Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Question profiles

Cherry-picking data

I think there is a risk, both here and at voter profiles, of selecting data which supports the 'RfA is broken' rationale and skimming-over data that could oppose this view. An example is this:

"The second most prolific voter^{(questioner?)} (39) votes had 1,604 edits"

Out of context, this does seem surprising, but looking at the table it's clear that the 1st, 3rd, 5th most prolific questioners are respected admins with huge edit counts. So in actuality, the following point in this section could read:

The majority of the top 5 most prolific questioners are admins in good-standind with heaps of experience and large edit counts

This is, of course, 'cherry-picking' data for the opposing view. Also, the user in question has posed the same question multiple times, possibly in a pointy way, and as such could be considered an anomaly for statistical analysis. I realise I have questioned the validity of 'RfA is broken' before, but I do not have any don't change RfA agenda, honest! Jebus989^✰ 09:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are extremely valid and it's exactly the kind of feedback we need from this and the voter tables. Stats that stand out a mile are not cherry picking - they enable us, as you have correctly stated, to identify the experience/maturity level of the questioners and voters, especially if their other work, user pages, talk pages, and logs are taken into account. The tables are not to isolate any good or bad questioners voters, but to get an overall picture, should the task force decide to propose a minimum set of qualifications for voters and/or a set of rules for questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Question Ban

There should be something incorporated here that only allows questions relevant to the RFA. None of these bullshit questions. Any questions not relevant to the RFA should be immediately removed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to have a very good reason to ban anything on this project, an open wiki. Bans inevitably result in disputes about their scope, interpretation and application. What is the significant harm that these questions pose? Relevance is a subjective assessment. In any case, mere "irrelevance" is of marginal harm. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the question I linked to as a reference, why should they be allowed to be asked? Maybe it's just me, but questions of those type I don't find funny nor productive to the overall RFA. Just my 0.2 Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't "why should they be allowed to be asked?" It is "is there an imperative to ban them?" --Mkativerata (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This could be quickly resolved by making the additional questions strictly optional, with no oppose !votes allowed for not answering them. That would rapidly put paid to the interest in placing hackneyed boilerplates and other nonsense. We already have an excellent catalogue of such questions (for discussion of course). There are suggestions that these questions are posed out of some sophisticated psychological rationale to test the candidates' reactions under stress. Until those questionners can show me their doctorate in psychology I find the suggestion laughable - look at the table, work back, and see who asked them; a lot of it boils down to the maturity of the participants, and that's another section of this project. Here's the list of suggestions again with some additions - feel free to add more:

(Please remember that these are suggestions only, and because they are ideas some of them may even be contradictory. They are here mainly to stimulate discussion. )

• Three standard mandatory template questions.
• Five standard mandatory questions - includes two additional one from the most commonly asked reasonable user questions.
• User questions are definitely optional.
• No oppose vote can be made for not answering. Neutral vote can be made for not answering.
• Questions from voters only, and possibly only from experienced editors.
• Maximum of one question per user.
• No compound questions
• No follow-on questions.
• No discussion threads in the question section except one answer from the candidate.
• Relevant questions only (see User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#The questions they ask)
• No trick questions deliberately contrived to lead the candidate to err on the side of negativity.
• A maximum number of user questions.
• Questions to be placed on the RfA talk page only

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevant Questions -- exactly my goal. No more Keepscases type questions should be allowed at RFA. But then we go into how do we say what is and isn't relevant and.. bahh. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people find them an interesting insight in to the editor's personality, distinct from policy and TLAs, others see them as irrelevant nonsense; but overall there isn't/wouldn't be consensus to ban such questions ^{in my humble opinion} Jebus989^✰ 19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, RfA isn't a game, nor is it a joke. It's a job interview; nonsense questions are never asked at job interviews, and there are ways to gain insight into a persons personality other than asking silly, irrelevant questions. Swarm ^X 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure job interview is a great metaphor, generally to do volunteer work the job interview is minimal to say the least. And personally I've found good humour can go down well at a job interview ;) also, a single jovial question doesn't make the entire process a joke or game. As your userpage states you're a supporter of NOBIGDEAL, I'm suprised you have such a hardline stance against injection of harmless light-heartedness in this process many are calling a 'bloodbath', uncivil, 'trial-by-fire' etc. Jebus989^✰ 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, I'm not advocating it, I could take or leave the silly questions at RfA, but nonsense questions ARE asked at interview. Google is famous for it, for example. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreliably sourced article apparently :p Jebus989^✰ 20:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a hardline stance against Keepscases questions, my feelings about them are ambivalent. The point is that I believe that questions should be relevant, not because it would target Keeps, but because I believe it's an aspect of improving RfA. "Irrelevant" doesn't just mean "silliness", but it is an aspect of what's considered irrelevant. I apologize if my metaphor missed its mark, but comparing Wikipedia to Google is like comparing an office party to a pool party. Heck, we play some pranks on April Fools' and half of the project bitches about it (no offense intended to those who partook in the bitching, but I digress). Swarm ^X 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Google is interviewing for salaried jobs. We are all volunteers here, so the question is: should we subject our candidates to such nonsense? I'll repeat again just for good measure, that I don't believe for a moment there is any truth in the suggestions made by some editors that the questions at RfA have been posed as a deliberate psychological test - where are the posers' PhD's in psychology, communication science, or management?

Let's also not run away with the idea that Keeps is the only one who poses inappropriate questions so let's leave him alone for now and concentrate more on just what we think are irrelevant/inappropriate questions, what percentage they constitute of the questions at RfA in general, and whether they should really be allowed.
See next thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1. People are not flaring up and quitting because of Keepcase questions.

2. There's only one of him so it doesn't disrupt things much and people don't usualy discuss the answers much.

3. Kind of breaks the deathly seriousness.

4. Pretty much amazed that Kudpung is jumping on problem solving this, with more Byzantine processes. There are much bigger fish to fry, even just this whole initiative to keep on track.

TCO (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The questions they ask at RfA

This list is subjective, compiled by Kudpung at the close of 2010. Some question have (Task force note) added. These were originally comments by Kudpung. The most unhelpful tactics include: deliberately asking questions on areas of admin work that the candidate has already clearly expressed that they neither have experience nor particular interest in, and do not intend to get especially involved in; using questions that have been devised by previous questioners; asking opinions on whether Wiki policies are good or bad – any question that begins with “Do you believe...?”; and using RfA to get answers for things they don't know themselves.

On one RfA that failed marginally, because of a trick question, a further question was posed based on that question, participants refused to acknowledge that one major long oppose diatribe was posed by a confirmed, blocked sock puppet, based on that question. No less than 18 Opposes were subsequently wholly or partly based on that question as exposed by the blocked sock puppet’s mammoth diatribe.

On one RfA a participant asked: 'Are these questions really necessary, or are they simply questions for the sake of having questions?' The answer was: "They help reinforce the candidate's qualifications when correctly answered, and surely anyone willing to undergo a request for s/abuse/adminship would be willing to answer a few questions." I think that answer was made simply to appease the questioner. Another participant also asked on another RfA: "Do you think that our current RfA process presents candidates with too many questions?"

The sample 156 questions below are taken from a total of roughly 772 questions on all passes, and all full-term fails in 2010. They are not exhaustive and for many questions only one example might be provided. Some of them, particularly multiple questions bundled under the guise of one, may not be strictly in the appropriate section, because they fall into several categories. They are listed below under:

• Plain silly (22)
• Difficult (7)
• Potentially misleading (5)
• Time wasting / fishing for advice (19)
• Broad (9)
• Irrelevant, or prying into private personal opinion (68)
• Negative (3)
• Multiple questions under the pretext of one (1)
• Questioner doesn’t know (1)
• Questioner doesn’t give a cue to the number of keep votes. (3)
• Questioner not understanding clear answers (1)
• Questioner fishing for feedback on his own work (3)
• Deliberately prolonging the agony (1)
• Participants not doing their the required homework (7)
• Miscellaneous (5)
• Close Paraphrased repeats of set questions (1)

Note: You are welcome to add your comments to these questions. Please put your comments in italics, and if you indent or outdent, please do not disturb the numbering (use your 'Show preview' button) - we need the numbers for a quick reference. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The questions

Plain silly Your user page indicates that you are a fan of alcoholic beverages. Do you plan on consuming alcohol while editing Wikipedia? What's your favorite Studio Ghibli film? Have you ever experienced the white-knuckled exhilaration of eating three bags of prunes? Do you believe you will ever travel outside the Earth's atmosphere during your lifetime? If you turn out to be the first Wikipedia user in space, how might you use this to Wikipedia's advantage? Will we get to twenty questions? You have attracted opposition below for the perceived reactionary nature of much of your work here. What constructive contributions of yours can you point to outside the realm of mitigating damaging or potentially harmful content and contributions from others? Please compose and present one Shakespearean form sonnet illuminating something about Floquenbeam in the role of Wikipedia administrator. Are chimpanzees allowed to have Wikipedia accounts? Do you believe that they should? If intelligent and seemingly benevolent space aliens land on Earth tomorrow, when (if ever) do you believe they should be permitted to create Wikipedia accounts? Why? If asked by Jimmy Wales, would you assist in carrying his sedan chair? You have been selected to star in a television commercial for Wikipedia. The commercial will feature you finishing edits to an article, and then turning around and triumphantly jumping for joy, which will be shown in slow motion. What background music would you recommend for this commercial? Why? If you were a station or station complex in the New York City Subway, which one (and only one!) would you be and how does this reflect how you would use the admin bit? If someone visited Halden and only for about one hour, can they honestly claim to have visited Norway? Do you believe Wikipedia:Intelligent Administrator should be a redirect to Wikipedia:Administrators against kitten abuse? If not, can you think of a better redirection of that page? Apocalyptica is short one member. Are you good enough, and would you be interested? How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Would you ever block a user just for the hell of it? Have you ever been in a conflict with me? If not then why not? How has your opinion of Wikipedia changed since you started editing? (unanswered by the candidate) Thank you for submitting. Please critique the following statement, "I am but a humble servant of the Wiki, implementing consensus where I find it and abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I go about my tasks." (Unanswered by the candidate) You discover a sock puppet account of Jimmy Wales. What action do you take? He's probably reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Have you ever been editing while intoxicated? Difficult A BLP is up for debate at AfD. The person has seen very significant coverage for one event and enough to meet WP:N for another, independent, event years earlier (say 3 articles each 400 words solely about the topic in reliable, but minor sources). Only after the latest flurry of coverage has an article been created. In the AfD 6 !voters argue for deletion by BLP1E as the first event was minor (and the article was only created due to the second event anyways). 4 argue that that there is more than one event and WP:N is easily met by the two events together (plus was probably met by the first event). How would you close such an AfD and why? (Task force note: A better question would have been: How would you close an AfD if the consensus is in favour of keep when the AfD is clearly a candidate for deletion. or vice versa?) Grateful for your assistance, a Wikipedia user offers to donate $1000 to a charity of your choice. How do you handle this? If you were to participate in WP:AIV, how many warnings must a vandal be issued before a block is suitable? Why? What's critically common between the following users? User:Lee_Daniel_Crocker, User:Stevertigo, User:Conversion script, User:Red Bowen, User:TOertel and User:Neutrality Assume that your RfA passed on 4 November 2010. I supported it. On your first day as an admin I have come to your talk page with this message, congratulating you on your RfA and asking for your help with the tools on a matter in which I am involved. I am asking you to consider protecting this page on a Malaysian political party (assume it is on the mainspace). I've been trying to stop the insertion of material by a new editor, User:KMalaysia (see the article's history). I think the material is unreliable and POV. Please (a) respond to my message on your talk page; and (b) describe here what action you would take, if any, in respect of the page and the editors concerned. You write a BLP article on "Michael Watkins". Six days later, when the article is on DYK, an IP user adds the sentence "In late 2009, Watkins was charged in connection to the 2008 murder of actress Theresa Hutchins, but the charges were later dropped", citing only a gossip mag. This is a pretty well-known fact, and you would have added it to the article when writing it had you been able to fine a reliable source to back it up. You revert the IP's addition under the BLP policy, but xe adds it back again. You revert again, and it is re-added again. You revert again, and the IP re-adds it again. A random admin notices and blocks both of you for edit warring. Who is correct? What do you do? The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain. Potentially misleading A user creates an article about an elementary school. What CSD criterion, if any, works with an article like this? You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification? Someone creates an article about a software product you have never heard of. What speedy deletion criteria would you tag the article with? Agree or disagree: There are active vandals on Wikipedia with over 1000 edits. If you agree, explain in general terms what constructive steps you can take to mitigate the problem. If you disagree, please explain how you arrived at your conclusion. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification? Time wasting / fishing for advice How would you close the following debates: (i) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosef Babad (HTC); (ii) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting FM; (iii) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrismahanukwanzakah (3rd nomination); (iv) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry d'Agier; (v) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Participatory Media? What is your personal take on WP:BLP1E? Please provide a specific example (aside from WP:SNOW cases in AfDs and RfAs) when you would decidedly employ WP:IAR. When patrolling new pages, what things do you look to do and what do you consider before you hit the "Page patrolled" link, or nominate for CSD, or whatever? (I ask partly for my own education, because I've only recently started doing NPP, and a few tips from an admin candidate would be welcome). Did you have any reason in particular for choosing such a "toxic" username as xxxxxxx? - I have no objections to the name, I was just curious. What is the copyright status of publications and images from the government of California? Can we use their material on Wikipedia? If you block someone, do you pledge under the threat of recall to politely and fairly explain each block by writing a one paragraph explanation in all cases except the most obvious serial vandal? If not, why so lazy and uncommunicative? (Task force note: The question was about an edit made four years previously) You indicated in Opinion "cult" is no more loaded than "liberal" here. Do you still think that "Cult" is not a loaded term? I recently speedily deleted this page that was tagged A7. (and have temporarily moved to my user space for this question.) Was my deletion correct? Why? Why not? Being given Admin rights is a big privilege, I would like to know how you would respond to say a banned user request to be reinstated? And how you plan on using the right to ban that you will receive? A: Just to be clear, are you asking about WP:BANs or WP:BLOCKs? The Wikimedia Foundation determines that change is needed, and as an administrator, your first task will be to come up with a new name for Wikipedia. It must be totally new; no "wiki" anything or anything-"pedia". What name do you suggest? Why? An editor asks for your help. Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute infobox has a USA flag but it is not the 1831 version, but the 1960 version. Do you reply "fuck off", give an answer, don't give an answer? Could you please explain the use of rollback in edits such as this? Some people choose to use rollback for edits that are self-explanatory. It might be my ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the subject, but these edits (there are a dozen or so in the last 500 contribs) don't seem like one of those occasions to me. (Task force note: This is the equivalent of 11 extra questions. Would have taken approx; 2 hours to answer.)Here are 11 articles that were recently proposed for deletion (PROD). I picked them at random: Article Four, Blasé Splee (EP), Cortex Chaoz, Free YouTube Downloader, Intellectual Decathlon, Mark Shandii Bacolod,Pink Bullet. Please work your way through this list giving us your comments on each. Some questions to consider: Could any of these articles have been speedily deleted? If so, on what grounds? Were any of these articles ineligible for PROD? If so, why? In this case what should have been done instead? As an administrator, are there any of these articles you would not delete after the PROD waiting period expires? If these articles were under discussion at AfD, what would your !vote (i.e., recommendation) be? Is there anything else worth pointing out about these articles? While it has been my experience that the corps of administrators includes some wise, patient individuals, it also includes an unfortunate minority who seem to think being given the mop means they are no longer bound by our civility policies and conventions. Personally, I think it is even more important for administrators to always do their best to be civil, because we should be counting on them to set an example for less experienced contributors, and because when they are interacting with non-administrators it is not a fair fight if they get down in the gutter. If you are entrusted with administrator authority will you do your best to always be civil, and to call in another administrator, when you feel tempted to respond in kind to incivility? How would you react if you came across a fellow administrator who seemed to be lapsing from the level of civility, collegiality and AGF you think we should all observe? This is (was?) a category administrators could list themselves in, if they were willing to be open to a review of their performance. Do you support this idea, and would you consider listing yourself there? Personally I think it is important to approach each question posed to me with an open mind as to whether I made a mistake. I think it is important to be willing to openly acknowledge when I have made a mistake. I think it is important to be willing to try to fix my mistakes. I see these as corolaries of WP:AGF -- as efforts to prove we deserve WP:AGF. As above, although our corps of administrators includes some wise and patient individuals, it has been my experience that it also includes an unfortunate minority who follow the meme "never explain, never apologize", who are unwilling or unable to consider the possibility they made a mistake. If you were entrusted with administrator authority would you do your best to approach each question with an open mind? Would you do your best to own up to making mistakes, and be prepared to reverse yourself, and take other measures to clean up after your mistakes? (Task force note: - To which one of the RfA replied: What on earth does this have to do with being an administrator? This is a question for the OTRS or any other Wikimedia. I could write a three paragraph reply, but this has nothing to do with the bit) "Theobold Johnson III" is notable for having been involved in a football cheating scandal and also writes books about orchids, illustrated with beautiful pictures. Johnson has written several self-published books about orchids, and in their autobiographies and interviews he describes himself as "the greatest living orchid man" and "widely recognized by the academic world as the greatest orchid scholar in the world". Johnson refers to himself as "Dr. Johnson" or "Professor Johnson" frequently in print. Johnson also asserts in print that he is a professor in the Botany Department at the famous "Winthrop College" and has given his mailing address as "c/o Winthrop College" for many years. Johnson often writes that all other people studying orchids are morons and even all other botanists are stupid and vile disgusting fools who should be publicly flogged or worse. (Task force note: 562 words!) In the course of writing a Wikipedia biography about Johnson, you start to uncover disturbing information. First, you are able to find a mention of a "Theobold Johnson III" on archived versions of the Winthrop College website from 1994-1997, but there is no mention of Johnson on earlier versions of the website, or later versions. A "T. Johnson, III" is listed as a visitor in the Computer Science Department of Winthrop College in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 versions of the website, and a phone number is given. You contact the President's office at Winthrop College and the Dean of Science office at Winthrop College and ask if Johnson is or was a faculty member there. Receiving no reply, you ask a friend who knows the Dean personally to ask the Dean privately. The word comes back from your friend that he has talked to the Dean privately, and that Johnson is an embarrassment and never had a faculty appointment at Winthrop College and just has his mail forwarded from Winthrop College due to some arrangement he made with someone in the Winthrop College mailroom 25 years previously. Johnson never was on the payroll of Winthrop College and never had an official position at Winthrop College and has not been on campus for 10 years or more. Johnson was listed for a few years on the telephone list and was a short term visitor, but this was just a courtesy and he was one of 3500 visitors a year who get this courtesy. The Dean's office then, thanks to the probing of your friend, issues a very carefully worded "official statement" about Johnson, stating he was never a faculty member at Winthrop College and inviting further inquiries to their Press Office, and sends you a copy. You do some more checking, and find no evidence that Johnson has a PhD or any degree in botany or science whatsoever, at least from Liberty Washington University, as he claims. You do find a record at Liberty Washington Community College that Johnson obtained a bachelor's degree in history 30 years previously. You also find a report in the local newspaper that Johnson was expelled from Liberty Washington Community College for theft while he was an undergraduate, and then was readmitted and eventually graduated. You look at various lists and directories of prominent orchid scholars and find no mention of a Theobold Johnson in any edition of these directories. You also dig up 5 reviews of Johnson's books on orchids in various scholarly journals from different botanists and orchid scholars from Harvard and University of Pennsylvania and Yale. These reviews are uniformly poor, and state that Johnson is a charlatan and a fraud and his books are replete with errors and the worst possible nonsense. You then find another interview of Johnson published in Sports Illustrated where it is stated that Johnson has no PhD or other Doctorate, but it is a title that people use for him out of respect for his tremendous knowledge and learning. How would you write a biography of this person on Wikipedia? What would be reasonable and accurate and ethical? What would be fair? What should Wikipedia do if this person contacts Wikipedia and demands that it write his biography the way he dictates? What if this person threatens legal action if Wikipedia does not do what he asks? Broad What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs? Do you feel that pages can be moved without a discussion first to form consensus, and do you feel that WP:BOLD overrides that? What is your interpretation of IAR, and do you think that common sense should automatically overweigh policies in any area on Wikipedia? Say this RFA were to pass, and about a month from now, a user comes to your talk page and asks you, as an uninvolved administrator, to close some long discussion about the non-free image policy. How would you respond to this request? Could you give us some examples of what you think are your best contributions to XfD discussions? Could you clarify what kind of contributions you plan to make related to CSD? When patrolling new pages, what things do you look to do and what do you consider before you hit the "Page patrolled" link, or nominate for CSD, or whatever? (I ask partly for my own education, because I've only recently started doing NPP, and a few tips from an admin candidate would be welcome). Which of Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines do you feel is the most important? Since you intend to use the tools to block vandals, how many warnings do you think are necessary before a block is implemented? Irrelevant, or prying into private personal opinion Agree or disagree: Wikipedia is a better reference than either Citizendium or Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? (Task force note:About the appeals for donations. Not answered by candidate) Q:Which of the "personal appeals" speaks to you the most? Why? Candidate's A: I am sorry, could you clarify the question a little? Do you mean what personal appeals in general or do you mean a specific set? Poser's reply: The personal appeals that are currently displayed at the top of pages such as this one; they are worth reading if you haven't already?. What is your general philosophy about AfD closings? Are they too often ruled "keep" when the arguments for keeping are too weak? Too often closed as "delete" when the arguments for deletion are not compelling? Too often closed as "no consensus" when the admin doing the closing should actually make a decision? Are your criteria significantly different for MFD closings? What are your interests in real life, and the answer can not be Wikipedia. Would you start editing articles with your interest if you pass or fail this RFA? How did you originally get involved with wikipedia? Do you view the glass of water that is Wikipedia as half-full or half-empty? In your view is it possible for a Wikipedia article to be the best English language reference on a subject or does WP:Original research make that an impossibility? You have a userbox that encourages others to say no to political correctness. What parts of Wikipedia's content or culture do you believe are overly politically correct? Why? I would like to inquire whether there are any specific weak points in your work that you feel may lead others to oppose this RfA. Do you know any languages other than English? What is your take on the essay "Say no to Commons"? Do you think the current warning/blocking system is too harsh? What is your opinion on the double standard between admins and other editors? If an admin was edit-warring with a non-admin, how would you administer the blocks? Are you an inclusionist? Or a deletionist? Or at what point in between? (Task force note:: Some people openly admit through their infoboxes which way they lean. Some people are open about their bi- or homosexuality or their outlook on religion; others prefer not to discuss their private situation. (Task force note:A good answer answer to such a question would be: From my editing habits it would appear that I’m a deletionist. It’s what I get accused of by stroppy editors. What they, and you, don’t know is that for every article I’ve proposed for some form of deletion, I’ve passed as patrolled, categorized, templated, assessed, repaired some basic MoS, and added some refs to several hundred.) What is your view on the ongoing evolution of WP's policies and guidelines: should they be descriptive or prescriptive? Please provide your reasoning. Do you believe that articles on wikipedia have inherent rights? If so, what are those rights? In your opinion, which is the least useful or effective policy or guideline, and why? If given the opportunity, how would you change it? The RFA process is frequently acknowledged to be a harsh affair, with high levels of criticism of editors, a strong focus on conforming (in actions and answers) to policy strictly to the letter of the law, and a focus on statistics. Do you have any thoughts on how to make the process more open to both specialists (i.e. copyright) and editors who focus on contentious / difficult topics? Just out of curiosity, what's your username mean? What is the area of Wikipedia you like the most? Would you sacrifice your own life to save Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you believe that "fallen" users can be rehabilitated, and if so, how? Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them? can you explain you articles for creation barnstar? What does being an administrator mean to you? Why do you want to be an administrator? Not withstanding current policy, what is your personal opinion on this matter? In your ideal encyclopaedia, should someone who meets one of the SNGs but not GNG have an article on Wikipedia? Have you ever taken a wikibreak? If so, how often do you take the breaks, for how long on average do they last, and what do you do during one of them? My support is pretty assured, but someone has to ask this. What is your view on our current notability criteria, particularly with regards to living people? I see from your contributions that you had 2 wikibreaks (I do note there was some activity during both periods) both approximately 6 months in length. Would you mind letting us know what caused those periods of inactivity and if the circumstances which caused those periods are likely to occur again? Can you explain a bit as to why you had a slow start here. You seem to have made no edits for about 30 months. (This question will not change my !vote, I'm just curious) Your 1st edit was in December of 2005 but you only became active on Wikipedia in July of 2009. I am curious in regards to your slow start on the project when compared to the 15,000 edits that you have amassed since July of 2009. What caused your slow start and years long absence? Your first edits were 2 edits, both to talk pages, and both with full sigs. You didn't edit again for 8 months, and even then, largely to talk pages. How long did you edit as an IP, and why the long string of edits right before Christmas in 2006? Why did you hardly make any edits for over two years after you registered with this account? Why haven't you created any new articles on subjects you are passionate about? What is Wikipedia's greatest flaw? What is Wikipedia's greatest strength? If you had to pick one userbox to add to your user page, which would it be? There are many types of admin, and they all have different styles and go about there admin duties in different ways. Who are some specific admins that you see as role models and you would like to emulate if you could? I see this question at RFA sometimes and I like the question so: Which current Admin would you most like to emulate if you were to receive adminship? What are your feelings on the way that biographies of living people are treated, and what changes should be made to the way that Wikipedia handles them (if any)? To what extent do you feel that age (and/or experience) plays a role in the success (or failure) of an RfA? Would you mind briefly summarizing your language skills in "Babel"-format (e.g. "en-N, es-2, de-1")? Should "long-unsourced BLP" become a speedy deletion criterion? What are your views on the Petition against IAR abuse? What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin? What do you think shows the best totality of your behaviour as an editor? borrowed from Tznkai [1] You plan to do work with images. What is your view of non-free files being used on Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, and why do you hold that view? What is your opinion of the current Criteria for Speedy Deletion and how, if at all, would you improve them if the decision was left entirely to you? Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ? do you feel that administrators, in general, are too swift or too reluctant to block? If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances? Which of Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines do you feel is the most important? Do you believe WP:Before is good practice in WP and should WP:Before be strengthened and/or adopted as a guideline in its own right? Do you see yourself ever standing for positions "higher" than that of administrator? Do you believe that the notability guidelines are to be strongly followed, and that they are based on verifiability? Do you believe verifiability is an essential element of keeping an article around? A user asks you a strange and frankly pointless question at an RfA. Do you answer it? Could you comment on your opinion of WP:PROF? Has any event, policy or dispute on Wikipedia caused you to consider leaving? Wikipedia claims that its goal is to collate all human knowledge into one encyclopaedia. However, through guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, its editors have decided that the majority of human knowledge is not "notable" enough for inclusion. What is your view on this apparent hypocrisy? What question did were you not asked that you would like to answer? Given the chance, which policy or guideline on Wikipedia would you modify, how would you do so, and why? You removed certain userboxes from your userpage earlier this year...can you explain why you did this? Has RfA been too picky in the past? Not necessarily in your first one, but generally? Write a convincing oppose rationale against yourself for this RfA, and then write a convincing rebuttal on how you have addressed the concerns in your oppose. (Task force note: Candidate did not answer this question, but passed with flying colours) Assume that you have been given carte-blanche to make one change only to Wikipedia policy. Obviously, the question is [a] What would you change? and [b] What is about that one change that makes it, to you, more important than any other? Since you are a military man: if you were determined to vandalize Wikipedia what would you consider the most effective way to do so? Is Wikipedia capable of robust response to such a threat? What term do you want as admin? When do you intend to resign or submit yourself for reconfirmation? If "never," why are you suited to adminship-for-life? Why did you became a member of Wikipedia and served it for years?And please elaborate your answers and tell it truthfully. This is a matter of your own self-respect. Negative What contributions are you least proud of, and in what way may they (in your opinion) have affected your judgment? Seeing that you'll most probably qualify in this RfA, let's throw you some trivia, a wrong answer to which will ensure that all the supporters will surely shift to the oppose category. You have attracted opposition below for the perceived reactionary nature of much of your work here. What constructive contributions of yours can you point to outside the realm of mitigating damaging or potentially harmful content and contributions from others? Multiple questions under the pretext of one What are the conditions under which you would block an editor for civility issues or failing to adhere to consensus? Questioner doesn’t know (A story based on real events) You're closing an AFD on some mathematical theory. The content looks ample, neat and well referenced to old peer-reviewed journals, all behind the paywall, and even abstracts are barely accessible. The article title doesn't show up much on Google (and in titles of the provided refs). There are 3 votes delete because of lacking notability, but the voters admit they don't understand the subject, vote because of Google hits, and can't tell whether the problem is in the wrong title or wrong content (the author is not a native speaker and might have mistranslated the terms). A message was posted at the corresponding WP project, but no help arrived. How would you close that? Questioner doesn’t give a cue to the number of keep votes What are your thoughts on Wikipedia Review? What influence do you think it has on some of the more controversial Wikipedia policies? Do you participate there? You are interested in new pages patrol and WP:CSD (speedy deletion). Imagine that you come across a new article on a living person which would be controversial as a speedy (say one full several page article reference on the subject and a few short news articles). Let's say you read it and notice it is written in a very negative manner and the person is a minor bureaucrat covered only by local newspapers in a small city mainly for a scandal. How do you react? Let's say you tag it and notice a couple weeks later it is unchanged. What do you do? Also, you are interested in CSD but not in XfD. Do you think your lack of knowledge of the deletion "case law" might hinder you efforts? Do you ever come across articles which can't be speedied but that you don't think should really be in the encyclopaedia? Sorry for the multiple questions but I'm trying to get an understanding for the new pages review process, which I think is important. When you click a new page and hit it with some tags, the yellow highlighting goes away; additionally, some people may take the tagging as a certification that the article doesn't need major attention and that urgent issues have been addressed. Do you have a strong password? If your request is successful will you pledge to change that password periodically? Have you considered adding a committed identity to your user page to protect your account in the even that it should be compromised? Questioner not understanding clear answers In your above answer you mention that an admin should only close through counting numbers, except in a few select cases. In which situations would you consider the strength of arguments rather than the number of people voting either way? Candidate's A: I didn't say that. I said that the outcome should reflect the community's consensus in the context of that discussion. How to interpret consensus in those individual cases is something that is subject to a broader level of consensus—obviously most people feel that it's reasonable to consider the strength of arguments to an extent, and I respect that. Questioner fishing for feedback on his own work What do you think of the essay xxxxxxxxxxxx ? Do you think that you would find any of the scripts in xxxxxxx/monobook.js helpful? If so, please feel free to add them to your own monobook/vector.js, and suggest some for me. Since it seems to be topical at the moment, what is your view of Wikipedia's civility policies? Do you think they work? Could they be improved? How would you enforce them? (NB, for myself at least, I'm not looking for a 'right' answer, rather for your take on it). Prolonging the agony Sincerely, thank you. I regret the sweat you have had over this. Do you think that WP's policies and guidelines should crystallize around and arise out of the community's current practices and its current views on consensus, or do you think that policy formation should take place in the various community fora (RfC etc.) and then be imposed on the wider community. 2-3 lines will suffice. I regret my inefficient communication in my first question, I'm often taken aback myself about the parlance used around here; anyway I now know that you could be (have been?) a speech writer for any politician, any party, not offending anyone :-) Participants not doing their the required homework (Task force note: asked on several RfA) How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple? Aside from XXXXXXXX, which articles have you created? Could you list a few of your recent substantive edits? Please expand on #2, specifically with respect to encyclopaedia content: What articles have you created or improved? Have you contributed to any evaluated content, such as a DYK, GA, or featured content? You mentioned concerns that people would oppose based on lack of article editing experience. Personally I don't think this is a big deal (though I know it is to some others), as long as you've shown understanding in how articles should be, and an idea of how to get to them. Are you able to demonstrate this? Have any articles that you started become Good, A-Class, or Featured? Which ones? Have you added significant content to any articles and if so what are your best contributions? Could you point to three articles whose content you feel you are the primary author of? These could be articles you've created, or articles in which most of the content was written by you. Miscellaneous If Admin roles were compartmentalized, in other words a bureaucrat assigned Admins to various Mop and bucket tasks in WP based on the Admin’s experience and desires and you could only work in those areas, which one of the following compartments would you chose to work in and why? (chose only one): a. The Deletion department, where your job was to close CSDs, PRODs, and AfDs. b. The Vandalism department, where your job was to patrol for vandalism, revert it and block vandals. c. The Article Improvement department, where your job was to find ways to help new and old editors improve WP articles and bring them in-line with WP policies and guidelines and prevent their deletion. d. The Dispute Resolution department, where your job was to help resolve disputes between editors on WP. (Task force suggested answer: I wouldn’t choose any because it would no longer be worth me asking for the tools. There wouldn’t be enough work in just one area to justify a need for them. I have no interest in working in every conceivable corner of the Wikipedia, but neither am I about to be committed to being allocated a single task. It’s like the difference between cricket and football. At school they always put me in goal, in rugby they always put me in the scrum as hooker. I hated both. In cricket, you have an opportunity to be more versatile. Cricketers need to be reasonably good fielders, batsmen, and bowlers. I excelled at cricket. Do you intend to work on Categories for Deletion? If not, why not? If not, is it acceptable to not be an expert in category deletion policy? Should there be more documentation on what is allowed in categories, as is the case for articles? Where should a confused user go for category questions? Are you willing to answer all these questions? (Task force note: Questioner obviously confuses Wikipedia with an Internet forum) 7. If you were a mod, how would you deal with this type of comment (block, warn, stand by passively, etc.) from a mod? Would your opinion change if this comment were made by a "commoner"? What is the role of the administrator? By that I mean, what part do they perform in developing the encyclopaedia? (Task force note: The question is good but discusses an unrealistic goal. Inappropriate however for RfA). For the last 5 years, the number of active contributors has been dropping. The Wikimedia foundation, and the larger Wikimedia movement, would like to increase participation and have a proposed goal of 150,000 active contributors by 2015. This is a four-fold increase over the current 35,000 active contributors. What do you feel has been Wikipedia's difficulty in attracting and retaining contributors. What do you think Wikipedia should change in order to reach the 150,000 goal? Close paraphrased repeats of set questions What are your best content contributions? What have you done that has demonstrated your personal involvement in developing the content involved in building an encyclopaedia?

Trick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Trick" is ABF in all those cases. You should withdraw it. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated, this is purely a subjective list. If you have any objections to any of it, do feel free to modify it - that's what we're here for. IMO, this sub list could be renamed 'difficult questions' or anything else. I think the ABF is just in the list name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's right. By labelling a question as a "trick" you are alleging bad faith by the person asking it. Not good at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Trick questions can be made in perfectly good faith. Swarm ^X 23:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Open a dictionary. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To me, that comment came across as unnecessarily condescending and rude. That doesn't mean you made it in bad faith. Trick questions are inappropriate, but that doesn't mean one must be acting in bad faith to pose one. Swarm ^X 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith is necessarily implicit in the meaning of trick. As I said, just read a dictionary entry. Kudpung has changed it to "difficult" which does not imply bad faith. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe "trick" was meant as in "trick question", not as in a flat out "trick" (something purely deceptive). Swarm ^X 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not when you look at the context. Is there any purpose for engaging in this back and forth when the issue has been resolved? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The purpose is to say 'I think you're mistaken and this is why'. It would be easiest for Kudpung to simply explain what was intended rather than assuming we're right and everyone else is wrong. Swarm ^X 23:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to fish out diffs that will explain the context to you when the matter is resolved. This is totally unproductive. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've clearly expressed in the project that some of the material used to get the project started was my own, and may well be subjective, and anyone - with good reason - can change what they like. That is the case with the selection of questions I made months ago before I even dreamed of becoming an admin myself, or being the one to start a project on reform. The use of the word trick may have been an unfortunate lexical choice for some. The Oxford American Dictionary gives us among many other definitions: Trick: noun - 1. a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone : he's a double-dealer capable of any mean trick. I don't think for a moment that people will believe that is what I meant. A better interpretation would have been (also from OAD): tricky: - adjective ( trickier , trickiest ) (of a task, problem, or situation) requiring care and skill because difficult or awkward : applying eyeliner can be a tricky business | some things are very tricky to explain, FWIW, there are other 'tricky' questions in the list, but to avoid duplication, they appear in other sections. Mkativerata has has expressed that they do not consider there is any need for RfA reform, and in deference to their comment, I have changed the title of that question section, and I or a coordinator will shortly be archiving (not striking or deleting) this thread as one that does not move us along. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise you state this thread is effectively 'closed' but in a similar vein other titles could be renamed for the same ABF resoning:

• Deliberately misleading -> Potentially misleading
• Too broad -> Broad
• Deliberately negative -> Negative
• Deliberately prolonging the agony -> ?

To be honest, if I were the one who posed a question you have placed under these headings I could probably be a bit offended. Presumably, the askers didn't find the questions "too broad" and weren't "deliberately trying to mislead". If you truly meant 'tricky' instead of 'trick' then what did you mean for 'deliberately misleading'? Jebus989^✰ 15:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removing Irrelevant RfA questions.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA (Expressing opinions) clearly states:

Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored.

Clearly a rule that should be implemented. it appears never to have been taken into consideration by those who up to now have voluntarily indenting !votes and moving irrelevant discussions to the talk page. A task for the RfA clerk.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A. Thanks for doing the grunt work on the question reading. Serious.

B. think we need analysis of the "non failing questions". Look at the whole process, not just flaws.

C. If we are batting 80% good questions, 20% bad, that is not so bad, really. Much better than the to and fro on ANI or even talk pages.

D. Again, if RFA is not a vote, then the questioning is one of the best parts of it. In addition, I sort of like the stateliness and slower pace and consideration involved in these essay questions. It's an honest improvement over the typical yes-no-yes-no-I don't hear you-AGF that we have in many conflicts.

E. For those who do not beleive in the "let anyone have the tools", it gives a chance to learn the candidate.

F. Gain insighte not just by the facts of his response, but the presentation.

G. I'm not crazy about policy questions or broad ones, but there are people who get insights from them. And really, I learn a lot from the responses at times with some very thoughtful reflections from candidates.

TCO (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

RFA candidates should be ignoring some questions. This will take some wisdom. Instead of not giving any kind of answer, they can announce that they are not going to answer and particular question , and optionally give a reason. It would be rare to remove a question - perhaps an attack or disruptive edit should be removed. Perhaps some could be struck off by clerks if obviously inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

'Questions' that set tasks for the candidate

I am slightly concerned by Q.10 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N5iln. IMO this goes beyond the definition of question. Candidates have enough to cope with without being set tasks in order to gain one !vote. As answering questions is not mandated by policy, the candidate would probably be perfectly within his rights to ignore the question entirely. I think we must not allow this kind of question to become precedent. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is an inappropriate question. And N5iln wasted too much time on an answer! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Minimum qualifications for voting/posing questions

The page at Voter profiles discusses minimum qualifications for voters. A script is available here that could easily be adapted to check on users' eligibility to vote and to add to the question section. Slightly more complicated sorftware-wise, this script could also be automatically triggered by an attempt to edit the question' section. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find...

(Note: Discussion moved from WT:RFA2011)

...a list of questions based on how often they are asked? Does anyone have this information? I think it would be a good idea to implement some of these questions in the standard questions. I got the idea from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Question profiles but it doesn't seem like it was ever discussed in full and I think it would be an easy change to make. One question that I have seen a lot is the question on what constitutes being an involved administrator. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't currently have that, but feel free to add it ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to start doing some research. Mine might not be entirely scientific but I will peruse the recent RFA's and create a list of common questions. Now, I was recently told by Kudpung that this project isn't supposed to modify how RFA works, but is instead supposed to modify the behavior of !voters. I think Kudpungs approach is much too narrow and is much harder to implement. With that being said, where would I actually take a proposal to change the questions? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I was recently discussing a similar point with someone else, and I'll say the same thing here. We need to remember that we're working on a perennial proposal and that successfully introducing any change would be a huge accomplishment. We need to be realistic about the changes we want to introduce, and rather than putting work into proposing changes in the RfA process (which may be very difficult), we should focus on proposals that don't require consensus to implement (if possible), and and moderate, realistic proposals that will be easy for the community to swallow in an RfC. This was what we agreed upon at the beginning of this project, and that is the "mainstream" focus under which we operate.

All that said, there's nothing preventing any of us from working on more radical/far reaching proposals (i.e. altering RfA process in some way, introducing an alternative, adminship reform) under our banner. It's certainly not banned. We don't encourage you to focus on things like that, but you're definitely free to do so and I'm sure we'd all be glad either to support your efforts or give you constructive criticism. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Brilliantly summarised Swarm. We have even created a space at WP:RFA/RADICAL for offbeat suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, anything to do with the RfA questions can be discussed at WP:RFA2011/QUESTIONS. We already have a list of 200 or so questions that might possibly considered as inappropriate - although some people don't agree they are all nonsense. Gathering background info to make tables and stats is slow and painstaking work, but if you want to have a go at analysing the rest of the questions, you are more than welcome to give it a try. However, the reason why we don't have such a list already is because I don't think anyone has considered that the possible uses of such a list would justify the hours it would take to compile it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• If any standard questions are going to be added to the usual 3, they shouldn't be "knowledge testing" questions like "what is an involved admin" or "when is it appropriate to block a range of IP's", for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it becomes far too easy for candidates to plagiarize previous RfA's for the "correct" answer. And second, these types of questions are generally reserved for candidates for whom the question is particularly relevant. For instance, for a candidate who plans on working heavily at AIV, the rangeblock question would be appropriate, but for a candidate who plans on doing speedy deletions and working at DYK, the question really has no relevance. Standard questions should be limited to those which give us a better idea of their personality, their history on WP, and their plans as an admin. —SW— ^gossip 14:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  I absolutely endorse this comment. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)