The questions that I post to RFAs usually deal with philosophical matters (AGFing for vandals, personal interpretation of BLP), and I find it hard to believe that these questions somehow reflect more on me than potential admin candidates. GlassCobra 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little over the top on that one... :-) However, taking BLP as an example, when I ran for and failed, and then later ran for and passed RfA, I had zero clue about matters of importance regarding BLP. I'm far more informed now as a result of watching discussions with my admin hat on, but I still feel that it is neither an area of interest to me, nor one that I am really the most qualified person to be dealing with. If I had stated that view in my RfA, I'm sure it would have garnered a fair amount of opposition, and certainly could have resulted in a failed RfA. Does that mean I'm a bad admin just because someone failed to nail me on that line of discussion in RfA? No. Now, if I suddenly waded into BLP discussions, or started policing articles with my less than perfect understanding of BLP, then yes, I would be a bad admin, but I don't, so I'm not.

If someone says they want to be an admin for reason x, reason y, and reason z, and those reasons are actually legit reasons to gain the mop, and that candidate has a demonstrated record of behaving responsibly, then why are we asking them to explain the minutiae of reason m, or reason p? Other than to demonstrate the interrogator's knowledge of those extras admin areas, they really don't serve any purpose, and only result in tripping up qualified candidates. A candidate should really only be questioned on their actions to date. If those actions indicate a general inclination to stumble blindly into areas they have no experience, and act like a bull in a china shop along the way, then it is entirely appropriate to ask questions about some of the more random, or higher level admin tasks out of concern that you might give the mop to someone who acts rashly. Hiberniantears (talk)

I'd just like to take this opportunity to quote GG: "The problem is not in asking questions, but in expecting replies." I don't think that it's appropriate to limit the questions asked to candidates. But I would like to see the 'optional' questions treated as being optional; right now it feels like answers are required. But unexpected questions have their purpose. Taking examples from my RfA: The question "What's your Erdős number?" could be relevant if the questioner was challenging my claim to be a mathematician (I have the 'nonmathematician' Erdős number of ∞). The Axiom of Choice and 0.999… questions could be looking for insight into my reasoning process. flaminglawyer's bizarre 'you get banned for no reason' question, and Chergles' random conflict, could be looking for how I respond to unusual situations—Frank's five diffs show that the bizarre is not uncommon here. And other users may have their own motivations in asking questions. I think that the small good of reducing the work requested (but not required!) of RfA candidates is the lesser evil, next to preempting questions. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

**CRGreathouse** (t | c) 03:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Dloh cierekim 03:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AAAD

If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly up at #Section break, we're not ready to suggest guidelines for questions that should and shouldn't be asked at RFA. That's fine; "anyone can edit anything any time" is kind of ingrained in the culture, and it can be useful to see what the questioners are really thinking and how the candidates respond, although if questions that seem silly or abusive seem to show up a lot, we'll want to be clear about that in the instructions to candidates. I'd like to suggest a different approach: adding as an argument to avoid at WP:AAAD: "Oppose because the candidate votes the wrong way on (highly contentious issue, especially ones on which the community is evenly split)" (although protest votes are fine when the result of the RFA is already a given). If (hypothetically) everyone votes based on even one community-splitting, hot-button issue, every candidate will fail with around 50%. That would drop to 0% if everyone rejects candidates on the basis of their responses to multiple hot-button issues. Also, just my two cents, but my experience in policy and guideline discussions is that it's always a bad idea to discuss something on two different guideline talk pages at the same time, even when people think they have good reasons to do it. It lets people talk past each other and avoid consensus. Discussing a contentious wiki-topic at RFA has that same effect, I think, and sometimes has the effect of forum-shopping. And, one last point: if I got to make and enforce one rule for voters at RFA, it would be "deal with the stuff that's going on now, in this RFA, with this candidate." Hot-button questions often seem to me to distract people at RFA from following up more important threads. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For hot-button issues, I'm thinking of things like admin recall. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm proposing that it's fine to ask hot-button questions (the discussion above suggests we don't want to be making the call which questions are okay), and it's fine to talk about them, but that it would be appropriate to mention WP:AAAD (and let the bureaucrats decide how to weigh that) when someone votes "oppose, candidate doesn't approve of admin recall", and likewise with "similar issues", and we should probably start by leaving that open to interpretation case-by-case, and then as we develop consensus on which issues have that kind of distracting, negative effect at RFA, write them down. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

An example of this phenomenon, not related to questions, but coming from the same discussion, is opposing a candidate because they voted "the wrong way" on the proposed trial of flagged revisions. But this raises a wider issue, which probably deserves a separate section in order not to derail Dan's suggestion. Geometry guy 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm hearing below, "Not sure if this will make a difference, not sure which questions you're talking about". I think this won't make a big difference ... that's the point. We've proposed many bigger changes at RFA that didn't get consensus, because RFA has a lot of "factions" and it takes some work to keep everyone happy. A small change is probably best. The key is to be absolutely clear on the rationale, otherwise people will wonder if this will morph into something they didn't ask for and don't want. I was hoping someone would say whether they think my 3 goals are valid. I agree with you about flagged revisions, G-Guy, especially concerning BLP issues; the 560 votes seem deadlocked at the moment. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about; an issue that's so high-volume that putting it in an RFA vote is likely to have a net negative effect, for the reasons I mention above. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of WP:AAAD?

Despite being around for a year, WP:AAAD is still just an essay, has fewer than 100 backlinks in Wikipedia space, and has been quoted in very few RfAs. Why not?

The problem with guidelines is that nobody reads them without a good reason. According to Pedro, RfAs with less than 70% support typically fail, those with more than 75% typically pass. There is a bot that updates the percentages every half an hour. The bot doesn't check whether the arguments are good ones or not. Do the bureaucrats? So there is no point in following (or even reading) WP:AAAD because it doesn't mean anything. Geometry guy 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Er... what? How did you hope the logic train from "a bot updates a table that tallies RfA participation" to "bureaucrats don't read arguments"? The first statement is a fact (though entirely unrelated to anything involving bureaucrats), but the second is so very, very wrong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he's saying that crat's should but don't discount arguments that should be avoided in RFA. Dloh cierekim 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That then raises the question of how that's a verifiable assertion, though it simultaneously makes me ask why we're discussing the merits of an essay, not a guideline (as Geometry guy incorrectly suggests in his initial post). I'd also like to point out that the bureaucrats themselves ideally aren't the ones that discredit bogus arguments; it's the responsibility of the community at large to say "yes, that's a load of crap" to arguments, which the bureaucrats in turn recognize when closing RfAs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines?! I've never read any. I just assume the rest of you are fools, and keep sub pages in my user space of anyone who votes in a manner that qualifies them for my "List of People Who Would Not Have A Vote if RfA Were A Country, and I the President". Then I watchlist any possible upcoming RfA for said individuals, and if they foolishly poke their heads up I make hast to shoot them down with some out of context diffs, and some bizarre litmus test designed to hide the fact that I'm only voting oppose because I don't like the person solely based on my experiences with them in RfA. You can try to stop me, but Wikipedia isn't a Democracy, and in any event, I've enlisted a small army of homeless people near my office, who I pay $1 a day to act as my meatpuppets from the internet cafe across the street, thus creating the appearance of a lack of consensus against me. Sure, I could better use this time trying to get a date, or maybe just contributing to the actual encyclopedia, but this just makes me feel like I have power over your lives... power for which I hunger. mwahahaaaa.... MWAHAHAHAHA!!! Hiberniantears (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, I thought I was the only guy who thought of that. If it hadn't been for my little contributions, my RFA would have finished 2/23/8 instead of 94/24/8 (I fired the guy, who unfortunately is still loose on Wikipedia and was recently elected to ArbComm). Darn.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, GG, how much time have you spent at RfA? If somebody makes an oppose that lacks merit, the community is rather quick about pointing out the faults and failings of said rationale. They may not link directly to AAAD, because they don't have to---they will still cite precident. Plus, there are reasons why AAAD is just an essay. But trust me, weak opposes are almost badgered by the candidate/nominator/community. IMO it is the role of the community, not the crats, to point discount weak rationales---the 'crats role is to read and interpret the consensus.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: GG take a look at the four RfA's currently under way, in all four the opposers are being hounded. I'd say that 70-80% of the opposes have been contested... and sometimes extensively. We don't need to cite an essay that not everybody agrees with and is faulty to contest poor rationale.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This was mentioned before but unlike AFD, which has WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT etc., RFA does not have any policies or guidelines, except AADD, by which !votes can be weighed. If somebody said "Delete Doesn't meet my criteria" in an AFD, they would be soundly trouted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because at AFD, there are certain things that can be agreed upon... we've reached agreement on sourcing, notability, etc. At RfA, because of it's very nature, we can't come up with those guidelines... how long should somebody be editing? How many edits do they need? How many FA/GA/DYK? Are those important? How do we weigh pariticipation at AFD vs participation at ANI vs pariticpation at FAC vs participation at NPP? Is somebody who doesn't have 100 AIV reports going to automatically fail? Way too many subjectivities and variables to make hard firm rules... people who have personal criteria, do so for their own sake and to be consistent with their !votes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"RFA does not have any policies or guidelines, except AADD..." AADD is not a guideline. It's an essay; at best, it's a list of "hey, these types of arguments are likely to get shouted down" for easy reference, as well as enough commentary to put some context to the list. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, the consensus on this thread seems to indicate that everyone thinks it is a policy. Does this mean that you are, right now, firmly telling us that this is not an actual, legitimate policy, even though most people in this thread appear to think otherwise? Are you... deciding what is legitimate, and making that decision known? ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that got everyone's attention. How come Dan's post didn't? Notes: 1) I explicitly identified WP:AAAD as an essay, but wanted to raise the question as to why it wasn't a guideline and why noone refers to it; 2) I did not state that bureaucrats don't read the arguments, nor did I make any false logical leaps; 3) My last sentence was deliberately provocative. I agree that the community has a role to play in policing bad arguments, but the community needs feedback that there is more to RfA than the percentages, and there is essentially no feedback except in the borderline range (probably a bit more than 70-75%, but not much). I just wonder if it would make a difference if bureaucrats noted in their arguments that they discounted some votes, without naming names, and perhaps giving some indication of the level of support post analysis. Others may have better ideas for providing feedback...

Regarding weak opposes, they aren't always badgered, because many editors find that to be not very collegiate. One "obvious oppose" recently was far from obvious, and has since been downgraded to a "weak oppose", but instead of being badgered, it generated a number of weak opposes that might not otherwise have been made. Geometry guy 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy, sorry, I interpreted "The bot doesn't check whether the arguments are good ones or not. Do the bureaucrats? So there is no point in following..." as stating that bureaucrats are just as inattentive to arguments as bots. As for bureaucrats making the exact process known... we do, when it matters. I'm not going to start writing closing statements for RfAs that close at 50% or 90%; that's ludicrous, and a waste of everyone's time. For the borderline cases or other special situations (Enigmaman's RfA comes to mind, oddly enough; the flip side is Tadakuni's), yes, we do write closing statements. But for your average, run-of-the-mill RfA, they aren't needed, and aren't provided. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem EVula. Your close of Enigmaman's RfA was fabulous, and I already praised you for it on your talk page. I agree there isn't much point in commenting on the under 50 or the over 90. The issue I am raising is that comments are valuable not just about the case concerned, but about giving feedback to the community that this is (perhaps only slightly) more than a vote. Geometry guy 22:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I wasn't fishing for another compliment, it was just the most immediate instance of a closing statement that I could think of. ;) I think the reason that the feedback isn't written down anywhere is that "consensus" is a very vague concept; it can vary from situation to situation. AADD isn't a guideline because it documents the way things happen (as best as possible), rather than dictate how things should happen. RfA is a very slippery beast, and attempts at nailing down its particulars (such as exact percentages) in any way other than the collective memory are doomed to failure; once something is codified, it's difficult to change, and we have enough problems changing RfA as it is. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears: who are these "everyone" that think AADD is a policy? I haven't seen anyone say anything of the sort; it's been vaguely stated to be a guideline, that's all. It's no different from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, which is also merely an essay. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It was rhetoric, in the service of smart assery. In reality, I'm 100% behind you. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with me is totally fine in my book. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew it was an essay but my comment was poorly worded. Therefore, I expect to see "Oppose He thinks AADD is policy" if I ever decide to jump in front of the RFA bus. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AAAD only exists to bludgeon people !voting a way you don't like at RFA. It is a big part of the "problematic atmosphere" at RFA, probably only deletion can fix this. Trying to use is more or push it to guideline or policy would make RFAs much worse than they already are. Wily D 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who bothers to cite AAAD in an RfA with the hope that it negates or nullifies the oppose is severely misguided Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can hardly disagree occasionally people's comments can be completely stupid.--Patton^t/c 18:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)