Template talk:RfA/Archive 1

Bugs
Any bugs you see should be mentioned at my talk page (I say this not in an arrogant way, but in a I-should-know-what's-wrong-as-I-wrote-it-and-I-knew-there-may-be-a-bug-or-two-in-the-code way) or at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. The bug won't be fixed too fast if you list it here. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Edited
Template to the original, better example demonstrated by Redwolf. --Chazz88 15:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The fourth question
Guys, before this degenerates into a revert war, here's my rationale for the changes I made in the "questions" section: In short: I think a polite "thank you" is in order, and I personally think this question is intriguing, but I won't insist on it being included here. Lupo 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) My new introductory phrase is far more polite, I feel. I think it is well worth pointing out that candidates are offering us something; they are not applying for a job. If you think it's too long or "clunky", it could be shortened to e.g. "Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Here are a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:" or some such. But I think it's time that candidates be thanked.
 * 2) The fourth question, "What do you think of these questions?", is mainly the result of a genuine desire of mine to know how the candidates feel about this questionnaire. If there's widespread opposition to my including it here, remove it by all means and I'll go ask each and every candidate privately. A lot more work, but what the heck. On the other hand, the answer might give some insights about a candidate's view of the role of an admin. Some might say for instance "I don't see the point; this should be no big deal", others might even feel offended, yet others might like them as a kind of platform to present themselves better, still others might like the idea of a questionnaire, but have valuable suggestions for better questions, or some people might feel indifferent, or be perfectly allright with the questionnaire as it is, or even think it was necessary for a variety of reasons.
 * 3) I think a little variety doesn't hurt. This questionnaire has been essentially unchanged for ages; it gets boring. Why not try out something new from time to time? And why the quick reverts? Why not just see how it works out? In any case, reverting over a content dispute is bad style anywhere on Wikipedia. If you think this question is horrible, why not voice your concerns here first?
 * I think it's pointless. It bears no relevance to being an admin at all, and if you think it'll give an accurate insight into the user as a person, all you'll get are standard stock answers, "I liked the questions", or thereabouts. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In terms of avoiding the job interview feeling, I think Lupo has the right idea, and I've restored some of his changes. On the other hand, I agree with enochlau that the fourth question is pointless - realistically, do you expect to get honest answers? --Michael Snow 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? I assume good faith on the parts of the candidates and thus do assume they'd answer it honestly unless proven otherwise. Maybe that's a bit naive, but the alternative is the cynical assumption that any answers to any questions cannot be trusted. If one assumes they'd lie on that fourth question, then why should one assume that they'd answer questions 1 and 3 honestly? Anyway, your changes are fine by me. I still think it was worth a try. Lupo 07:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I should have been more precise - I didn't mean to suggest that candidates would lie. But as they're generally expected to be on their best behavior during the process and try not to aggravate people, I would expect them to be vague and not discuss objections they have. The issue is more unvarnished answers than honest ones, perhaps. --Michael Snow 17:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions
Hi, I've been adding the following optional questions to each RfA as I see them, if I'm active on Wikipedia:
 * 4. When would you use &#123;{test1}} to &#123;{test4}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * A.
 * 5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * A.
 * 6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * A.
 * 7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
 * A.
 * 8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
 * A.

This was an experiment, but I think people have gotten used to seeing them (so much so that Ashibaka automatically added them to his own RFA and answered them. I'd like to propose adding the following above questions to this template. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 12:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, personally I think this makes the nom too long. I'd actually be for no standard questions at all, rather have the candidate make an opening statement and then a series of direct questions, and then comments in support or against the candidates, but I doubt that would fly. Would it be possible to perhaps merge any of these questions? -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm against adding any more questions. Jtkiefer T   00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's important to limit the number of questions, and in fact I'd support doing away with them altogether. I wouldn't mind replacing the current question #2 with one of these, though. #5 or #6 would be best, as these are the ones that have most to do with adminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Would Deathphoenix provide some diffs for answers to these questions that have helped him vote? Chick Bowen 01:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how posting exact diffs can really help you (do you want me to post diffs of my votes, or diffs of the candidates answering the questions?), but I can provide links to RfAs where the candidate's answers had a hand in my voting support. Normally, I only vote support for users with whom I've had direct contact, and there were a few there where I would have voted support anyways (unless their answers were very bad). The first candidate to see these questions (and answer them) was Aecis, but his answers didn't really push me to support because I've already seen this user around and probably would have voted support without the questions. Apart from the week or so when I was away on assignment, I posted questions for all the other candidates who came up (except for one who had only 86 edits or so, so I decided not to bother). There were some candidates whose answers didn't really impress me, but I decided not to vote because I don't usually like to pileon oppose votes unless I have something to add (such as advice) or if I'mThe following are candidates whom I normally wouldn't have voted for (because I don't interact with them enough for me to vote), but whose answers impressed me enough that I voted for them:
 * Requests for adminship/Ilmari Karonen 2
 * Requests for adminship/JzG
 * Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2
 * Requests for adminship/Husnock


 * There were a couple of candidates whose answers to the questions were pretty bad, so I voted oppose. I'd rather not bring these candidates into focus here. I've seen a few voters mentioning in their votes that the candidates' answers to the optional questions were a factor in their voting.


 * I just want to say that all the time I've put into scanning RFA and adding optional questions were in the hope that RFA voters would find candidates' answers to be useful in helping them vote. I've also been extremely careful not to be heavy-handed (for example, I've been adding the questions manually instead of unilaterally adding them to the RfA template, and taken care to point out that these are optional questions). --Deathphoenix 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer candidate specific questions. With 8 standard questions, people may be less likely to add their own personalized questions. Why not wait 24 hours to see if anyone has some questions, and then add these if no one does. Also, each candidate may have different perceived weak areas, we should only ask those questions that probe into those weaknesses. Deathphoenix was away the week I had my RfA, the 4 specific user created questions I was asked were much better than these standardized questions would have been. NoSeptember  talk  01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, people weren't asking too many user-specific questions (unless the candidate had done something very bad in the past and the questioner wanted an explanation), but your idea has merit. However, even if we go with your idea of waiting for user-specific questions, then tacking on my optional questions if no-one asks, how many days would it be? Two? Three? An RfA lasts seven days, and if there are no user-specific questions in this time, the voters who have already voted didn't have any additional questions to help them vote. Plus, that's just added bureaucracy. I was hoping these additional questions would improve the voting process without adding necessary bureaucracy to the RFA process (I have typically voted against anything that adds red tape to the RFA process). --Deathphoenix 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 24 hours is enough. It seems much of the voting happens in the first day anyway. As for bureaucracy, I like the idea of questions being asked by users, including these questions above.  Having a list of questions like these and perhaps more, and letting anyone pick and choose on a case by case basis which question(s) from the list to ask each specific candidate would be an option.  NoSeptember   talk  13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your examples, Deathphoenix--I've read through them. It seems like the most interesting responses were to question 6 (CSD), with question 5 (3RR) a runner up.  I'd be in favor of adding just those two to the template, but probably not the others.  Questions 4 and 7 have mostly gotten the same responses from everyone (bv is for penile pictures rather than "Does this work?"; NPOV is a tricky issue that must be handled according to the particular situation).  Question 8 you added to the group fairly recently; it seems to have produced a couple interesting answers--though other people have essentially politely declined to answer--but not necessarily answers helpful to deciding how to vote.  Chick Bowen 02:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the same about question 4, and I didn't really notice that about question 7, but you're right. The NPOV question is just as unhelpful. Question 8 was a good way to look into the mindset of the candidate, but you're right. If the main concern is that there are too many questions, this is one question that can be taken out as well. Thanks for your feedback, Deathphoenix 02:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chick on the NPOV thing, and I'm a bit concerned about the test/bv comparison. A lot of vandal-fighters, especially those without admin privs, seem to be confusing the templates with the concept of warning users these days.  Particularly galling are cases when people use "test" as a synonym for "warn" ("you have to test4 the user before blocking ..."), and IP talkpages with several months' worth of test1-2-3-4-5 repeated endlessly.  The templates are damn useful, and the point behind the question (how far should one AGF when warning someone) is a good one.  However, I feel the question places undue emphasis on the templates as a substitute for engaging one's brain when talking to a vandal. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In general I'm in favour of having a candidate statement, with some questions, but not many standard ones. I don't in any way object to Deathphoenix's optional questions, and would be happy to answer them if I was a candidate. However, I think that any standard questions tends to attract very similar answers if there is seen to be a correct answer (such as 4 and 7); or in the case of 8, as pointed out above, the answer might be interesting but not very useful in determining the suitability of the potential admin. Though I'm pretty new to voting on RfA I've added some extra questions, which have helped at least one person (me!) come to a decision. I will probably over time develop some regular questions that I'll ask quite often, but not as a standard addition to every RfA. Petros471 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Eight questions is too many. I'm in favor of dropping the "original" three because they haven't been getting useful answers in awhile; people answer them in socially acceptable cliches. I like DP's questions, but also think we should change the questions every now and then anyway. I think it's useful to ask candidates an obscure-sounding question involving such terms as "test4" and "#A7" - not because any candidate must have used them, but because if a candidate is unfamiliar with them AND unable to find out at least what they mean by himself, he is unsuitable to become an admin. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reformatted
In the spirit of Be bold, I've edited the template to add proper section headers to each section. I've also moved questions above the poll responses, I think I'd like to trial putting the discussion parts above the "vote" parts. Comments? Rob Church (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons to have no headings in the subpages is so we maintain a simple TOC on the RfA mainpage (just one line per candidate). I'd rather enlarge the font size of the words (if bolding is not enough) than turn them into section headers.
 * Since you're a developer: Is there a way to create a heading that shows in the TOC of the page its is on, but won't show in the TOC on any page that it is transcluded into? There are plenty of main space pages that this would be useful for too. NoSeptember   talk  12:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The section headers are to allow easier editing with section links. I suppose we could look into providing a non-TOC heading feature, if the request is put in the right place. Rob Church (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the section headings should be removed because of the TOC problem mentioned above and because it doesn't really make things any easier if you also update the count like you're supposed to. However, I do think that having the questions above the voting is a good idea. - SCEhard T 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I complete agree with SCEhardt. Personally, I think the changed should be reverted until there is a little more discussion that has taken place. Someone changed the layout of the first nom to use this formatted, presumably because s/he was unaware of the change, so I'll post a message as Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship to let people become more aware of this. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, lots of people don't bother with updating the count, which is unsurprising given that the page is already formatted to provide an automatic count. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? I see several incorrect counts. - SCEhard T 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But you'll notice that the lists of comments are conveniently numbered under each header. A separate tally is really not worth the trouble, IMO. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood. I think the manual count at the top is nice to have, but I'm neutral as to whether it's worth the trouble of maintaining. - SCEhard T 07:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know about this discussion and edited the headers in Christopherlin's RfA under the assumption that someone made a mistake. Sorry about it and please revert it if the consensus is otherwise. Tintin (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding edit sections, especially because of unwieldy RfAs. The problem, of course is the ToC thing. (Has anyone also remembered that the template for each nom will also end up with its own ToC?) Hopefully we can come up with a native MediaWiki solution for this instead of some hack. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I decided to revert it back. All 4 nominations since the new modified template was put into place has since been reformatted to closer match the original layout. This was done by at least 3 people. I am sure most of the people who are reverting the formatting aren't aware of this debate, but since the people who have discussed this haven't reached a consensus, I think it is best to revert it to the original for now as I have a feeling this will keep happening. Personally I like the questions first, but this is starting to cause minor problems. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

See User:Rory096/BetterRfA where I've made some edits to Rob's original change, but based it off it. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. --Rory096 04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Autocalculation
I've tested A week from today for all dates in 2006, and it worked correctly (including at the end of the year). It should similarly work correctly for next year, and probably the year after that (unless I screwed up the leap-year part). On the off chance there are problems, of course, revert this and RfAsubst to the older versions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For anyone who would find it useful, I have a date-calculation tool availabe: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/DateCalc.php. Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  )  08:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tally
Why was the tally moved right in front of the votes. It was much more useful near part of the header. Voice -of- All  01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to be growing at WT:RFA that if the tally remains, it should be at the top where people can find/update it easily. Anyone object to moving it back? -- nae'blis 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved back. --Rory096 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Restored to where it was yesterday, why is there not a discussion on this issue here? Has there been a big consensus change? —  xaosflux  Talk  23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been some discussion on WT:RFA and on my user talk page. Only Everyking disagreed, and he didn't provide a reason. On the other hand, many people have enthusiastically supported removing the tally. --bainer (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Section heeaders
For "support", "oppose" and "neutral" have been added per the consensus on the RfA talk page. Please tell me if I did this wrongly. Regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Simplify the questions section please.
Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. We only need one question here.


 * Why do you want to be an administrator?

This should be enough to judge one's motives for wanting adminship. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. When one requests the tools, three things need to be looked for: dedication, need for tools, and lack of potentional for abuse. Restricting this to one question is completly ineffective and doesn't really give us a feel for the candidate or what they have done. Yank  sox  21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dedication is a non-issue. If we give someone the mop and bucket and they don't use them, no harm done. The question of why someone wants to be an administrator answers their need for tools. The question of whether or not someone can be trusted can't really be answered by any questions of the candidate - the type of people that really can't be trusted will tell you exactly what you want to hear anyway - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But we are given a feel for the candidate, their tone, and their experiences. We can't just give the mop and duck and cover. Yank sox  04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if we did cut down to one question, RFA !voters would add their own questions anyway, so there's really no point. Additionally, I personally like to see that it takes a while for a candidate to answer all the questions well.  It's easy to tell from the answers to the questions two very valuable pieces of information: (1) whether the candidate is willing to put time and effort into the project and (2) whether the candidate has satisfactory communication skills.  Srose   (talk)  12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we want someone who wants to be an admin? As far as I know, RfA prefers sane candidates. ;-) --Rory096 08:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ROTFL. It does make things rather easy: anyone who answers this with "NOT" will get my automatic support. (other answers might get a near-automatic oppose, unless the candidate shows many many redeeming properties). The only question is... how do we prevent people from lying? :-P --Kim Bruning 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ending or due to end?
Should the timing at the top of RfAs say ending or due to end? Thing is, many RfAs finish early, and so the statement isn't true. Any comments? --Alex (Talk) 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...it seems like "Due to End" would sound better than "Ending" per the reasons you provided. Let's see what others think. -- Nish kid 64 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Due to end/Scheduled to end sound better and are more precise, since RfAs can be extended/cut short by nominator withdrawl, b'crat discretion, etc... -- nae'blis 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it more with "Ending...". "Due to end/Scheduled to end" just sounds clumsy, and is an unnecessary pedantry. If you really want to be precise you can say "scheduled to end no later than", but I don't think any of this is worth it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like "Scheduled to end", just because it helps to emphasize that late !votes do count as long as it hasn't been closed. Ral315 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User -> User2
I've changed the user template to include the edit count via the Wannbe Kate tool (User2). This tends to be of interest in RFA discussions, so I figure that would be useful. --Brad Beattie (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted that because in a recent discussion at WT:RfA people concluded that that tool was too wasteful of resources and the talk page of each admin candidate already has the edit count as a table, so there is no need to retrieve it every time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Location of optional questions
There has been a lot of discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship about optional questions (see these, to name but a few:,, , , , ). I have no qualms if people want to ask nominees specific questions - I've done so myself in the past. However, placement of the "optional" questions with the approved standard questions elevates their status unnecessarily.

In particular, most of the above noted discussions have been about the near-automatic placement of certain optional questions in almost every RfA nomination. In the case of repeatedly asking the same set of "optional" questions, to me it verges on creating de facto "standard" questions and by-passes the consensus reached to date on what the actual standard questions ought to be and verges on WP:POINT.

In the case of one-shot or nominee specific optional questions, having them put in the same section as the community-sanctioned questions gives the illusion that the question has some sort of equal status or community approval.

I suggest that this template ought to be arranged so as to encourage editors to place their optional questions in the "Discussion" section so as to make it clear that these questions are not part of the standard set. This should also make it clear that the optional questions are not those of the community but of individual editors. The "Discussion" section could simply be renamed "Discussion and optional questions". Agent 86 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what you are talking about. Candidates should answer questions, and people should read those questions before commenting or voting. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I have never said that optional questions ought not to be permitted or that people should not read the answers before !voting. What I did say was that the placement of the optional questions in with the standard questions in the template gives them the patina of "official" (for lack of a better word) sanction. That may be oversimplifying my point, but I am not simply being obtuse. Please review the linked discussions at the beginning of my comment for the more complete story. I need not repeat it all here. As for "candidates should answer questions", I don't think there should be the same obligation to answer them as the "sanctioned" (again, for lack of a better word) standard questions, especially if a non-standard question is inappropriate, POV pushing, or there to just make a point. Agent 86 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * People don't need to answer the standard questions either, but no one will vote for them. If a candidate doesn't answer any optional questions either, the same thing will happen. Also, the questions are always clearly labelled as "Optional question" or as "Question from John"; no reasonable person can confuse them for the standard questions that have no such preface. —Centrx→talk&nbsp:::;&bull; 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You've just highlighted one of the problems. People should be free to not answer optional questions, or at least the sense of obligation ought not be so high. The standard questions are there by consensus, unlike optional questions. Besides, the key point is the placement of the optional questions, not the existence of them. This was all covered in previous discussions, linked above. Agent 86 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your stated standard for "reasonable person" conflicts with your postulation that no one will vote for someone if they don't answer optional questions. I think Moving them to the discussion section is a good solution to the patina of official status they seem to have acquired. -- nae'blis 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just tell the user they don't have to answer stupid questions, and tell the person asking them to stop it. Most of the questions are legitimate and if the user refuses to answer them the RfA will not pass. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)