This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RfA reform 2011/Question profiles page. |
|
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)
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)
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. )
-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 17:30, 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)
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:
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
Difficult
Potentially misleading
Time wasting / fishing for advice
Broad
Irrelevant, or prying into private personal opinion
Negative
Multiple questions under the pretext of one
Questioner doesn’t know
Questioner doesn’t give a cue to the number of keep votes
Questioner not understanding clear answers
Questioner fishing for feedback on his own work
Prolonging the agony
Participants not doing their the required homework
Miscellaneous
Close paraphrased repeats of set questions
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
(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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RfA reform 2011/Question profiles page. |
|
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)
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)
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. )
-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 17:30, 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)
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:
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
Difficult
Potentially misleading
Time wasting / fishing for advice
Broad
Irrelevant, or prying into private personal opinion
Negative
Multiple questions under the pretext of one
Questioner doesn’t know
Questioner doesn’t give a cue to the number of keep votes
Questioner not understanding clear answers
Questioner fishing for feedback on his own work
Prolonging the agony
Participants not doing their the required homework
Miscellaneous
Close paraphrased repeats of set questions
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
(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)