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.

I don't wish to kick up a fuss, but please. An RFA at 2/8/0 may well be a NOTNOW. - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sephiroth storm. However for the editor who closed it in a matter of a couple of hours of it being transcluded to remove two supports [1] is a lcause for concern. If User:Balloonman had not closed then the count would be 4/4/0 (okay, I know one of the existing ones was "moral") - I agree this RFA was going to fail but this unseemly haste to close the RFA smacks of wanting to close it for the sake of closing RFA's and not to help the candidate. M♠ssing Ace 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The two that I removed were after it was closed, thus, it was at 2/8 when it was closed... Removing !votes after a close, is accepted practice. Of the two supports, one (yours) indicating that you realized that it would be closed per NOTNOW AND the other one being a moral support. At 20%, with 10 !votes for a candidate who barely has just over 1000 edits, notnow is an appropriate close---nobody, including the supports indicated any belief that this RfA would pass. If the candidate wishes to have it reopened, he is welcome to ask for it to be reopened, but NOTNOW was instituted to prevent people who clearly lacked the experience necessary from getting burned. This is such a case. Plus, you need to check you math, the count would not have been 4/4, it would have been 4/8... plus however more opposes would have come about.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - it would indeed be 4/8/0. Nevertheless I seem to recall a recent RFA that bomed initially yet recovered and the candidate passed. I'm glad you have repeated my comments, but as you clearly actually haven't read them I'll try again. Yes I supported knowing the RFA would fail - there is a world of difference from knowing the candidate will fail to approving such an early close of the RFA - but most importantly your removal of two supports after your (non bureaucrat) close is the issue. Skipping through the thread above, Baloonman, you seem to have already come under fire for your fast action and removal of comments at RFA (albeit questions above). Time to step away, maybe, at least for a while? M♠ssing Ace 23:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The one above was when *I* raised a question about my actions, which has blossomed out of control. As for this RfA, if the candidate wishes to reopen, they are free to do so, but I have closed numerous RfA's that are on this path, and this is the first time anybody has raised any question... at 2/8, where you are the only one who is hopeful, but recognizes the fact that it is going to fail, I have no problem with the close. Do you want me to couunt the reasons why this is going to fail? fewer than 1500 edits, no meaningful experience in AfD's where he wants to work, no articles where he has more than 20 edits, no wikispace area (except a project) where he has more than 30 edits, answers to questions that are one or two sentences in length. This RfA is not going to pass, which is why we came up with NOTNOW, to prevent good editors from getting burned.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Balloonman, but on this occasion I do. That RfA had zero chance of success; what benefit would it have been to the candidate to keep it open? RfA is shit, everyone knows that, so why compound the misery by not doing the decent thing? -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Ace, please spend your time advising the candidate that next time he cares to put his name in front of the community, at least run spellcheck first.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean ensure / insure on the RFA. I'm not sure what value you bring to the conversation Wehwalt but that was a pleasent remark by me to the candidate about a common confusion in English, and your unpleasent remark serves no value whatsoever. Ad hominum contributions are distasteful. If you have nothing better than to attack me please leave it. M♠ssing Ace 23:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about "flurish" and assasination", just to start with. And I'm unclear, Ace, how pointing out SS's lack of spelling prowess is a personal attack on you. By the way, it is "u-n-p-l-e-a-s-a-n-t"-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So my typos mean my argument is without merit. Nice one Wehwalt. Impressive logic. M♠ssing Ace 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all; though your spelling and argument are roughly on the same level. Both are a little misplaced and have something missing.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you brush up on your understanding of ad hominem Missing Ace. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly need to brush up on my spelling! However I'm interested Malleus Fatuorum how Wehwalts moaning about my advice to the candidate is relevant to this thread. M♠ssing Ace 23:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ballonman, withdrawing a RfA after when there are only 10 votes is no way to judge consensus. It could be easy for 8 unrepresentative oppose voters to be first on the scene - it's no indication neccessarily of how things will go, and even if it were, it is for the candidate and not you to withdraw. Now, I accept that 1,000+ edits and 22 months experience may be unlikely to pass RfA (that's unfortunate IMO) but if you want a policy of withdrawing noms for inexperience, then please get a consensus that under a certain minimum nominations are withdrawn, until then leave them alone. I am increasingly feeling that WP:NOTNOW is being illegitimately used to create a defacto minimum standard for RfAs to be considered. Perhaps deleting WP:NOTNOW would be the best response, we should not create a defacto policy that is unlikely to gain consent. Withdrawing spurious, trolling or time-wasting nominations is one thing, but good faith nominations (particularly with this level of experience) should never be withdrawn. Speak to the candidate and advise, don't force their hand.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 23:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm wrong, but this candidate has zero chance of passing. The purpose of NOTNOW is there to prevent people from getting burned. I won't wheel war over closing it, but don't be surprised if it gets closed again. That's is what I think the strength of WP is about, that people can revert decisions that they think are wrong.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I respect your intentions, but they are (I suspect) contrary to consensus. If you think RfAs of users with under 2,000 edits should be closed, then propose it. There may indeed be a consensus for that.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 23:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read any of the above comments, per the usual discussion here. But I do know that RfA won't pass, looking at it from every angle. Syn ergy 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Many RFAs with sub-2000 edits get closed per SNOW or NOTNOW. Take a look at Wikipedia:List of failed RfAs (Chronological). At 2/8, closing it early is acceptable, but it usually happens to candidates with a few hundred (or even fewer) edits. At 4/8, I wouldn't SNOW it, but Balloonman closed it when it was 2/8. This one may have been on the edge of SNOW/NOTNOW, but it is not against consensus or precedent to remove RFAs early. Useight ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

When it was 2/8, with 1 a moral support and the other acknowledging that it would be closed per NOTNOW.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• A good rule of thumb I followed in my pre-crat days: any RfA that has under 1k edits and has only been around for a few weeks is safe to close per SNOW/NOTNOW. Anything more should be left in the hands of the bureaucrats; not necessarily because we're so much more qualified to close them (I agree that it's unlikely to pass), but because people complain when it happens. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Half tempted to argue it should be reopened and kept open, just to see it finish 13/108/9 -- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At 1200, with those coming from tools, I would say this is clearly going to fail.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. As long as ol mal keeps talking in the oppose section. Syn ergy 23:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was more surprised, though, that he ended a sentence with a preposition. Useight ( talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Syn ergy 23:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is going to fail. Unfortunately editcountis will see to that. But, if we are going to disallow discussion of candidates with 1,000+ edits and nearly 2 years' experience, then we should have a policy saying that, and a ban on such discussions being initiated. The problems with Ballonman's actions, is that in a few months someone will say "hey 99% of candidates with under 3,000 edits fail" so let's close them, then if will be someone saying "ah, too little experience in AfD, this will surely fail, let's close it" and so on. If you want a minimum bar for RfAs to be discussed, I'm fine with that. Propose it and get consensus. Until then, leave all good faith nominations.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is a growing consensus that this RfA will fail, there is also a consensus that the editor is a good one. I think s/he, like all good faith editors, deserves some basic respect. In this case, that would be that it should be up to him or her in the first instance, to decide whether they want an early close. If anyone wants to suggest on their talk page, that it be closed, fine. But if s/he with a good record if not an outstanding one, wants to see their RfA out for the period that is prescribed in the policy, I think they should be able to. I realise that Balloonman and others have the feelings of the candidate in mind, but perhaps being booted out within an hour or two of opening the Rfa might also seem harsh. Maybe the candidate has some answers to the points being raised against him/her. At least s/he should have the chance to try or decide for her/himself if they've had enough. Dean B ( talk) 04:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment; I normally respect Ballonman's contributions, but I think his early close here was pretty insulting, and seems like an effort to pre-judge the RfA. I'm of the opinion that 'NOTNOW' closes should be done sparingly, only when a candidate is very new (say, less than three months old) or manifestly unfit for adminship (e.g. long history of vandalism, was only unbanned last week). I don't see that Sephiroth storm falls into that category (and in fact, I just gave him my support). Aggressive use of NOTNOW seems especially mistaken when RfA is going through a 'dry period', as seems to be the case recently; it's hardly as if we're suffering from a glut of admin candidacies, so what's the need to close 'doomed' RfAs early? If the candidate wants their RfA to be open for the full five days, they should have that right; even if it doesn't pass, they may learn something from it which will make it easier for them to pass next time. Terraxos ( talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I noted in my vote, I think the hostile reaction to this RfA is quite possibly part of the reason we don't get so many RfAs these days. When prospective admins look at cases like this and see how quickly candidacies are shut down for failing to meet some arbitrary edit count requirement, why should they bother to submit themselves in the first place? Ballonman's stated reason for closing the RfA was that Sephiroth storm is unlikely to pass given current 'community standards', but that just seems like circular logic to me; RfAs like this getting closed early is what creates 'community standards' for adminship. If you think those standards are too high, then you should do your bit to change them by encouraging 'sub-par' candidates to run against the traditional wisdom, not closing down their RfAs and declaring them hopeless. Terraxos ( talk) 05:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor side note, but RFAs normally run for seven days, not five. Just FYI. Useight ( talk) 05:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You call this RFA "hostile", but from what I see, all the opposers are citing "too little experience" or some derivative of that, which is pretty docile. In my experience, these look like valid reasons to oppose. Useight ( talk) 05:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Terraxos apparently doesn't agree with the "editcount" argument so he might disagree with you Use8.  :) Although it IS a valid reason to oppose, there now seems to be an edit count backlash (if you will) going on in Sephiroth's RFA, which is bad IMHO. So - I found another perfectly valid reason to oppose, and this one should be less controversial than my original reason. ArcAngel ( talk) 06:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb on snow/notnow for good faith nominations: If 24 hours old use standard snow rules - if it's hopeless consider a mercy killing, bearing in mind there may be value to keeping it open. If less than 24 hours not only must snow apply, but the nominator has to be so new/clueless that he wouldn't have bothered if he knew anything about RFA, and the nominee has to be so new/clueless that he would've declined if he knew what RFA was like. I've got a hunch this guy at least knows what admins do besides shooting vandals on sight after they've been sufficiently warned and continue to edit disruptively and deleting articles they don't like that have been properly marked for deletion through policy or process. In this case, recommending withdrawal or recommending he let it stay open for 2-3 days for more comments then withdrawing is probably in order. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is also just referring the candidate to WP:NOTNOW, asking them to read it, explaining that the RfA will not succeed and why, and then giving them the choice. Some editors may insist on keeping it open, in which case we have no right to close it. Most editors will probably listen and withdraw.-- Aervanath ( talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a small point but it's important to remember that snow and notnow are not rules. The rule is seven days. Dean B ( talk) 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see Balloonman interfering again in the RfA process. Irrespective of his opinion of the candidate's chance of passing, it is not his place to close RfAs as "Not now". While he can justify his claim, he does not have authority from the community to do this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I do get a bit annoyed with Balloonman's omnipresence at RFA sometimes, but seriously: anyone can/won't get blocked for closing something per NOTNOW, if they feel it really is a complete waste of time. -- Tombomp ( talk/ contribs) 12:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The important thing to remember is that RfA is not an election but a discussion. Thus a nomination should never be closed "because it will surely fail" but only when "there is really nothing to discuss". If someone with 6 edits files for adminship, NOTNOW is fine - because no one much is seriously going to want to discuss the possibility of adminshop. In the case here, if you look now there are 16 people supporting adminship. Now, there are also 20 opposing, so it is not rocket science to say it will fail, nevertheless people evidently want to discuss it, and that discussion may be useful to the candidate, and to the community in terms of claarifying what's important. Please do not ever close something unless it is evident that there's nothing left to discuss. (Fair enough to tell the candidate that it will fail, and that he might with to withdraw; but that's up to him!).-- Scott Mac (Doc) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick straw poll on asking candidate to withdraw before applying WP:NOTNOW

Please give your opinions below on whether and why you feel editors should be requested to withdraw voluntarily before having their RfA's closed per WP:NOTNOW. Please preface your statement with Always, Never, or Sometimes, with accompanying reason. Thanks,-- Aervanath ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Always should be notified first, per reasons already stated above.-- Aervanath ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Almost always--I don't know if 100% of the time needs to be chiseled in stone, but in general it makes sense and is most respectful. I think we should be careful not to work so hard to spare people's feelings that we end up making them feel pushed around. Talking to them gives them a heads up and an opportunity to get their voice heard on the matter. delldot ∇. 16:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Always - mind you, I did add that to WP:CRAT#Promotions some months ago and noone complained about it ;-) So Why 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Apparently it was already in the body of NOTNOW, as well; I've added it to the nutshell. Will anyone pay attention? We can hope.-- Aervanath ( talk) 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Always - swift trouting to notnow closers who ignore this (more than once - assume mistake rather than malice after all)-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Generally always. I have always felt that the spirit of NOTNOW and SNOW was to protect editors with a few dozen edits or with RfAs running at (0/20/0) and the like—editors that are clearly not going to pass—and not because their is no merit in discussing a failed proposition. We do not prevent people from running in democratic elections because they are not going to win, nor do we stop counting their votes after an hour if they are well behind the curve (this is an analogy, I do not believe RfA to be directly comparable to an election). Closures should always be discussed with the candidate and, if they wish a good faith RfA to remain open, I see no reason for it to be closed if it is not causing any disruption to the community (candidates often receive good advice from failed requests). I think that RfAs should only be speedily closed where the candidate has a very low edit count—probably less than 200— or where the nom is running somewhere similar to 0/20/0, although there should still be some discussion with the candidate prior to the closure. Rje ( talk) 18:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sometimes. If a candidate shows up with very few edits, I don't see a problem with delisting the RFA per SNOW or NOTNOW without notifying the candidate beforehand. However, the RFA should run long enough to garner a few comments. Just because the candidate has 27 edits doesn't mean we should remove the RFA immediately at 0/0/0. I'd want them to get a little feedback first. Once it falls to 0/5 or so, or maybe with a couple moral supports, then I'd say it could be removed. Upon removal, though, the candidate should be informed by the delister with an explanation. Useight ( talk) 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. I don't disagree with the gist of what Useight says above, but I'd add benefit of the doubt should always be in favour of discussion with the candidate first. Rje's standard is about right. Dean B ( talk) 18:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Always Closing RFA's is what we have Bureaucrats for. If you want to close one, the candidate needs to agree. If you want to close RFAs otherwise, open a RFB. RxS ( talk) 19:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sometimes. I'm in perfect agreement with User:Useight and there remains nothing I could add. — Aitias //  discussion 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Always. In all cases, closure should only be undertaken by a bureaucrat. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Sometimes - I am very much in agreement with Useight ( talk · contribs) here. For candidates with very few edits I think a request can be withdrawn without a request to the candidate first, though letting a few comments appear before closure is a good idea. For more established users, making a request to the candidate first is a good idea. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Always. Deb ( talk) 12:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree we've had non-crat closures of premature RfA's for long before I started working at RfA over a year ago. To my knowledge, we have never had one contested or protested like this one--and this one wasn't even contested by the person invovled. Non-crat closures have ALWAYS been busject to reopening, but they are closed as a preventive---to prevent the wikipedian from getting burnt unexpectedly. To this end, I think it is impractical to mandate contacting the wikipedian. Often times people transclude their RfA's and disappear or are not around when their RfA starts to go south. When it is clear that an RfA is not going to pass due to lack of experience, it should be closed. The person who closes it should (as I do) leave a note on the person's page and let them know what they did and that they can reopen their RfA if they so choose. The advantage of a non-crat closure over a crat closure is that non-crat closures can be easily reopened with little or no stigma, if a 'crat closes an RfA that is going to fail, then it has a stronger feel of finality. Anybody can reverse a non-crat closure, only a crat can reverse another crat closure.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• If I might be permitted to make an observation here - NOTNOW was written by a few of us (mostly me, actually, with a reasonable degree of pinching of other peoples words and well modified afterwards) as an alternative to SNOW. The reason was very simple - telling someone who made a good faith request for adminship that it didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell is WP:BITEy to the extreme. Telling them it is likely to fail because of (as yet and probably never) uncodified community standards, and giving them some hints on what to do and why they shouldn't be discouraged seems - very simply - more friendly and opening than the SNOWball close. What the community does with NOTNOW is not for me to say but I can certainly tell you why it was written in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We now have people by the dozens saying -- without any subtlety or irony -- that edit count is equivalent to experience. Is WP:AAAD obsolete? Is editcountitis not an affliction anymore? Is "I looked at a number and it wasn't big enough" just as valid a basis for discussion as "I reviewed some of the candidate's contributions"? It's not like RfA is difficult to keep up with these days -- there should be plenty of time to actually look into each candidate's strengths and weaknesses. rspεεr ( talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"I looked at a number and it wasn't big enough", and the number was 2. That was the number of edits (other than tweaks) in the area in which the candidate wants to do admin work. Am I being too harsh? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 12:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind I had a total of two edits to the RFPP page before I was promoted. It's now the project space page I have most edits to. You don't need nearly as much experience as people think. Majorly talk 13:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot more to wp:AAAD than editcountitis, I don't think it is obsolete but I do think it would be good to get our current RFA !voting regulars to review it. Perhaps there are some changes that could be made to WP:AAAD if it was reviewed, and perhaps some of the reviewers will reconsider their RFA standards when they read it, I certainly did. Were Spiel Chequers 13:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:AAAD is any less relevant than WP:ATA is. In both, the arguments listed are usually bad ones. However, in extreme cases, they make sense. For example, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is one of the most oft-cited examples of a bad argument in a deletion discussion. But, in the extreme case, it is valid: "We have an article on Saudi Arabia, why are you deleting the article on Iran?" is a perfectly valid question to ask in a deletion debate. Why? Because it leads to people figuring out a general rule: "Countries are notable". (Yes, I'm oversimplifying; overlook it for the sake of argument, please.) In the extreme case, someone who has 0 edits to any Wikimedia project has no grounds to show that he is trustworthy with the tools; so "not enough edits" is clearly a valid concern here. The problems come in differences in interpretation: "minimum requirements for adminship" has been discussed so many times that it's been listed at WP:PEREN, yet WP:NOTNOW is a license to do exactly that. I am going to repeat my recommendation above: ask the candidate to withdraw before you close it per WP:NOTNOW.-- Aervanath ( talk) 14:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a low edit count puts the onus on the candidate or his supporters to show that the candidate is outstanding in some other way. It sets a presumption against him. If he actually uses the preview changes button and has a low edit count, but very high quality (let's say significant contributor on an FA) he's going to get my attention.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick straw poll on obsoleteness of WP:AAAD

Please give your opinions below on whether and why feel WP:AAAD is obsolete or not. Please preface your statement with completely irrelevant, completely relevant, or partiallly relevant, with accompanying reason. Thanks,-- Aervanath ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Completely relevant for the reasons stated above.-- Aervanath ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Completely relevant I believe that our wide range of RFA standards and a tendency amongst some !voters to standard inflation is the main reason why so many of us consider that RFA is broken. Reading wp:AAAD is a great antidote to that. Were Spiel Chequers 15:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Completely relevant Mostly per WereSpielChequers Tombomp ( talk/ contribs) 15:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Completely relevant: Even though everyone seems to ignore it, this is a great essay that all !voters should bear in mind. Dendodge Talk ^Contribs 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Completely relevent - AAAD is an excellent club with which to bludgeon those not so involved in the RFA process as to be hashing out policies/guidelines/essays rather than writing articles & whatnot. Without it, we'd need to listen to the ideas and opinions of all editors! How else can WT:RFA regulars redicule away other editors with seemingly reasonable opinions? Wily D 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this actually just a facetious vote for irrelevancy? I'm trying to keep this at least mildly serious, I don't mind sarcasm, but it's much less clear when typed than when spoken.-- Aervanath ( talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Uhm - my comment is serious. The style and placement are intended to be ironic. Wily D 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Completely relevant - Whether it was facetious or not, this is definitely important enough to be in the Wikipedia space. Surely, if all those other minor, unimportant user essays get moved to the wikipedia space, shouldn't this stay?
  • No, those terrible essays should all be sent where they belong /dev/null userspace. Wily D 20:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Also, does this count as a consensus? Ceran ^→// forge 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not yet. There are tens of regulars here, and this has only been open for a few hours. Give it a few days before declaring consensus.-- Aervanath ( talk) 17:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Meh It is relevant, but we have multiple conflicting conceptions of what experience is and what RfA is supposed to determine. I can just as convincingly argue that actual experience (the commission of the act) is required as I could argue that experience is not a substitute for wisdom. I could argue (and have, at times) that RfA obviates the need for "experience" becuse we could literally observe every action ever made by the candidate (in other words, the information asymmetries that force us to demand arbitrary levels of experience in normal job interviews are mellowed here). I could argue that "editcountitis" is less a sign of the community's inability to be flexible and more a sign that it is maturing. I could argue the reverse. An "arguments to avoid" page will relate to all of these stances but not connect with them. Protonk ( talk) 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Blue haired anime girls are hot and by that, I mean, relevant. Ottava Rima ( talk) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Like this? - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Mostly irrelevant AAAD represents a nice ideal, sort of, but there's no indication I'm aware of that any recent RfA has turned on 'crats determining one side or the other was using too many of the "arguments to avoid." It might be useful as guidance to new RfA participants, but experienced contributors post Support JOKE-LOL votes all the time, and nobody seems terribly bothered. Townlake ( talk) 18:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Mostly irrelevant per Townlake, who put into words what I've been mulling in my head much of the morning. And how about those anime girls! Woot!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Mostly irrelevant It's just a irritatingly overused essay cited by people who don't like certain arguments or formulated rationales. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 18:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Completely relevant Though I'd never use it myself, it's fun to chuckle at people using crappy rationale :) Majorly talk 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Mostly irrelevant Really not very useful...it's fine to express personal opinion but it shouldn't ever be used as part of a rational when using SNOW or NOTNOW. RxS ( talk) 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• It's relevant for sure. And it would be nice if more people followed it. (must have 10,000 edits, 3 FAs) NuclearWarfare _{( Talk)} 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Meaningless Arguments to Avoid has become more of "guidance on the proper way to frame an argument." It is also meaningless because we support people's rights to oppose for just about every reason. We may not agree with them, but Arguments to Avoid has little value, and is not accepted in any way as authoritative.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion. "People usually don't follow AAAD" and "people usually do follow it" are not verifiable statements, or at least it would be way more work to prove it than anyone is going to do. "I take off-wiki activities into account" isn't quite verifiable, but it's at least discussable in a rational way, if you have a voting record at RFA. "I never say 'per all the above' " [an "argument to avoid"] is flat-out verifiable, if it turns out you do sometimes vote that way, and for that reason, people are more likely to know the answer to that question, and they're more likely to spend some time thinking about whether they can back it up before they write that down as their answer ... they don't want to get caught in a lie. People will say "people do this" or "people do that" without giving it much thought, and polls on what people in general do or don't do aren't taken very seriously, for that reason. Candidates would probably be more interested in a survey of what voters say about how they themselves vote than a survey of what voters say about how other people vote. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC) tweaked 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think I'd visited this talk page in a year and boom, the day I drop by for old time's sake, I find a relevant discussion! WP:AAAD has always been and will remain a piece of junk. It's a condescending guideline that explains why you're an idiot for saying this or that on an RfA. There has never been a single editor who was told "didn't you read the guideline you idiot?" and saw the light. It's also a great way for people to invent new ways of opposing RfAs. Hey, it's not on the list so it must clearly be legitimate. The whole idea of guidelines about "what not to say" is ill-conceived. What we need are guidelines that explain the responsibilities that people have when participating at RfAs. Yeah, that would make for a boring guideline but I don't see pictures of beans on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Recently, we almost promoted an unstable editor with a history of extremely serious behaviour. But he'd made friends on IRC and on the barnstar trading market. Did people take time to seriously review his history? Nope. The only way to improve RfA is to patiently explain to people why we want them to get involved because RfA is important but also why we want them to take the task seriously. The tongue-in-cheek approach of AAAD is useless and I'm tempted to say that it's part of the problem. RfA regulars have just accepted the mantra that RfA is broken and that it would all be nice and sweet if only idiots started reading AAAD. That's not the right mindset. RfA won't stop being a circus because we scream "you're all clowns".

Jeez, that was a fun rant, I should come to WT:RFA more often. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Irrelevant like any essay. Anyone can put together something, crap or a spark of genius, why should I care? Numbers don't equate to trust, neither is someone's glorified rant. NVO ( talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Completely relevant Patton ^{t/ c} 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Completely Relevant - The page in question isn't regulating what general arguments are valid or not; I see it more as a reminder to keep arguments focused on how opposing a candidate has relevance to how they will perform as an administrater, rather than using some arbitrary standard. The more detailed and convincing an oppose is, the more weight it will bear. Master&Expert ( Talk) 01:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Partially relevant. I don't think opinions should be discounted on an RFA because the given reason is poor. Barring extraordinary restrictions from ArbCom, there are no policies which govern when a person is qualified to be an administrator. The decision is left to the community consensus, which provides an air of openness and involvement, but is at the cost of people making arguments which can easily be deemed as faulty. The main reason people should make good relevant arguments is that they can convince other people to vote in the same way they do, and to that end, AAAD has some real relevance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Partially relevant - The essay contains some good advice on what arguments to make at RfA, so it has some relevance. On the other hand though it is only an essay and users are not obliged to follow it, so comments should/are not discounted just because they don't follow it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• The opinions of RfA regulars are completely irrelevant. Also, per Pascal. Giggy ( talk) 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Essay should be read in context to what was happening in RfA at time of creation. Also, nutshell and content of the essay doesn't add up. Essentially it's just an appeal for participants to explain their rationales better. Whether it's relevant or not, still comes down to the mother of all debates : is RfA a vote/!vote/discussion. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• This is irrelevant. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Different question

Has the guidance from AAAD ever impacted the outcome of an RfA outside the discretion range (aside from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_3)? How many RfAs inside the discretion range could reasonably be said to have been closed differently due to "arguments" being unconvincing? As far as I know, ATA works because AfD isn't a vote. But RfA is. So the question "Is AAAD relevant to community norms about RfA?" is different from "Is AAAD relevant to outcomes at RfA?" Protonk ( talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason ATA works for XfD is simply because there is a written rubric that governs inclusion which does not exist for administrator promotion. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is some unified text governing inclusion. It's certainly easier to look at the collection of texts regarding article inclusion and come to a conclusion which is easy to defend. But a huge part of it has to do with the fact that Afd isn't a vote and RfA is. Protonk ( talk) 22:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see AfD as a discussion anymore than RfA is. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 22:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's old data, but I like this plot. Excluding the 60% promotion of Carnildo, every single RfA above 75% has passed and every single RfA below 70% has failed. Between 70% and 75%, the likelihood of passing seems to increase in proportion to the percentage of supporting editors. in other words, after a few days, there seems to be few points where a low percentage/high probability "bubble" appears. If that isn't a vote, I don't know what is. I get your message.  :) I can see the argument that AfD isn't a discussion, but assuming that there is some gradient, AfD lies closer to a discussion than RfA does. Protonk ( talk) 23:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding RfA, obviously, but as far as AfD is concerned, I fail to see much gravitation towards any real discussion. Infamous "per nom" votes abound, and any lengthy post is usually paraphrasing what some policy says about inclusions/deletion. Maybe it's just me, I don't know. Nevertheless, I still think it's significant that much of AfD is far less opinionated than RfA. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 23:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Success rates

I think the most interesting thing about the plot that Protonk linked to is that it has implications for WP:SNOW closures of RfA's: according to that plot, from Feb 2007 - Feb 2008, there is a 100% failure rate for those who haven't reached a 60% support ratio after one day. I'd be interested to see the same data in the same format for the most recent year. User:Dragons_flight has stated he's not willing to do it again by himself, because the data are no longer easily collated by User:DFBot. Has someone else already collated the date he'd need to do another plot?-- Aervanath ( talk) 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

teh Fuck?

Why the straw poll? An essay is automatically "obsolete" because it's a compilation of opinions. It isn't required to be adhered to or meant to be used as an excuse for making/reverting changes. There's nothing to decide here, what's the point?-- Koji † 03:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, we're not deciding anything with the poll: we're just gathering opinions to see if something comes up that COULD be adhered to.-- Aervanath ( talk) 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Some folks do take these "essays" seriously, let's play their game. NVO ( talk) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In this pair of edits Neurolysis ( talk · contribs) indented Flying Cactus ( talk · contribs)'s oppose, on the grounds that the user was "clearly abusive sock, about to be hit with some sort of block." There is no evidence of sockpuppetry on his user page, his user talk page, or in the block log.

It's one thing to point out to the closing 'crat that the editor is blocked and why, it's another to in effect page-ban him from a given RFA retroactively. Since the editor in question is currently blocked he's not in a position to make a clarification or anything. Now, if he was blocked or banned at the time of the edit, then undoing the edit is justified.

Your thoughts? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Flying Cactus was also indented in Rootology's just-concluded RfA (not by Neurolysis), for whatever it's worth. Doesn't strike me as a best practice to do that, but doesn't terribly bug me either. Townlake ( talk) 05:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

blocked.-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the indentation happened 3 minutes after that.-- Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point is if a non-banned editor edits an RFA at 12:01AM then is blocked at 12:02AM, even for things that happened before 12:01AM, his edit should stand. Now, if he's a block- or ban-evading user then of course it should not. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree on that. After all, it does not hurt us to keep those !votes and they may even have valuable information. So Why 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

i've never really liked indenting !votes simply because the user was blocked. That being said, if the user was blocked for being disruptive, and part of their disruptive behavior was on RFA, then I can see it. If the user was blocked for being a SOCK, and the SOCKmaster already participated, then it definitely should be indented---in this case, I would even go so far as to say, that it could be indented after the RfA was closed! (Or bare minimum a note should be added to the RfA to that affect.) If the block is an indef block, I can see it, but if it is a short term block, then I wouldn't indent.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I indented the one sock (Kristen something) and EVula came around and said just to remove it completely. I don't mind either way (indenting, or removing). However, blocked users who are blocked for sock puppetry definitely don't deserve a vote. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just removed a ridiculous question from our latest RfA. I am on the record as saying that most questions asked in RfA add little to no value, but I'm sorry, asking about whether or not human hybrids should be allowed to edit wikipedia adds no insight to whether or not a person is qualified to be an admin. We talk about how ridiculous RfA has become---well, asking questions that have ZERO merit is a major part of the problem. If anybody, other than keepscases thinks this question has value, then they can revert me... but come on.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think the problems with RFA stem from humorous (seriously!) questions like that. It's not really serious but I don't see the harm oh well Tombomp ( talk/ contribs) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Full endorsement of B-man's actions. Tan | 39 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this process is enough of an exam as it is. No more stupid questions. Majorly talk 19:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If the question was not marked as "ha ha" then it should have been removed. The person asking it should be free to restore it with a clearly marked joke tag. I have a better joke question though: Should humans who are not hybrids be allowed to edit Wikipedia? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The link I just attempted to post was filtered out for some reason, but do a little research online and you'll find that unexpected questions are universally appreciated as being helpful to evaluate a candidate. You'll also notice that my talk page is filled with messages from established users who appreciate my questions (although, in the interest of full disclosure, there are some from the self-appointed RfA police too). There is no Wikipedia policy that stops me (or any user) from asking whatever questions we wish. Keepscases ( talk) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They need to be remotely relevant to the interview, however. Asking inane, nonsensical questions - like you are wont to do - is simply disruptive. There is also no Wikipedia policy that stops me (or any user) from removing your disruptive questions. Tan | 39 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is no policy preventing you from posting such questions. Fortunately there is no policy preventing other editors removing them. It's probably a good question for someone somewhere in th ebig wide world - but not here I feel. Pedro :  Chat  20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Keepscases' questions help bring a lighter atmosphere into an often tense and stressful situation. Useight ( talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(mega edit conflicts) We are evaluating the candidate, therefore, any and all responses to any and all questions are very much relevant. It is others who make this disruptive. For the love of God, every question I post is clearly marked as optional, and the candidate does not need to answer it if he or she does not want to. And if you don't like it, you don't need to read it nor consider it in your evaluation. Keepscases ( talk) 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying any text at all placed into the RfA is relevant. It's disruptive, end of story. Stop using RfA as your own personal amusement park - go get a blog; update your Facebook profile, whatever. Tan | 39 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I predict that, should this discussion continue, about half of the users who participate will see no problem whatsoever. Perhaps you still have a thing or two to learn about tolerance. Keepscases ( talk) 20:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You should be instated as a crat for cleaning up the obvious around here. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't see it as that harmful to have obviously silly questions, since that probably doesn't put much pressure on the candidate the way sincere tough questions like "why have you never posted to ANI" do (and as I understand it, that's why we're concerned). But it is kind of an annoying and inconsiderate thing to do; if nothing else it lowers the signal to noise ratio and creates more crap for people to have to read. The more chaff there is, the less likely people are going to be to do a good job reviewing the RfA--there's only so much time we're willing to put into it. So understand that it's an annoyance to a lot of the people who read it and take that into account before doing it. delldot ∇. 20:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

<insert auto-support of unexpected questions here>  Frank  |   talk  20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we all talking about the same question here? I for one consider the question of whether theoretical human-animal hybrids should edit Wikipedia (or what they should actually be permitted to do) to be *really fucking interesting*. The question is not all that different from number four on Chuck Klosterman's renowned list of questions: http://melanism.com/2006/07/chuck-klostermans-23-questions-i-ask.html Keepscases ( talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be "really fucking interesting" (I personally prefer his how-much-money-would-you-pay-the-wizard-to-make-you-more-attractive question), but the question section is not for your own "personal fucking amusement". Tan | 39 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On this we agree. The question section is for users to evaluate an RfA candidate. Keepscases ( talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How does a question about human-animal hybrids help you evaluate a candidate? -- Kbdank71 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to give away the sort of answer I personally would appreciate, but I think Dlohcierekim put it nicely below. Keepscases ( talk) 21:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps by seeing how they respond to it? Just a thought. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A hypothetical question about something that doesn't exist? I don't think there is any way they could answer that which would let me know if they are going to abuse the tools. -- Kbdank71 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to the pro removers, what's disruptive is getting aggravated with harmless humor and making such an issue of it, complete with removal of the comments of others. And the questions do give us a peak inside the candidate's mind and personality, so they are germane. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And there's obviously a lot of people who think the questions are not germane. If we go with Keepscases estimate above that half the participants will see no problem, that means half the participants will see problem. Half of editors having issues is a lot of editors. One or two, no problem. Take a look at his talk page - it's a very frequent concern. Let's look at some of the "germane" gems, shall we?

1. What virus do you believe currently poses the most danger to humanity? Why?
2. Do you believe that .99999... = 1? Why or why not?
3. Please compose a limerick about your Wikipedia experiences.
4. Do you intend on editing Wikipedia whilst flying an airplane?

These are not "germane". Keepscases is simply looking for attention by being silly. Enough. Tan | 39 21:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that has ever interacted directly with me will know that I'm a fan of humor. I love jokes... but RfA is a semi-serious matter. Joke questions are plenty welcome in the RfX's twilight period, where it would require a major shift to deviate the process. If the question were to be placed on a near-unanimous RfA a couple of days before the closing date, that'd be fine. But this was on the first day... no, sorry, that's silly for the sake of being silly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The questions are not intended as jokes. The questions that Tan has posted above are very much applicable to the RfA candidates in question, if you look at them in context. Perhaps you can ask those candidates if they were offended or annoyed by the questions. If it doesn't bother *them*, it shouldn't bother *you*. Keepscases ( talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

...how big of an idiot do you think I am that I'd actually believe that this is a "serious" question? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the concept of human-animal hybrids is serious business. Keepscases ( talk) 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is not whether anyone was 'offended' by these questions; it's whether they're helpful to the RFA process, which they're obviously not. I don't know how the admin candidates feel, but many regular voters including myself are starting to get quite annoyed by them. Keepscases, please stop adding pointless questions - it's starting to look like disruptive editing. Terraxos ( talk) 21:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, *this right here* is disruptive--and not brought upon by me. Keepscases ( talk) 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the last thing a candidate wants during an RfA is a batch of stupid and incomprehensible questions. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you are talking about my questions, I don't think you could be any more wrong. Why don't you go read the answers to those questions, or talk to the candidates themselves? Keepscases ( talk) 21:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was asked a Keepscases question at my RFA. I was also asked a similar-level question by User:Dragons flight. I appreciated them both as a humorous break. Useight ( talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought all this brought back a memory. I was right, see this discussion. Basically same user, same idiotic questions. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And many people who agree I have the right to ask them. What's your point? Keepscases ( talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Keepscases obviously intends to continue to be disruptive, citing the support of some other editors and ignoring the views of many others. I intend to remove obviously disruptive questions from future RfAs. Tan | 39 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then this concern will be elevated. Note: I don't want that to happen. I want you to leave me alone. Keepscases ( talk) 21:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you should stop asking unconstructive questions at RFA, and start asking actually useful ones. No one has a right to ask questions here - if your questions aren't helpful, they should be removed. Terraxos ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Elevate away. I've had enough of your bullshit, as have many, many other editors. Tan | 39 21:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very dangerous path. Who appointed you as the judge of what is "obviously disruptive"? -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If, as you assert above, Keepsakes, that question was serious then I would say the political overtone bars it anyhow IMHO. We judge editors by their edit history, not if they are black or white, gay or straight, left wing or right wing, or what the repercussion may be of some bill in some country most of the rest of the world thinks considerably less important than it seems to think it is. Very often I find that if you can't find the answer to a relevant opinion or thought process a candidate may have by carefuly reviewing edits, then you probably didn't review hard enough. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

*yawn* Here we go again... — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

<<ec- may have missed something above this>>AND, if as asserted above, keeps is attention seeking, then we are rewarding/reinforcing the behavior with all of this. The way to extinguish attention seeking is to ignore it. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To expand, do none of us have anything better to do these days? It's common sense to anyone that a question thats irrelevent to the process is downright pointless, whether it is classified as being light-hearted (or humourous) or not. Fully understand B'mans actions in removing it, and fully support Dloh's idea of just ignoring further instances. There, a win for both parties. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked, and it appears that this "Keepscases" account has been used for trolling RFAs ever since it was new, well over a year ago. I suggest removing nonsense on sight and not discussing it. DFTT and all that. Friday (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better myself... Majorly talk 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As usual, my take is a little different: I don't think we should disallow questions from someone who is here to help, but I do think that we're failing our duties to candidates and to Wikipedia if we don't at least consider the question of a topic ban (page ban in this case) if there's strong evidence that someone is here to cause problems ... and that would include someone who genuinely believes they're here to help, and who gets occasional support from other users, but who never or rarely does anything helpful. I think Keepscases' strongest defense is "You'll also notice that my talk page is filled with messages from established users who appreciate my questions", so let's look at that:

• support from Travellingcari, who exercised the right to vanish
• a barnstar from Eco; let's not go there
• support from Masterpiece2000, who has no edits since Sept 7
• support from User:neuro, User:Mazca, User:Xeno and User:Dlohcierekim. I don't think we can chuck Keepscases out without paying careful attention to the positions of his or her supporters, and I think it would be a good idea to have those conversations. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if we're going to overlay support for these questions from his talk page to this conversation, we should probably do the same with the complaints, as well. Tan | 39 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dank55, why did you stop there? I am sure you can find many more supporters on my talk page. Keepscases ( talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For example...  Frank  |   talk  22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Who did I miss, Keepscases? Frank, I saw your comment; it seemed more like a support for process and less like a support for Keepscases, but if you say it's a support, then it's a support. I have invited the 4 other people who offered what looked like support to me on Keepscases' talk page to argue their case here. It seems like an interesting question to me, and an opportunity to show respect both for the voters and for the candidates. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 22:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Asenine, Synergy and Mr. IP read as unquestionably support; additionally, why not ask the many editors who responded that they answered my question? Firefoxman, Philosopher, Aleta, KnightLago... Keepscases ( talk) 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors feel obligated to answer your "questions", as they do all other ones. We've had this discussion many times in other threads; the questions are by and large not "optional", despite how they are labelled. You are misinterpreting their humoring you for the sake of their RfA passing for welcoming the question. If I was asked some ridiculous question during my RfA, I would probably answer it, too, if nothing else but to purchase your support. Tan | 39 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that only one of us feels it necessary to speak for others. Keepscases ( talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh? I thought after "you'll find that unexpected questions are universally appreciated as being helpful to evaluate a candidate", we were allowed to speak for, well, for everyone. Tan | 39 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See Frank's break below. Keepscases ( talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan - I've supported wherever I've seen this discussion; I chose that particular link because it was from Keep's page. I've actually supported more often and more strongly elsewhere because it's the concept I support, not the person (or animal-human hybrid) asking the questions.  Frank  |   talk  22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put myself on the supportive side, quite the opposite, I was on the "threatening to block for disruption" side. Other users later convinced me to relax my position. See User talk:Xeno/Archive 6#MFC RfA and its subthreads for more on this. – xeno ( talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• May I make an observation? The combination of non-serious questions, editors who are vocal in their opposition to such questions, and editors who are vocal in their support for such questions is creating a tempest in a teapot. How many editor-hours have been spent on this thread that would otherwise be spent creating content, administering the encyclopedia, or engaging in more important discussions elsewhere in Wikipedia:-space? Just a thought. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To be fair, that statement can be applied to practically any discussion on Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1

Don't we have any managers who interview and hire people around here...or folks who have interviewed for jobs? I know we are in a recession, but these questions are par for the course during many hiring situations.  Frank  |   talk  22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever asked a totally off the wall question in an interview, myself. Maybe I'll try it next week for the next few applicants, though, and see what happens. Avruch ^T 23:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, try number 4, some wildcard interview questions, and here's a relevant article: Don't Get Stumped by Off-the-Wall Job Interview Questions.  Frank  |   talk  23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Off the wall interview questions were all the rage a few years ago, but they have gone out of favor over the past few years. Managers want to know that people know how to do the job, not handle bizarre questions. Also, this isn't an interview, this is a review. You should have more than enough information based on the candidates edits to evaluate them... and THEN if you still have questions ask them.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, saving 20% for a down-payment before buying a house was all the rage a few years ago too, but that appears to have gone out of favor as well...and look where that has gotten us.  Frank  |   talk  01:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin candidates are big boys and girls - they should be able to take care of themselves. If they want to respond, let them. If they choose to ignore the questions, let them. If they choose to remove the questions entirely, fine. It's their nomination. But I don't see the need for every Tom, Dick and Harry to jump in and try and save them from what are pretty innocuous, if ridiculous, questions. - Chunky Rice ( talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was invited to return to this. In skimming what has been written, I just gotta agree with Davidwr above, and chunky after ec. Dloh cierekim 23:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - I really think it should be up to the candidate to decide on the relevance of a question - I know that in any hypothetical future RfA I may inflict upon myself I'd prefer to have that choice. I have never had a problem with Keepscases's questions, and I have honestly found them quite enlightening in some cases: The odd curveball of a question sometimes brings out an aspect of the nominee's personality that I find can tell me a lot about their suitability for adminship. While certainly an excess of such weird questions is worth avoiding, I personally think RfA would be poorer if there were none. ~ mazca ^{t| c} 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I had five edit conflicts posting that response. I think this topic is indeed providing the drama today. ~ mazca ^{t| c} 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've supported his questions in the past, and I'm happy to do it again, even if I am somewhat struggling against the tide. I don't think anyone is going to oppose over a candidate not answering a lighthearted question, and if they are, that's perfectly within their rights. Has nobody thought that these questions could be intended to see the actual nature of the candidate when they are posed with a silly question? — neuro ^(talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I suck at this 'section' thing. — neuro ^(talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This was my response over on Dloh's talk page: Looking quickly, it looks like something over 90% of the people who have commented think something should be done about Keepscases' questions (although there isn't any consensus on what should be done), and I think any time you've got those kind of numbers, we should at least talk. If we can assemble a handful of arguments from people who have strong feelings that Keepscases is fine and he should be able to ask any questions he wants to, then we have a good argument that we're not being slack at RFA and letting people be disruptive, we're listening respectfully to what some of the participants want and respecting minority opinions, even if we don't agree or understand. Or, if we get very high numbers for limiting Keepscases' questions, that would also demonstrate that we're actively trying to make RFA work better for voters and especially candidates. As long as we have a serious conversation and record the results, it seems like a win-win to me. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody should be allowed whatever questions they like. It's not for some self-appointed censor to decide what questions may or may not be asked. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go that far. While I find these particular questions harmess and that they should be dealt with the nominee however they see fit, it's certainly possible for a question to cross the line and violate one of our policies, in which case anybody should feel comfortable removing it. For example, if the question was "I believe that you are Joe Smith who lives at 123 Main Street in Anytown, USA. Is that true?" clearly violates our outing/harassment policy and is something that should be removed. - Chunky Rice ( talk) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In support of what Malleus has said, and without trying to speak for him, I would say that any question which doesn't violate any other policies should be allowed. A few particular policies I recall now - not an exhaustive list - are WP:HARRASS, WP:POINT (which these questions are not), and WP:AGF.  Frank  |   talk  01:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Malleus, Chunky, Dan, and Frank. Dloh cierekim 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To all who made a huge fuss about these questions instead of making a fuss about how people should evaluate candidates better evaluating a candidate, or something; Why So Serious? Giggy ( talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not-so-arbitrary break #2

This may seem personal, but that's not the intent, since this is a community discussion started by Balloonman...to whom I mainly direct this question: how do you reconcile RMV Ridiculous question, if anybody disagrees with me, they can add it back, but this is pathetic and Being bold and standing up to a crat, which was a revert of a 'crat essentially doing the same thing?  Frank  |   talk  02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, one is a dumb off-topic question, one is a dumb off-topic oppose... wait a sec... Majorly talk 02:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I though we were electing admins here, not politicians..-- Comet styles 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't elect admins here, we !elect them. There !s a d!fference. dav!dwr/( talk)/( contr!bs)/( e-mail) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

{{ citation needed}} NuclearWarfare _{( Talk)} 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, just because it is not a vote does not mean it is not politicized. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are no guidelines/policies to instruct viewers on the nature or purpose of "optional" questions. Therefore any conceivable question can be posed to an RfA applicant. The applicant is permitted not to answer. However while no guideline/policy exists, this sort of question will remain admissable. In my opinion, this is part of the problem of the current RfA process. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's symptomatic of the whole Wiki process. There is no problem with silly questions, nor the removal thereof, nor is there a reason to impose guidelines or policies for a situation which happens approximately one time every 47 or so blue moons. We have lots of guidelines and policies for the situations which do happen more often, as well as one rule to rule them all which tells us to ignore all the others in case of emergency. And, strangely enough, it's gotten us through 8 years, 1600+ admins, and more than 2.5 million articles. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.-- Aervanath ( talk) 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a decent question: Answer: Simple, lets see if an Oppose were written, "Oppose, Person doesn't beleive that half human hybrids should have wikipedia accounts." Then I could see such an oppose being striken---but even then I would tread with care. I supported Kurt's banter, because !voting is different from asking questions. Everybody has the right to oppose for assinine reasons. But, asking assinine questions? There is different from having a ridiculous position, and asking somebody else to partake in such idiocity. There I think we need to start asking ourselves, "What can we do to make this process better?" EVERYBODY agrees that this process, while it might be the best system we can agree to, is not a system anybody willingly looks forward to. It is already tough enough without having people trying to trip you up or ask convoluted questions that add nothing. This question adds ZERO value to the discussion (and no it does not serve the role that you claim it does ala off the wall questions at Interviews. Those questions are designed to see how people think on the spot and react. Questions here can be ignored for hours while composing responses.) Keepscases questions have been discussed before because they are nothing but disruptive. As EVula put it above, funny questions can be asked near the end of an RfA that is clearly going one way or another, but at the start, it serves no legit value.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: And for the record, the reason why I posted my actions here, wasn't to create this flury of activity, but rather as a check on my actions. When I invited somebody to undo me, I was being serious, I asked to make sure that I wasn't out of line ;-) But wow, this has been an interesting train wreck. Which is another big difference, there is a difference between somebody indenting an !vote saying that they don't think it should be counted and a person doing so as a crat and making it sacrosant. Nilchap's indenting !votes would have had a different take, if he had done so, and started a discussion saying, 'This is what I did and why.' Instead, making that change as as crat, had a finality to it that said, "and thus spoke a crat." One of the strengths of WP is that with a few exceptions, most comments/edits can be reverted/challenged by another user---whether non-admin, admin, or crat. During the discussion phase, my voice is no more important/valid than a person who just joined WP. Nor is it less important than a 'crat who has been editing for 3 years. That is the strength of WP, the problem with Nilchap's edit (IMHO) is that it was claiming finality/authority, which I do not believe being a crat conveys.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)(Again, this is not a slight against Nichalp, I disagree with his actions in that event, I firmly believe that he exceeded his authority and stand behind my actions {as did many others} but it doesn't lower my respect for Nichalp and what he does around the project.)--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you make my case (supporting almost any question) for me. There are RfXs that have been derailed because of lack of decorum on the part of candidates; asking non-standard questions enables the community to gauge temperament more easily. Wikipedia in general - and RfX in particular - cause folks to enter a time warp that has an odd effect on many people, so even if a few hours of real time pass before an answer is given, the answer itself is still indicative of the candidate's temperament. And - more to the point - the amount of time spent on the answer can also tell us a lot. As for making the process better, I believe that WP:PERENNIAL rules the day here, and any significant change will be in some future incarnation that may well not be called "Wikipedia".  Frank  |   talk  15:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Er no. You cannot tell anything by delays in responding. Non standard questions don't give you a true guage on the candidates temperament... if it isn't revealed in the candidates edit history, then it is usually revealed via the candidates responses to opposes. I have yet to see somebody cite the response to a non-standard goofball question in their oppose. As for WP:PEREN that is a straw man. You can't discount efforts to improve a process that is decaying by saying it is impossible to do so.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been many off-the-wall RFA questions, Frank, and many answers, so if you believe they tell us something useful about the candidate, please pick one and tell us how it helped make your decision. I'll respond to your second point ... that there's no point in trying to do anything to improve the RFA process ... after we've sorted out the current question, because that's a handful on its own. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 15:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I'm supporting the right of editors to ask the questions; I'm not saying I find any particular question (or editor) to be crucial to the process. However, I can see three supports in Firefoxman's RfA that specifically mention the haiku; I make no representation that they were only based on the haiku (in fact, I hope not), but they clearly found it worthy of mention. And while I would have to dig for some other RfAs, we certainly have had some that failed because of the candidate responding to the opposers, often one in particular; here's an example. Just to be clear - I viewed Kurt's robotic opposes as useful to the process as well, and while I won't necessarily say I miss them...they did serve a very similar purpose, and I fully supported his right to express his opinions.  Frank  |   talk  16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not arbitrary break at all

The question was asked on my RfA, and was really rather silly indeed. I have no issue with Baloonman removing it. Suffice it to say that if he hadn't, I would have answered it! Of course, if people ask silly questions, they will get silly answers! I suspect that playing along with the silliness would probably have garnered me some more opposes, due to a failure to take RfA seriously enough.... Mayalld ( talk) 15:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

BINGO!--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And a few more opposes would have made what difference exactly? The questions are optional. If you, the candidate, choose to ignore them, answer them in what you believe to be an appropriately silly way, remove them .. that's your prerogative. It is not, however, the prerogative of any passing Tom, Dick, or Harry, to take it upon themselves to be the judge and jury as to which optional questions are, or are not, appropriate. -- Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is why some of us are asking everyone to weigh in, so that we can say whether there's any consensus or not and what the minority opinions are, rather than stridently asserting that our one opinion trumps everyone else's. (Not that you're doing that, Malleus, but whever we try to do some consensus-gathering, there will always be a few voices to whom that applies.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Excactly, I brought my action here, not to turn this into a 300K discussion, but rather to get others to weigh in, therein lies the key difference.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Those arguing for change have to make a better case than those arguing for the status quo. I am deeply unhappy with the idea of some self-appointed, sanctimonious prig, deciding what are and what are not appropriate optional questions. I'm directing that comment generally, not at any individual; as you point out Dank55, some try to stridently assert that their opinion carries more moral weight than that of those who who disagree with them. Unacceptable. -- Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in to say "what M.F. said". And, as an aside, if a candidate (generally speaking, not geared towards you, Mayalid) needs </joke> tags to distinguish between what is and is not funny or what should or should not be laughed at, then said candidate has severe troubles with either reading comprehension or independent thought. While too much independent thought may not be such a good thing, I believe it's safe to say that at least some of such is a critical skill for sysops. Badger Drink ( talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The sad thing is, I am not convinced that Keeps/Frank see these as "joke" questions. They are being defended as valid question to challenge the nominee.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's look once again at my questions that Tan brought up.

1. What virus do you believe currently poses the most danger to humanity? Why?
2. Do you believe that .99999... = 1? Why or why not?
3. Please compose a limerick about your Wikipedia experiences.
4. Do you intend on editing Wikipedia whilst flying an airplane?

These are "jokes"? These are "funny"? Does the mere mention of a limerick make you laugh? Come on. For the record, I think every one of those candidates hit a home run with his answer. Going only from memory here, I think the first candidate (a virus expert) said he'd be happy to discuss later, but conflicts of interest prevented him now; the second (a mathematician) gave a firm answer and offered a number of different proofs; the third seemed to appreciate the opportunity to compose a limerick; the fourth (an apparent pilot) gave a firm answer and demonstrated some aviation knowledge. Do they make more sense now? Doesn't it make you feel a bit more comfortable about a candidate when he or she can handle a question adeptly? There has been at least one candidate (I am not going to mention the name) who came off as completely flustered over one of my questions that could have been easily handled in a number of different ways...and while I didn't oppose for it, I definitely wasn't seeing the "independent thought" that Badger Drink mentions above, a skill I agree should be critical. Keepscases ( talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And what useful insight as to an editors ability with +sysop did you find (that self evidently could not be found via their contribution history) when you discovered they knew something about aircraft? I hadn't realised piloting an aircraft gave someone that extra edge that would push one to a support at RFA. I assume it must, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to ask the question in the first place would you? Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be uncomfortable with a candidate who does indeed edit Wikipedia while flying an airplane. I would be uncomfortable with a candidate who didn't seem to understand how to handle the question. I would be uncomfortable with a candidate who admitted he wasn't actually a pilot, but pretended to be one on Wikipedia. Et cetera. Keepscases ( talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't mean to speak for Keepscases, but perhaps the useful insight was that the candidate was an honest individual. They said they were a virus expert / mathematician / pilot, and based on their responses, they were. Perhaps he is looking for integrity in an administrator and is using the questions to find it. Useight ( talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the edit conflicted comment below, in which I totally agree with you and express my suprise no-one noticed that earlier. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, you make at least some sense - I've been waiting for the obvious justification when I saw the above list the first time. I remember an RFA a while back (at least a year and a half) where the editor asserted they were a police office, but had also at one time place a "grounded" note on their talk. It wrecked their RFA when I pointed it out. So yes, your last point is certainly valuable. The first point of you rebutal is just plane plain silly:), the second dubious given the nature of the question but the last I can certainly see value in. Perhaps if you phrased the questions better then we wouldn't have this pointless thread in the first place. Just a thought. Pedro :  Chat  20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just plain silly? I work with no less than three people who have crashed their cars while emailing/texting people. Very likely that there are more I don't know about. Keepscases ( talk) 21:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Most cars do not have an autopilot. Most aircraft do not afford the pilots broadband internet. Pedro :  Chat  21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I liked the candidate's answer better than yours. Keepscases ( talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't running. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it is quite possible to edit Wikipedia while flying. Hypothetically, one could drop down to ~2000 feet AGL and make phone calls, send text messages, and even edit Wikipedia from a BlackBerry. Not that I would know anything about that... - auburnpilot  talk 23:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, did you ever consider that they might have been an air cop and were "grounded" from flying ;-)--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A remotely plausible, suggestion, although why he would have been grounded by his parents would be another question. Pedro :  Chat  15:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't tell me that his parents were the Chief of Police!--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break about how arbitrarily everyone is dismissing keepscase's perspective

Keepscases (no relation to yours truly) asks questions that he/she feels will help him/her evaluate a candidate. Others have taken it upon themselves to decide that he has ulterior motives. Attention seeking. Silliness. Levity. Disruptive. Optional. !Optional. Unnecessary. Nervewracking. Pointless. Funny. Harmless. Harmful. It is absolutely fine to feel that he has ulterior motives and therefore ignore or dismiss his questions and the (possible) answers. It is absolutely not fine to act upon those feelings in an unfounded manner like deleting or removing them without his or the candidates consent. In fact, it's un-wiki. Everything else is borne of January boredom and rubbernecking. Leave it alone. This is a timesink, a classic case of "Father knows best", and a whole lot of unnecessariness. I'm rather disappointed that you decided to remove the question Balloonman. It's not your rfa, and it's not your question or your place. Keeper | 76 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Dloh cierekim 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You are endorsing these plain silly questions? Really that's what they are.- Patton ^{t/ c} 13:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Patton, this is exactly the problem as I see it. Keepscases asks the questions because they help them decide on a candidate. I don't generally read any of the questions, or answers, because generally, I don't believe they reflect a candidates true colors, their edits do. The problem I have is that you (and others) have decided that Keepscases questions are silly. That's fine if you think so. I think they're silly too. So what? I'm not about to presume that because I think they're silly that somehow I have the right or obligation to force my will on the community and remove something that I've decided is disruptive or silly, especially after the editor that added them has given a perfectly reasonable rationale in this thread as to why he/she asks them. Personally, I think your response to my thread was rather daft. I'm not about to remove it. I wholeheartedly endorse him (Keepscases) asking pretty much anything he wants because he does so for a legitimate (athough nonsequitor) reason. He's civil about it. He treats them as optional. To sum up: I. Don't. Care. and, I can't hardly fathom why anyone else does. I'm chalking this entire bit of nonsense to January blahs. Inventing solutions for non-problems. Keeper | 76 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, new year, same old repetition. Meanwile we have dropped from a high point of 1020 active admins to about 940. And C:CSD is a nightmare, AIV is still too slow and WP:FORMER racks up higher. Can I archive this, as I did previously?. BTW. Keeps, a graphical representation of flagged revs was placed on you rpag etoday to help out - because I guarantee the the rights bit of that will beat WT:RFA into a small hole in the ground when it comes to pointless discussion. Pedro :  Chat  23:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he's endorsing it so much as saying it wasn't Balloonman's place to remove it; that is something down to the candidate or the questioner. Ironholds ( talk) 13:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ACtually, the candidate cannot remove a question, he can chose not to answer it, but if a candidate removed a question, you can sure as hell know his/her RfA will fail.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is why I raised the question here and invited discussion... I removed them based on previous discussions and how idiotic I (and others) think his questions tend to be, but I was inviting community input. Based on what I've read, the general consensus is, yes they may be dumb, but there is no consensus to remove them. I'm fine with that, that's why I brought it up... to get community input. Like I said above, I think one of the strengths of WP is that we are a community, and that there are very few things that cannot be reversed, over turned, or undone.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We remove irrelevant nonsense all the time, all over the place. There's nothing wrong with this. Sure, there are some people who believe getting their lulz is more important than not being disruptive, but they're hardly the kind of editors we want around here. Friday (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Friday, you are assuming that Keepscases is doing this to "get his lulz". He says he's not. It's only disruptive because you are allowing it to be. Keeper | 76 23:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We do remove nonsense all the time, but that's what the community input is for---the voices above show that there is no consensus to remove or keep the items, and my default position (in this setting) is that the burden is on those who want to remove it. Now, it may be that this is a case of "ye who yells the loudest the longest wins", but since the first arbitrary break, it seems as if the tide has been don't remove---in which case I apologize to Keepscases for removing his question. I don't necessarily agree with the appropriateness of his question, but I can tell that my choice was unpopular (which again is why I brought it forth for discussion.)--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You care about what's popular? Why? This is why we don't vote. Your position makes sense- the other one does not. Anyone can complain, but unless the "people should add irrelevant nonsense" crowd wants to edit war over it, I don't see a problem. Friday (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that I am by any means wrong. I think his questions are drivel and should be removed. But, it is not a fight that I'm passionate about and the consensus above seems to be on the side of "don't remove them." I do think there are inappropriate questions and I do think we need to tighten up the assinine questions that get asked on RfA's. But, WP is a "consensusology" an if consensus is against us, then I won't remove them. That being said, I think allowing these questions will eventually lead us to the point where "Why are banana's yellow?" will be acceptable.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, it might get us to the point where it's not a hanging offence for a candidate to ignore what are clearly labelled as optional questions if (s)he regards them as in some way silly, or irrelevant. Not you, not me, not Friday, but the candidate. -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing this is not already the case. Have there actually been any cases where a candidate caught flak for not answering a nonsense question? Friday (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I very frequently see comments along the lines of "Waiting to see the answer to my question x". But if indeed the questions are truly optional, as you seem to believe, that surely weakens your case for the removal of any you consider to be trivial or silly does it not? -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone saying "waiting to see the answer to Keepscases question", even Keepscases. Apples/oranges (and I great dislike the grandstandish approach of anyone saying "waiting for an answer to my question" and going neutral. Pet peeve.) Keeper | 76 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I like RFA; many individuals who have volunteered a lot of time are giving intelligent and well-informed votes and arguments and have a lot to be proud of. But our progress doesn't impress outsiders, because we're not doing it in a wikified manner. The WP way is to have discussions, find where there's consensus, and write it down, so that other people can keep track of how we think without having to hang out at RFA all day. We have strong consensus that we don't want candidates who know RFA, we want candidates who know Wikipedia, but when we surprise candidates with questions that they can't possibly know how to answer unless they're well-read on previous RFAs and WT:RFA, we're biasing the process in exactly the direction that none of us want. What interrupts the typical wiki-progress on this page more than on other wiki-pages are well-meaning arguments like the one Keeper just made (I have a lot of respect for Keeper, btw). As a life-long supporter of the ACLU, I've said similar things myself, a lot. But the end product of a Wikipedian process is not going to be one bit better than the Wikipedians who attend it, and trying to force it to be by asserting moral authority is a mistake. When we shame people for speaking out, we interrupt the process of consensus-building: nothing gets written down, and the same arguments will have to be rehashed in the future, over and over. That's why RFA is such a singular failure, in the eyes of some: the one Wikipedia page with the most edits is the one process page that hasn't been able to produce a single sentence in a guideline, anywhere, expressing consensus on anything. So, again: when 90% of the people indicate that they're uncomfortable with something, don't pull out some kind of moral authority and chase them away; ask people to talk, see if there's some way to refactor so that almost everyone can support the result, and write it down somewhere. There's no relevant guideline, but at least we have instructions to candidates. Can just about everyone get behind the position that Keepscases can ask any questions he wants to, but the instructions to candidates can say how most of us feel about silly questions? We could say something like: it's perfectly alright to ask the voters if it's okay not to answer a question that seems silly, because there's a strong consensus at WT:RFA that not many people are using these questions to judge the candidate - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the same "strong consensus" points you do, but I can certainly get behind more definition of the RfA process. Doesn't this exist already?  Frank  |   talk  16:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Err, why waste a single moment caring what Keepscases thinks? The minute he whined "But there's no rule against it!" this should have been enough for everyone here to completely disregard him. "Show me the rule against it" is what ruleslawyers and trolls say. It's not how reasonable editors behave. When we worry about trolls, we make things worse for the reasonable editors, and that's the opposite of what is helpful. The message should be clear: if you can't behave like a reasonable adult, stay the hell away from RFA. It's hard enough getting the right answers here without people wasting our time with nonsense. Friday (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, these questions are detrimental to the process and are overall wholly negative. That is just my opinion of course, but I happen to be right :) Majorly talk 17:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Groan, now the people asserting moral authority are on my side :) I'm not willing to discard what someone says because I don't like the sound of it. We don't always say things perfectly the first time; if I get the idea that someone is uncomfortable with something, I trust their distrust more than I trust their rationale. And we're all volunteers; it's not like anyone has committed some sin because they gave us their quick impression instead of taking all morning to weigh all arguments and do the proper soul-searching. We can live with the mess that we've got. Responding to Frank: based on what you and I have talked about, and now that we've gotten responses from almost everyone who had expressed support for Keepscases questions, I think I see consensus, so that's what I'm asking: do we have consensus? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia didn't have people who ignored all protesters and followed common sense we'd be a failure.-- Patton ^{t/ c} 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to disallow these questions, you are going to end up setting a dangerous precedent against any sort of humour at RfA. Please, show me one 'oppose per Keepscases' vote that was genuine, and pointed at his question. Can't find any? Exactly my point. Let someone ask the questions, doesn't mean the candidate has to answer. If you don't believe the questions are optional, take that up in a different thread, that's a different matter. If anything, these questions are closer to achieving that than any others. — neuro ^(talk) 20:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On this thread, I hereby invoke The Gurch Position. (It sounds painful, but actually it is a welcome relief. :) Geometry guy 20:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's disappointing, G-Guy. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Another break

Sigh... the real loser in all of this is the first editor who admits to being an animal-human hybrid. God help them if they admit that they are also under 18, and in the middle of an RfA. Hiberniantears ( talk) 21:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

... humans are a kind of animal. We're all human-animal hybrids. Wily D 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint. Maybe The Gurch Position is to quit complaining about RfA; accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. Propose small incremental improvements. Perhaps one or two can be drawn out of this thread. Maybe there should be no negatives, no historical baggage below The Gurch Line. Geometry guy 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So which other animal have we been hybridized with then? Anyway, I seem to be in a minority of one in finding Keepcase's question quite interesting. It reminds me very much of the moral dilemmas dealt with in Star Trek, particularly in the Next Generation, with the ongoing development of the Commander Data character. On the off chance that there are some present who have never seen Star Trek, Commander Data is an android who is also a senior officer serving on board the USS Enterprise. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the originality of Stark Trek's andriods was a masterpiece of plagarism creative thought. Is that off topic or not? <musing> Fascinating how humour is a double edged sword </musing> Pedro :  Chat  23:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't just the androids, remember the emergency medical hologram, through whom a similar theme was played out in Star Trek: Voyager? -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Even Odo, who was a changling, had similar issues...--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted as well to throw the Turing test into the pot, as that also seems to have some relevance to Keepcases's question. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can never seem to pass that one. Intruder alert! Intruder alert! Coin detected in pocket.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You just did. See Artificial stupidity. ;-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Get the intruder!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Odo was different though, he had parenting issues. -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure what to think here. On the one hand we really have to protect candidates. I don't think anyone here wants to be the one to say "your RfA failed because you didn't answer some completely off the wall question". We don't want to go back to the "RfA coaching is mandatory" days where most of what RfA coaching added to a candidate was an ability to navigate slippery questions at RfA--rather than some basic familiarity with the tools. My RfA passed with over 100 supporting votes and about a 90% approval rating. That said, it was stressful as hell. I logged in frequently, spent a great deal of time making sure that what I wrote couldn't be interpreted incorrectly. We can repeat to ourselves NBD, NBD, NBD, but in the end we are a community of humans and rejection at RfA is a pretty powerful community act. We are wired (in all senses of the word) to avoid that. As such, seeing a squirrelly question like that can cause some angst in a candidate at the precise point where it isn't needed. RfA is a vote, and an open and non-simultaneous vote at that. It is not unheard of for a candidate on the margin to lose 2-10 votes because of an odd response to a completely unrelated question--purely due to the caprices of the voters. For those candidates on the margin, 2-10 votes is it. The goose is cooked if a 50/15/5 candidate becomes a 50/20/5 candidate.
• So what to do? From the talk page of the editor in question I'm not convinced at all that they have gotten the message, despite numerous attempts from multiple editors to convince them that their questions aren't really a net positive. They appear to be interested in lightening the mood at RfA (good) at the expense of the candidate (bad). For this specific case I am very tempted to say we should either uniformly instruct candidates that they are free to ignore questions like Keepsakes's without comment or just have 'crats make some note in RfAs. As for removing them summarily...it isn't worth the complete shitstorm that always accompanies removal of comments. This thread is already too long, so I'll refrain from going further. Protonk ( talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• If people are opposing RFAs for very bizarre reasons, they're probably lying about the reason. Most people who've been through RFA probably saw at least one oppose where they knew perfectly well that wasn't the reason for the oppose - and the more we hassle people over the reasons, the more of that there'll be. Wily D 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Understandable, but how many RfAs did you see with a screwed up answer to Kurt's relatively silly CBD question that resulted in >1 "oppose" based largely on that question? Among those, how many seemed pretextual? Protonk ( talk) 03:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And the point to be gleaned from that is that Kurt's question was actually useful. The fact is there are people who think the CDB policy is essential to Wikipedia...and there are people who think it is a sham. Inquiring minds want to know, whether we like it or not.  Frank  |   talk  03:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• When you would block people/unblock people is a highly reasonable criterion for evaluating potential administrators. The attempts to control what criteria people can/cannot use to judge potential candidates are a real problem - the answer is that we just have to let people be honest. If it relates to the candidates judgement, experience, intentions, whatever, it's reasonable. "What would you do in this situation you might be expected to handle as an admin?" is a very reasonable question. Wily D 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: I am not trying to do *anything* to hurt candidates. Many candidates have made themselves look better by answering my questions; only a few have not, and frankly (whether they passed RfA or not) it made me question whether they were fit to be an administrator. I don't care what certain people on my talk page think (and if I were interested in cheating the system, I would have edited it, but I haven't). Don't make this about me. *Anyone* should be able to ask *any* question at RfA that they wish. I'd love for someone to tell me how the obligatory "what's the difference between a ban and a block" is better than one of my questions. Keepscases ( talk) 04:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. These are your questions. You've been told by over a half-dozen people that your questions aren't helpful. How is this not abotu you? Maybe you aren't the best judge of when your questions are helpful? And how is the block/ban question even relevant? Of course those questions are terrible. 99% of the "premade" questions are without merit. They have the advantage of not being too hard to answer and being relatively straightforward. I can go look the answer up. What do I do with one of your questions? ignore it? Attempt to answer it with a straight face? Answer it tongue in cheek? why bother putting that person through that pressure? What do we gain from it? Presumably we gain from the block/ban type question some rudimentary outlook on the candidate. If they can't be bothered to look up one of those cookie cutter questions or they give some tremendously bad answer, then we have a signal that they may not be prepared. but what do we get from your questions? That they have a sense of humor? that they don't? That they don't want to be humorous during their RfA? also, I'm not up there suggesting that we delete your questions. I don't think they should be removed. I don't think it is worth the effort and the consternation. I'm suggesting that you should listen to some feedback int he community that you are in. I'm also suggesting that if you refuse to listen to feedback, you shouldn't be surprised if you get some pushback. The RfA process is not about you. It is not abotu what makes you happy. It is about attempting to judge candidates in a relatively short period of time with relatively limited information. It is an important process for the project and especially for the candidates. You do not have some special privilege to mess with it. Protonk ( talk) 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To frank: Kurts question might have been useful to some people at some points, but it wasn't useful after it had been asked a few dozen times. While understanding of WP:BLOCK is pretty damn important for an administrator, Kurts question wasn't about that. It was specifically worded to draw the respondent through some tortuous path where they could either say "yes we give blocks so people cool off" and freak out half of the audience (who will shout, all evidence to the contrary, that we don't give cooldown blocks) or they could say "policy says no", get an oppose from Kurt and maybe from some group of people who felt that an administrator quoting policy in response to a question about them was inappropriate. So no. A cooldown block question would have been warranted. Kurt's was not. Aside from that, Kurt was partially asking those questions to show how smart he was (that he could distinguish between literal instruction from policy and internal deliberation on the merits of a situation), not as an attempt to get some reasonable answer from a candidate. I won't keep going because he isn't here to defend himself. Protonk ( talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While I was actually talking about his robotic opposes to self-noms (I garnered one myself), the CDB question is even more apt. My point is that his question was useful far more than it was not, even after dozens of times. There were still people who flew off the handle in a "how dare you be the judge" sort of way even after Kurt had asked a number of times. And, personally, I found that to be a turn-off in an administrator. As I've said elsewhere - if you can't handle a question of dubious pedigree, how are you going to handle the daily grind of people who truly don't even care about this project and are here for malicious pursuits? If you are the victim of such an attack that really is personal - and these questions usually are not - you have to be able to handle it or you're going to burn out, hurt the encyclopedia, or both.  Frank  |   talk  00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

←Has anyone else noticed that what everyone is saying at the bottom of this thread is essentially a reworded version of the stuff towards the top? I'm all for discussion, but looping discussion where no end is in sight is pointless. It's clear that Keepscases and some on his side won't agree to stop posting the questions, as that is their right. It's clear that some people will be tempted to remove questions anyway, since there is no policy against it ( WP:IAR] and all that jazz). I'm really tempted to ask you guys to draw this to a close, because its really going no where. But hey, what do I know? Continue discussing if you wish, it's not like I could stop you, but try and make it more productive, but I guess that repetition is kind of impossible to avoid after 4 arbitrary break sections. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cyclonenim (and others), why does the process of gathering consensus and writing it down somewhere apply everywhere on Wikipedia except here? If we simply stop talking, then we get to do this all over again in a few months, and our positions continue to be misunderstood by candidates and admins. We seem to have consensus that Keepscases' questions aren't trolling, so he can ask whatever questions he likes, even if many don't see the point. His questions shouldn't be deleted; in fact, arguing over stuff like this during someone's RFA distracts from the RFA. We also have consensus, not on any one explanation for the discomfort, but for the fact that there is discomfort concerning the questions. Some express it in terms of distracting from the business of the RFA, many (on both sides) agree that off-the-wall questions make the RFA more stressful (and some think this is a good thing, to test the candidate), some point out that questions that only come up in the context of RFAs bias the selection process towards people who hang out at RFA (which none of us want), some say that goofy questions make RFA look goofy. What would be so terrible about saying somewhere, probably in the candidate instructions, that many people have talked this out, that we've decided not to censor any questions (outside of obvious trolling), that most voters are not looking to trip you up with silly questions and it's fine to ignore them if you like, and that a minority does see value in even silly questions, so when you feel you've covered all the other questions, you may want to give some thought to the silly questions, too? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 13:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies here.  Frank  |   talk  13:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Guy walks in for a job interview, first question is how does he feel about human-animal hybrids, and a food fight breaks out among the interviewers. Eventually things settle down and they get back to serious questioning, but is this fair to the guy who's there for the interview? We're talking about a person, not an article. BRD is an essay; IAR, "Always do what's best for Wikipedia", is policy. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 14:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that those who are being told that their questions are silly, irrelevant, trolling, can be deleted on sight ... are also people. -- Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks ... I'm usually careful to put words like "silly" in scare-quotes so people will know that we're talking about a consensus position in an argument, not a value judgment. I agree with Malleus that it's disrespectful to consider people or their questions silly, unless "silly" is what they were aiming for, or unless the question of trolling is on the table, and I think trolling is off the table, here. In fairness, I think people who have used the word "silly" generally were laughing with Keepscases about "human-animal hybrids", as a way of saying they're in on the joke, not at him. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just look back to the start of this topic if you can bear it. I see "ridiculous", "stupid", "insane", in the first few postings, all of which are clearly meant seriously. -- Malleus Fatuorum 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps, Malleus, he's really a human-hybrid on the leading edge of human-hybrid equal rights??? ;-) --- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities

Keepscases insists on asking questions that no competent wikipedian would seriously think are helpful. There are 2 possibilities: 1) He's doing it for the amusement, or 2) he's completely incompetent at participating in RFA, and refuses to improve. We don't need to argue over which is true- it doesn't matter. Neither type of person should be welcome here. Any other arguments I've seen here are just handwaving nonsense, trying to distract from this one important issue. For those defending this nonsense, do you honestly believe letting people say whatever they want is all that important here? This situation is not difficult to figure out at all -we see this same situation played out all the time, all over the wiki. I fail to see why people should RFA should be magically different. Letting people say whatever they want is not part of our job here. Say whatever you like on your own website. Friday (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a very substantial difference between "letting people say whatever they want", and only letting them say whatever it is that you want. The first is at worst a minor distraction. The second is unacceptable censorship. -- Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Friday--I'm well aware that you don't think users like me should have the right to even *vote* at RfA. You have the right to your opinion, but stop pretending others are as extreme as you. Keepscases ( talk) 15:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Friday, how about instructions to the candidate, wouldn't this minimize any damage? "Some people may ask you unusual questions, and some people would like to hear your answers, but the consensus among voters is that they're not interested in the answers to questions that don't concern Wikipedia. Feel free to answer any question or not, as you choose." Wouldn't that minimize any damage done by unusual questions? [People will probably understand "consensus" in the Wikipedia sense, something like 75% or more of people who have expressed opinions and given rationales in the relevant forum.] - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 15:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That misses the point. Maybe I've missed one in the walls of text, but the only argument I've noticed that supports keeping irrelevant nonsense is that "people can say whatever they want". This is completely wrong- this situation much like when people go to talk pages and add "ijahsiudhqiuhdq" to them. We revert it. We tell the person to stop it. This is not rocket science. On a properly functioning Wikipedia, there'd be no controversy here at all. Friday (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The candidates are already told they are optional. And language such as Dan's doesn't mention that people may choose to oppose you because you didn't answer such and such a question. There was a RfA a few weeks ago in which the candidate chose to say things like "I'll be happy to discuss that with you after the RfA on my (or the article's) talk page. The RfA collapsed, and that might have been an unstated reason why it did-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, which RFA? Friday, I see and agree with your point that RFA isn't a separate island from Wikipedia, and understand that there's too much to read to keep track of it all, but, yes, there's a significant minority with a valid position that you've missed, and it would be helpful if you'd take it down a notch. They are interested in the answers to the unusual questions; I'd rather not name names, because people have changed and can change their positions. Interestingly, they divide roughly equally between people who like the questions because they aren't serious (and may lighten the mood of the RFA, or let the candidate talk about math or something else they feel competent in), and people who like the questions because they see them as stress-inducing, and they like that; they want to throw a few unexpected obstacles in the path so they can see how the candidate deals with them. Another argument is that many people would rather frame this in terms of whether the questioner is trolling or not than in terms of how good the question seems to be, because no one is smart enough to reliably draw the line between questions that could conceivably be useful to anyone and ones that can't be. Trolling is a completely legitimate question, but my sense is that question has been dealt with, for now. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The RfA that comes to mind is GrahamColm's. He passed with flying colors. Keepscases ( talk) 15:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to User:Suntag.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Aervanath's arbitrary but not-quite break

Here's my .02, then. When I participate in RFA, I use the questions to determine suitability. That is, I use the questions that are germane to being an admin. The "what would you do in this situation", or even the "tell me what this policy says (so I know you know what you'll be doing)" questions are helpful to me, and I'll guess many other participants. The whole "what hand do you wipe with" type of questions do not help me. I don't know what the questioner was looking to get as an answer, I don't know how to take any answer and translate it into "are they going to be a good admin or not". So anything that doesn't directly relate to being an admin is just noise. It's disrupting the process. And regardless of whether or not it says "optional" or "you don't have to answer this", were I the candidate I would feel obligated to answer anyway, and deal with the added stress of "what does that have to do with me being an admin? Will they oppose if I say I rub up against a tree? And how many people will oppose if I don't answer it?" It's not fair to the candidate. If you want to add a question that only you will get help from (and that some others see as no better than humor), to it on the RFA talk page, or better yet, the candidate's talk page. -- Kbdank71 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are unhelpful questions, and anyone who doesn't see that lacks the sound judgement that we should require from RFA participants. Altho, for me, an ideal candidate would remove the message themselves with a summary such as "removing off-topic nonsense". But, I can understand why people may be reluctant to be so bold. Friday (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two general types of questions I think are relevent - both "Are you knowledgeable of Wikipedia enough to be a decent admin?" and "DO you have sound judgement/temperment/et cetera in general to deal with situations which aren't cut & dry or which are unusual or new to you?" - the latter may not always be obviously relevent, but will be integral to some editor's assessments. When I stood for ArbCom, one of the stewards asked us all our favourite colour - and it wasn't a big deal. If you can't handle being asked a silly question, you probably won't be a good admin. Wily D 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse WilyD's statement above - if you get upset over a couple of silly questions, then you're probably not good admin material. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC).