Template talk:RfA/Archive 2

Encouraging kinder, gentler RFAs
I'd like to insert a line in the template encouraging kinder, gentler RFAs. Much cyber ink has been spilled on the subject of RFA having become a mauling for even borderline candidates, let alone clear failures, as indicated by the warm response to Keitei's civil oppose in Crzrussian 2 (Keitei's oppose has become the exception). I propose adding: Please keep criticism constructive and polite. between the horizontal line and the discussion section. I'm flexible on the wording, but I think we should try something. Your thoughts?--Chaser T 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I totally agree. Especially on ones that are doomed from the start. --Majorly 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And the RfB template, for that matter... Grand  master  ka  12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good place to have that good idea. RfA's can be often are stressful so a small reminder might prevent a few edits users might regret later. James086   Talk  14:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; going through RFA is hard enough and especially for good faith self-noms that are doomed to fail there is no reason to salt the wounds. Maybe the text would encourage people to think twice before adding insult to injury.--Isotope23 16:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this idea; there really exists no reason not to add a polite message encouraging participants to comment in a more gentle/civil/calm way. Yuser31415 19:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be general consensus for this, but I'd like to give a few more days for any objections. I'll also insert it into the RfB template.--Chaser T 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a good reason not to add it, but I'm not sure it will make much difference... I think people already know they should be constructive and polite. Anyone being otherwise isn't doing so out of lack of knowledge of the correct way to behave. --Tango 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally think it is a good idea. Arjun  21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see it making much of a difference, but if it helps in just once case, it'd be a useful addition. I say go ahead. --Deskana (request backup)  03:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Added to both the RfA and RfB templates. Thanks, all.--Chaser T 12:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil comments are most likely going to appear in the "oppose" section, so I moved the note there. -- Selmo  (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion please
I reverted to the old version, I think we should agree on this here first. Contrary to what may be thought, I support changing RfA. However, can we please agree on the changes before we make them? I understand the discussion on WT:RFA has brushed on this, but I think we should hold some serious discussion here. Personally I think the tally should be removed, it has to be manually updated, and the toolserver provides better info. I actually like the old questions better though, I think they make the candidate think more seriously. Obviously the "I accept." change was good, so I kept that. So: Prodego  talk  22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I reverted back. We should only discuss this if it needs discussing. So far in four days, no one complained.  Majorly   (hot!)  22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is going to notice until it is on an RfA, and that only happened two days ago. While the tally and such are ok - though moving them to an unnoticeable place will cause no one to update them, which isn't a bad thing - I think the old questions were better, as I explained above. Could you point me at the discussion of that change?  Prodego  talk  22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no discussion, I was bold :) There's no need to over complicate questions, especially as they're optional.  Majorly   (hot!)  22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Total" and "tally" pretty much synonyms
There has been over a year's worth of discussion on the tally/total. No consensus was ever reached. I can find no discussion about removing or moving the total/tally. Saying the move is warranted because it's now called a "total" doesn't change anything and it's really semantics - whether you call it a tally or a total doesn't mean it's a vote. Agent 86 17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to add the tally either, so it should rightfully be removed.  Majorly   (hot!)  17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus to add the optional questions, as I recall... should those be removed? --W.marsh 18:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Majorly   (hot!)  21:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth level headings?
Due to a new table-of-contents feature, it's now possible to put subheadings on this page without affecting the table of contents. I'd like to propose changing the bold headings here ('Questions for the candidate', 'General comments', 'Discussion', 'Support', 'Oppose', and 'Neutral') to ====fourth-level headings====, so that they can be section-edited. The change has already been discussed at WT:RFA; it didn't attract much attention, but what attention there was was positive. Does anyone have any objections? How will the RfA bots handle the change? --ais523 12:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I object, because there shouldn't be headings in the first place. It's a discussion, and who cares about the bots :)  Majorly   (hot!)  12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too keen on the headings either, but it seems to me that an RfA system using clunky bolded headings that don't allow section editing is even worse than an RfA system using fourth-level headings that at least allow section editing. --ais523 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Section breaks can be added if needed I suppose.  Majorly   (hot!)  15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. As stated at WT:RFA, I don't think 3 subheadings each would even disrupt the table of contents, and would make it easier for editors to get to the exact section where they are engaging in discussion (usually the "Oppose" section). I imagine the change would be trivial for the bots. –Pomte 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure why we even need sections. If the RfA becomes too big, a break can easily be added in. Thus, I oppose this.  Majorly   (hot!)  22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The section headings are, as is, anti-thetical to the purposes of generating consensus. Enabling people to section edit isn't going to make this any better, in fact it'll make it worse in my opinion. --Durin 17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how discussion or consensus will be compromised by providing a few [edit] links to make editing easier. Assuming good faith either way, each user considers all sections before editing a particular one. Arbitrary section breaks work as well, but are more likely to cause confusion between 2 sections while the current format exists, and focus attention on the immediately surrounding comments. –Pomte 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's end this silliness
Hey there fellows! I originally posted this on WT:RFA, but figured I'd mention it here as well. I haven't been active on WT:RFA for some months, because quite frankly, it's silly. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and here we all are devoting hours upon hours of our time debating/discussing/arguing about it. As such, I believe I have a solution to this problem. Much as Radiant! was able to solve (sort of, hehe) the problem at WP:AFD by creating the proposed deletion system, I've created a "proposed adminship" system, the beginning of which can be seen here. You'll be able to see this as soon as you click on that link, but I'd like to mention my complete ignorance of templates and how they work in advance, hehe. Basically, anyone that wants to be an admin or wants to nominate someone can just throw that tag on their userpage, and there'll be a link to a discussion page. If there are no serious objections on that subpage, then the bureaucrat can hit "makesysop" after seven days. The template will add a category, so we'll all have a main point of reference to see who wants buttons. Hope this helps, and please feel free to fix the template, as I really have no idea what I'm doing in that respect :) Cheers fellows   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 09:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing the format of RfAs generated with the RfA template and any technical issues/suggestions the template might have; WT:RFA (where you originally posted) is probably the best place to discuss this. --ais523 09:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough, I just figured I'd post it here, as it'd be cool to make what I've suggested RfA at some point.  gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 09:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected this template until the matter of what should be included, which lists numbered, etc is resolved; either here, or WT:RfA. Administrators shall respect the protection guidelines with regards to editing the template. Миша 13 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, perhaps I should impose a ban on myself editing this template... :)  Majorly   (hot!)  18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that this is a perennial dispute. There's no way to even ascertain if it's been protected in the wrong version. RfA can't agree on the changes done during this edit dispute. The protection solves nothing really. --Durin 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it does. It stops further lame warring over the template until something is decided. If it requires a step further (an RfA reform, for example), then let it be. However, I detest such counterproductive edit wars (especially when admins are involved) and will not allow this to continue just because it's a "perennial" dispute and everyone's got used to it. Миша 13 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the edit war should be allowed. I'm saying that attempting to stop it is like permanently stopping the Nile River. Eventually, it will flow again. Since RfA can't come to consensus on what to do, other methods than protection will have to be used. --Durin 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. And while those other methods are being used, it's protected so people don't edit war over it. -Amarkov moo! 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point. Stopping the Nile is all well and good...temporarily. But, if all you do is stop it and not try to fix why it will continue flowing after it breaks the dam, then you've done nothing to fix the problem. All you've done is repeat the mistakes of the past. That's not constructive. You may think you've stopped the flooding, but you haven't. --Durin 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All of this assumes something is broken, but that's not been established. All kinds of wacky engineering projects to "fix" RFA (or the Nile) could actually create problems where there wasn't one. --W.marsh 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. I'm sorry. I thought edit warring was bad. My mistake. Or, did you not mean to say that the edit warring is no indication of the template being broken? :) --Durin 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Majorly was the one making the changes... multiple people were reverting. Just because someone is convinced there's a problem doesn't mean there actually is one. People edit war to insert POV in articles all the time... it doesn't mean the POV automatically belongs there and the people trying to remove it are just as at fault. --W.marsh 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I intend to make the (unrelated) change of ; to ==== on this template, as I've proposed above, unless new objections are raised (as this template is protected to avoid edit-warring I'm stating my intention to change it again first just to make sure, so as to avoid two concurrent edit wars). --ais523 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I object, we do not need sections in a discussion. We can add them as we need them. See this RfA for how it works fine.  Majorly   (hot!)  14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I said 'any new objections', because I had the feeling that you would bring this up again. I don't see why objecting to the current layout of the template is a reason to object to a fix designed to make the current layout easier to use; after all, surely it doesn't make anything any worse from your point of view, except possibly that maybe keeping the old format slightly more inconvenient would in your view make a change more likely... Besides, this change would also help in various other proposed RfA formats (it would have left the pre-refactoring Matt Britt RfA format much simpler and removed the need for refactoring in the first place, for instance, and is helpful even in the Moralis RfA format to separate the discussion from the questions and nomination statement). --ais523 14:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind sections; I'd love sections if the RfA gets big. Just not Support/Oppose/Neutral sections. It encourages people to vote, instead of discuss, which is not wanted.  Majorly   (hot!)  14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as removing the sections is probably prohibited for the time being due to the protection on the page (much as it may be a good idea), can I at least reformat them? --ais523 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why though? Most RfAs don't even need them. If an RfA becomes so bulky so it's hard to edit, sections can be readded then. We're only encouraging voters more by doing this.  Majorly   (hot!)  14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say most RfAs do need them; but what about just sectioning off the 'Questions', 'General comments', and 'Discussion' pseudo-headings as a compromise? That way, the bulk of the RfA is easier to edit (most RfA votes are to support anyway, so sectioning off oppose and neutral is less of a gain), but it doesn't leave /* Support */ in edit summaries and so doesn't encourage a voting mindset. --ais523 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that sounds fine :)  Majorly   (hot!)  15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "voice your opinion" link should then lead to the discussion section, though I think the link is unnecessary because editors know how to edit sections. Majorly, do you oppose people writing "support/oppose" in their edit summary? What else can they put while the current format exists? There's no point hiding what you perceive as faults of the format as long as the format remains. –Pomte 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose it if they give a reason as well. But I'm just as guilty :)  Majorly   (hot!)  17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it won't gain approval because RfA refuses to acknowledge it's state, but the "Discussion" section needs to be changed to "voting" now, if we're going to do this format (i.e., this format). --Durin 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone should add the tally back, and change "Voice your opinion" to "Vote here". How about get a bureaucrat bot as well? =)  Majorly   (hot!)  16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion
Since many of the issues revolve around easiness of editing/reading the RfA, has anyone actually bothered to approach the great folks that in the end have to read through the tons of votes/comments/whatever and assess consensus (read: bureaucrats) and asked them what format is convenient for performing their tasks (we're not paying them for their valuable time, so why not make their voluntary work easier)? Миша 13 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the section edit links are designed to be convenient for RfA commentors rather than closers, and the names of the sections should be irrelevant to the closing 'crats. 'Crat input might be more useful in determining things like whether to have a tally, and whether to mark votes/!votes/comments/whatever with # or *, and whether to sort them, etc., etc..... --ais523 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I would be okay with letting the b'crats decide on the tally and numbering/bulleting issue and hopefully ending this silliness. Preferably after they read the various arguments for either, if they feel they aren't familiar enough with the situation for some reason. --W.marsh 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That said, I've notified them and am now hoping for some sensible input. Миша 13 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that input received so far has not been sensible? — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was uninsightful. All compromise reached so far deals with uncontroversial sections, while the true conflict remains unresolved with sides entrenched. Миша 13 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also an implication that bureaucrats are the arbiters of what is acceptable at RfA. They aren't. --Durin 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say I've been on Wikipedia for a while and seem to remember times when bureaucrats where actually moderators of RfAs, not merely judges. Not sure if it was ever a written law, but IMHO a very good practice (that now seems forgotten). Anyway, fact remains that they are the ones who have most work to do on an RfA, so I'd value their opinion greatly. Mind you: I have never suggested that they should decide on the template's final shape, just that their opinion is very important. Миша 13 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection lifted
Since things seem to have calmed down and people started discussing things (actually, talks are in stalled state, probably pending proposals on WT:RfA), I have lifted the protection. If l4m3ne$ resumes, I might resort to other measures. Миша 13 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

4th question
I just added a question 4, the standard "Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?" question that has been asked in, as far as I can tell, every RFA for months now. Hopefully this won't be controversial. Mango juice talk 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't asked in mine, and I'm quite a recent admin. --ais523 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked myself something like that on mine but I still don't think it's standard enough or useful enough to build into the template. Haukur 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is controversial, please remove it immediately. We have enough questions as it is.  Majorly   (hot!)  15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also a silly question. The only correct answer is "use common sense". — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is controversial, just like the rule itself is. I believe standard questions should be as neutral as possible and concern the candidate as an editor, not a WikiPolitician. This is a good question, but only to be asked by a third party. Миша 13 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions
These are optional. RFAs have been passed with the questions completely left unanswered. There's no need to make them compulsory. Moreschi Talk 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a link to such an RFA?  Melsaran  (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Ragesoss. Moreschi Talk 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That RFA has 13 opposes and 8 neutrals just because he failed to answer the questions. Stating that the questions are optional is needlessly misleading. Yes, they ought to be optional, but in practice it's a very stupid move not to answer them. It's unnecessary to explicitly state that they are mandatory, but we shouldn't mislead the candidate.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the change. They are optional, and the word is there not just to inform the candidate, but the participants too, who think opposing for that reason is a good idea. It should be added back.  Majorly  (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, they should be optional, but I think the word "optional" may be misleading to the candidate because they'll think "I won't answer the questions, don't see the need, they're optional anyway", and then get many opposes/neutrals. Isn't there a better way to state this? Maybe something like "it is recommended that you answers these optional questions (...)"?  Melsaran  (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but keep the optional bit in. I'm thinking of people who like to oppose just for having no answers, which is disruptive to the RfA process.  Majorly  (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * +1 on the recommended verbiage. — xaosflux  Talk  00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What about this?
I don't think we're going to get a consensus on the "vote vs discussion" issue (tallies or not, sections or not) in the near future. How about two separate templates? We could have one template that looks like this, and another that looks like this, and the candidate would be able to choose what RfA style they prefer. Thoughts?  Melsaran  (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it - we should make the current template the second one, and the vote counters can have the alternative.  Majorly  (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even better, we can just not use a template anymore.  Majorly  (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck getting support for that change. The problem I see with having two templates is the additional complication. Some users already find the nomination process overly complicated (why, I don't know), and the ease of automatically generating the template is an attempt to resolve that. Adding an additional template would just complicate things. - auburn pilot   talk  15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the "not use a template anymore" a serious comment? How would you propose we have any standard formatting? It would be utter chaos. - auburn pilot   talk  15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very serious. On Meta, Simple Wikipedia and Commons, where I also work, there are no templates for RfA (or very, very basic ones). Not having a template would remove the need for lame edit wars.  Majorly  (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but both Simple Wikipedia and Meta have so few users, there's no need for a standard formatting. If I've counted correctly, there are only around 20 admins on Simple anyway. That's hardly a comparable system. Also, I can't say deleting a template is the best way to avoid edit wars. - auburn pilot   talk  15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how user numbers come into it. Someone just adds their RFA to the page, under a header 2 section, and people discuss underneath. Here, we have a tally, end time, questions, discussion areas, support/oppose/neutral sections, voice your opinion link... all completely decoration and unnecessary for the process. That is what complicates things. Removing will remove the complicatedness.  Majorly  (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Users numbers come into it because a project with larger numbers has larger participation in the process. I believe the bureaucrats have already stated that such an approach (one mass discussion) is unmanageable. Further, with people so hell-bent on not allowing 'crats any room for discretion, this system could never work. Regardless, this seems to be a fundamental disagreement on how the process works. I see removing the template as having a disastrous effect; you seem to think it will eliminate all our problems. - auburn pilot   talk  15:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion about sub-headings
Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship for a centralized discussion about adding some additional sub-headings to this template. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about alternative accounts
I have removed the question added by User:Jossi - judging by this page's history, adding questions is a contentious issue and should be discussed first.  Red rocket  boy  13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, I think question should be added only after there is consensus at WT:RfA --WinHunter (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a contentious issue. WP:SOCK is official policy. Read also the "disclosures" section at Guide_to_requests_for_adminship ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I'm not sure whether all candidates should get the same questions (as implied by using consensus), then we'd get a whole load of copied answers. &mdash; Rudget speak.work 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sock is a policy, but so are loads of other policies. That page you quote is an unofficial guide.  Red rocket  boy  16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Jossi, you boldly added a questionable imperative to the Guide. I don't think such disclosures should be mandatory for a variety of reasonable privacy concerns. And hence I don't think the question is reasonable either. Please take it to WT:RFA. Dragons flight (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not questionable, Dragon flight. It is most pertinent. In any case, I have started a discussion at WT:RFA ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

AGK's edit—Abstain
For the purposes of the record, and as a starting area for any follow-up discussion, I would like to note that I have retitled the section previously named "neutral", to "abstain", per suggestions on WT:RFA, WP:BN, et cetera.

Although I suspect some folks may seize up at the idea of an editor making a change to the hallowed RfA template, in essence my change is not a huge difference, and will simply serve to implement the true purpose of the neutral vote, and the purpose the section has been utilised for, for a long time now.

To reiterate my comments elsewhere, abstain is essentially a "here's my view on X, I do not wish to support but do not wish to oppose, so I will withhold my vote" comment, which is exactly what neutral is used for in the present-day system at WP:RFA.

I am absolutely open to discussion on my edit, but I do see the evidence in support of the change as pretty solid. Having said that, perhaps an editor previously new to the "abstain, neutral, recuse, etc..." retitling debate will bring some fresh blood into the ping-pong game we're playing at the moment. AGK (contact) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to play semantics AGK, but being Neutral but lending an opinion is not the same as abstaining. If I want to abstain I just go hit RC Patrol instead. Pedro : Chat  22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand where you are coming from—it is certainly true that, in an everyday sense, abstentions are an intentional withholding of one's say on a matter. However, when the context is that of a voting scenario, it is often the case, and RfA is a prime example (despite the mistitling of "neutral") of this, it is possible for one to go on-the-record to note their abstentions, and furthermore to document their reasons for doing so, on the location of the vote. You say "not to talk semantics"—I think the very nature of my change means we have no option but to do so :) thoughts? AGK (contact) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A possibility may be "Abstain with Comments" although it looks slightly unwieldy. My understanding is that 'crats will certainly take note of "Neutrals" and wether they "lean to oppose" or "lean to support". It's no major matter really. Semantically "Neutral" implies no opinion at all so is neither better nor worse than "Abstain" within this context. I'm keen that the "discussion" area at the top is not used for neutral opinions as I feel that is for discussion of the RfA itself and not input by an editor on their opinion of the candidate. Maybe renaming the last section to "Comments" ..... although that then looks confusing against the discussion heading..... Tricky ! Pedro : Chat  23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It really just seems to be a more cemented version of the discussions section, and in theory can be abolished. However, the community has fairly taken to it, and seems rather fond of using it, so in practice that's probably not feasible, except if implemented in the middle of some sort of RfA über-shake-up where it wouldn't be noticed, and people would have a chance to actually get used to it (a la undo feature)... But that's not ideal. Would you be opposed to leaving it at abstain, and allowing folks to get used to it. AGK (contact) 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all opposed. In general, and I admit this is a generalisation, RfA commentators know their way around anyway, and therefore should easily be able to understand the purpose/value of the sections. Further input from others would help at this time though. Pedro : Chat  23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have been missing something in the discussion, but I absolutely disagree with making neutral "abstain". Abstaining is not commenting, Neutral is lending an insight without necessarily endorsing/not endorsing the candidate's sysopping. Putting an abstain section in that requires editing contradicts the meaning of the word, in a sense, and in any case it sure isn't a neutral. Plus there's the discussion area, which I'd say is more equivalent to abstaining. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Dihydrogen Monoxide. "Abstain" and "Neutral" cannot be used interchangeably here, as they carry a very different connotation, if not a very different meaning. If I abstain from participating, I simply don't participate; however, if I have no strong feeling either way on a candidate, but still have something to add, I would be remaining neutral (but I would not be abstaining). - auburn pilot   talk  23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've undid my edit, pending the outcome of the discussion. Furthermore, I think it's clear that the specifics of my change could be improved—to that end, are there any suggestions? Do any editors believe that neutral is an acceptable term, or are there alternatives? AGK (contact) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think undoing that was a good call, pending discussion. My concern is that the "discussion" header should be more for general remarks unrelated to approving or not approving the candidate. Therefore there needs to be a clearly defined section, that is neither a support or oppose, for comments related to the approval request. What it's called is academic, as long as everyone is clear as to what its purpose is, and we should ensure that this is the end result of this debate IMHO. Pedro : Chat  00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * AGK: Thanks for reverting, you made the right call in doing so. Pedro: I don't think we need another section...there's really no harm done in using the discussion section more, and there isn't that much "abstaining" anyway. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing another section. Discussion, Support, Oppose, Neutral are what we have right now ... i.e. call "neutral" what we want as long as it's purpose is clear - a non !vote with commentary about the candidate regarding adminship suitaility. Pedro : Chat  00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change the following sentence
The sentence: "It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:"

...is very awkward grammatically. "Please" is the polite way to say "It is recommended that you". And "optional" implies that nobody will mind if the questions are not answered, but that isn't usually the case. People typically oppose when questions aren't answered. Optionality is already implied without having to state it in the same way that eating is optional, but we don't instruct our kids that eating is optional, because that would be dangerous or harmful. The same principle applies here.

I propose that the above sentence be replaced by a simpler sentence with less potential to mislead nominees:

"Please answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:"

That's one possibility. I believe it fits the context of RfA and how it operates, and is straight-forward and polite. Other suggestions are welcome.

The Transhumanist 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but I'd drop a quick note on WT:RFA leading to this discussion. This template talk page is likely to be far less visible, and a change like this could do with some wider input. Pedro : Chat  07:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip. The Transhumanist  07:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea, shorter and clearer. And who was the last person to get away without putting something down as an answer to the standard three?  MBisanz  talk 08:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ragesoss, some time in 2006, I think. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I withhold, for now, my opinion on this change, but strong suggest nothing happen without significant discussion...this isn't just changing a template, this is changing the way an attitude is portrayed to outsiders. That's a big deal. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest being blunter: "You are required to answer the following three questions as a courtesy to the community". It is, afterall, the truth.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 12:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Courtesy implies a voluntary act of consideration or kindness, which this wouldn't be... And using "required" implies some official sanction for failing to meet the requirement. There is no official response, except that the vast majority of participants would oppose on that basis - which amounts to the same thing, really. We un-transclude RfAs that aren't properly formatted - i.e., they don't use the template properly, don't accept, etc. So, could we add the questions to the formal instructions for RfA? Make answering the boilerplate questions a prerequisite for transclusion, just as much as accepting the nom is? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 12:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Transhumanists, simple, direct, and reflects the current feeling about (at least) the first 3 questions. Alternative (to get rid of "required", I agree with UEZZ), It is strongly encouraged that you answer the following three questions as a courtesy to the community .  Yeah?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, that's pretty much the same problem that the sentence as now. Striking it.  I like transhumanist's, I would support the template change to his wording.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but I prefer the politer versions of the same communicate. Please, consider answering the following questions, typically addressed by the candidates, although is phrased tentatively, clearly informs of the custom, but leaves a small window for free will. Putting it as mandatory makes the whole process a bit more uncivil (and remember that the candidates already are reluctant to run the gauntlet mop). Pundit | utter 17:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But that begs the question of "why consider it?" Perhaps providing the reason for answering the questions will make the request even more personable and polite.  See my suggestion in response to, below.  The Transhumanist  19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to go the opposite direction and make a stronger statement that the questions are optional. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to TTH's proposal
"Please respond to the following questions, in order to help provide participants some guidance:"

First, I strongly prefer "respond" over "answer". Because I've noticed that there are times in which a question may be responded to, which doesn't necessarily answer the question. (And, depending on the question, that may or may not be a good thing.)

Second, I don't think that the latter part of TTH's word makes it clear enough about the "guidance". Where it's targeted; how much the questions are a facter; etc.

Further thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that "respond" is better than "answer".


 * I see what you mean about "guidance". "Guidance" is vague.  Perhaps change "to provide guidance for participants" to "to help participants decide if you are ready to be an admin at this time."


 * Which gives:


 * "Please respond to the following questions, to help participants decide if you are ready to be an admin at this time."


 * Further suggestions welcome. The Transhumanist  19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's about whether the editor is "ready to be an admin", I think it's about trust. (trust: to use the tools and to exercise the duties of adminship; thoughtfully and responsibly, with discernment and discretion)
 * That said, I don't think we should get into that debate here. And so we should also probably leave that debate out of the sentence. - jc37 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust has many facets. Trust that the person will do a good job.  Trust that the person won't abuse the tools.  Trust that the person won't put his or her foot in his or her mouth every other post.  Trust that the person won't blow his or her stack.  Etc.  Trust is factored into "ready to be an admin".  By the way, if the questions aren't for determining whether a candidate is ready for the mop, what are they for?  Just curious.  The Transhumanist  16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoting myself:
 * "That said, I don't think we should get into that debate here. And so we should also probably leave that debate out of the sentence."
 * This should stay as non-contentious (and therefore, non-defined) as possible. - jc37 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, maybe simple is the best:
 * Please respond to the following questions:
 * Let's skip the reasons "why", entirely. - jc37 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that gives too much of an impression that responding to the questions is required. It is not, they are optional. The candidate needs to communicate a certain amount of information to participants (about their trustworthiness and competence) - how they do that is up to them. They may rely on a nominator, write a statement or answer the optional questions. They could also rely on participants obtaining the info themselves through review of their contributions or that they will be known already to participants. I would prefer something along the lines of: "answering these questions may help participants determine whether to support your request". WjBscribe 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the other extreme-a note saying that you are under NO obligation to answer, and indeed, there is very little reason to do so. Notice how Ragesoss's RfA worked so much better than those where people are opposed for having a content-typo on Q1? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ragesoss was a rare exception. Note that you are under no obligation to request adminship in the first place, that is, to engage in the RfA process.  But if you request adminship and then don't engage in the RfA process, what business do you have being there?  And if you are opposed for not answering the optional questions, just how "optional" does that make them?  The Transhumanist  11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ragesoss shouldn't be a rare exception. The questions shouldn't be an essential part of the process. That isn't the case now, but that's how it should be. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WJBscribe, you almost captured it in a nutshell (fixed grammar): "Candidates need to communicate a certain amount of information about their trustworthiness and competence to participants, and how they do that is up to them. They may rely on a nominator, write a statement, or answer the optional questions."  But you missed something.  It isn't just up to them.  The participants decide what constitutes an acceptable application for the position being offered.  And rarely do nominees forgo the questions without being opposed for doing so.  Not answering the questions is optional, true, but so is shooting yourself in the foot.  The problem is that RfA's context is not currently conveyed well in its instructions or in its title.  Speaking of its title, "Requests for adminship" implies that all you need to do is make a request, and those who process the requests will take care of the rest -- that's how most of the other request pages on Wikipedia work.  But RfA is more like applying for a position at a company or other organization, and participating at RfA as a nominee is a cross between writing a resume and being interviewed. You wouldn't go to a job interview and then refuse to answer the interviewer's questions, would you?    Due to lack of good instructions, admin hopefuls are forced to participate in RfA for weeks to get a feel for it before they run the gauntlet, or resort to trial and error.  If the process was made clearer, it would save a lot of wasted time and effort. The Transhumanist  11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (noting the comments above) - Hence why I was suggesting that we shouldn't get into the debate by injecting it into the text : )


 * Let's see if we can merge the two proposals with the original:
 * It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * and
 * Please respond to the following questions:
 * and
 * answering these questions may help participants determine whether to support your request.
 * Let's change "determine" to its infinitive form.
 * "Answer" to "respond"
 * And while it's "Request for adminship", that's been a bit blurry as to who's requesting, of late. So removing "your".
 * Added "consider", since these are optional, though strongly suggested.
 * Added "or not", to help make it clear that responding may cause negative response.
 * Resulting in:


 * Please consider reponding to the following optional questions, which may help participants to determine whether or not to support this request for adminship.


 * Further thoughts/ideas welcome. - jc37 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomination Instructions
To go along with this change, I would recommend changing the instructions for nomination as follows, under the section "What to do if you are nominated by someone else". The instructions currently read:

''2. After you accept your nomination, answer the standard questions for all candidates. While these questions are considered optional, chances are very high that the RfA will fail if they are not answered.''

I would propose changing the line to read:

2. After you accept your nomination, answer the standard questions provided to all candidates.

We might also consider noting that "Your nomination is considered incomplete until you answer the questions or, alternatively, explicitly state your intent to not answer them." They cannot simply be ignored or blown off, but the candidate could indicate their intent to disregard them, for good or ill. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Transhumanist's proposal ("Please answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants"); it avoids the concerns above, of it appearing as "official sanctions" being in-place, as well as the appearance that answering the questions is part of the accepted process (although that only a handful of requests have passed without answering the optional questions perhaps suggests that it really is :). It also reflects, as discussed above, that answering the questions is, as a rule of thumb, necessary in today's rfa process. Anthøny  17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

2. After you accept your nomination, please answer the standard questions provided to all candidates.


 * Should have the "please" noted above, at least. - jc37 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier when I used the term "required", I wasn't exactly being facetious. Why fool ourselves. I realize there's a good deal of discretion and congeniality that is required here - afterall, we don't want to scare people away, but let's be realistic. The question are, for the most part, required if an RfA is to be taken seriously. I sincerely suggest that it is gently suggested to the candidate that the questions are to be answered.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reprinting the original text:
 * 2. After you accept your nomination, answer the standard questions for all candidates. While these questions are considered optional, chances are very high that the RfA will fail if they are not answered.

So merging my suggestion above (for consistancy), I suggest changing the first sentence to:
 * 2. After you have accepted the nomination, please consider responding to the optional questions, which are standard to all nominations.

This should add the "politeness facter". (Use of "please"; replace "candidates" with "nominations"; etc.)

And then add a shortened form of the rest of the suggested sentence, as the second sentence:


 * 2. After you have accepted the nomination, please consider responding to the optional questions which are standard to all nominations. Your reponses may help participants to determine whether or not to support this request for adminship.

As above, ideas/thoughts welcome. - jc37 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Original proposal withdrawn. New proposal inspired by the input above.
I withdraw my proposal, and propose this instead...

As they stand, the "optional" questions are trick questions, the trick being if you don't answer them you are more than likely screwed. Is this really the context in which the questions should be asked? None of the instructions proposed so far capture the essence of the context in which the questions are being presented. It might help if, while remaining polite and personable, we conveyed the role of the nominee and the participants, and the relationship between answering and !voting...

''Dear nominee, in the spirit of an interview, please answer the following questions. Participants base their decision to support or oppose in part upon your answers. Good luck. May the Force be with you.''

The Transhumanist 16:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I like the levity, but, frivolity won't do the process much justice, and it may actually encourage the applicant not to take it seriously the whole way through. Just simply say Dear nominee, please answer the following questions. It's that simple.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it shouldn't be taken that seriously. No big deal and all. (This version may discourage non-Star Wars fans, though.) --Rory096 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rory, I see your point, but let's be truthful/blunt here. The tools themselves are a big deal as they have the potential to do severe damage to the project, and to newbies. This might be a separate issue, but the whole WP:NBD argument is often misused and thrown around abit too much. Face it. If the candidate doesn't take those questions seriously, by say, answering weakly or laconically, the RfA will plunge.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please state which tools are still able to do damage? Adminship has been pretty much nerfed over time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. For starters, there's block. Sure it can be undone, but a bad block turns users sour. This is especially prevalent at WP:UAA. Delete, especially WP:CSD. Another bitey area. Driving users away is, in my opinion, the biggest detriment to the project.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything administrators can do can be easily reverted. Perhaps people might oppose for not answering questions, but codifying that in the template would only encourage that behavior and tell people that the questions are, in fact, required, when in reality they're not and shouldn't be, even if they are in some people's minds. --Rory096 02:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * KISS. We don't need to get verbose; "please answer the following questions" is plenty sufficient. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A Counter proposal: Dear nominee, please answer the following questions. Participants base their decision to support or oppose in part upon your answers. Note that failing to respond to these questions is typically received negatively. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Wisdom's suggestion: Dear nominee, please answer the following questions. The Transhumanist  13:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Yellowdesk on this, it says the questions are optional because they are just that, optional, its common sense that not answering the questions will go down negatively, but theres no harm in stating that. &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 09:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Although these questions are optional, we recommend that you answer them. Participants base their decision to support or oppose on your answers, and failing to respond is typically received negatively.'"--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No voting sections
...But it is a vote still. Also, there was no consensus *laughs* to remove it. -- how do you turn this on  14:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Undoing Giggy's edit per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=243184743#Heads_up_-_edit_to_Template:RfA and particularly per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=243184743&oldid=243184599. There is evidently no true/sufficient consensus for this change. Before changing this again such a consensus should be achieved. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 14:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose your revert, aitias, and I respectfully request that you undo yourself. Let's see how the change pans out; if the change is not accepted after some beta testing, then we can return to the drawing board. Anthøny   ✉  15:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully support aitias's revert. The format does not make it a vote, only the way it is used. It is much easier to get a quick idea of how much support/opposition a candidate is getting when each side is separated, and whenever somebody tries to make a change like this, it's always reverted. It really should be added to WP:PEREN. We've seen the disaster that comes from RfC/AfD styled RfAs, which simply don't work, and I'm very much against removing these sections. - auburn pilot   talk  15:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, AGK, I won't undo my revert myself. Reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=243223573#Heads_up_-_edit_to_Template:RfA as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=243223573#Change_attitudes_rather_than_process.3F you will see that there is evidently no consensus for this change, much the opposite. Therefore, as there is not approximately a consensus, I think my revert was appropriate. Regards, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 18:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aitias (and Auburnpilot). There was no consensus to change it at all. I'm all for being bold, but with that much opposition, changing it was a bit too bold. -- how do you turn this on  18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we delink the dates?
As dates have been delinked in the mainspace for the most part, could someone edit this template so as to remove the internal links from the end date? I would have done it myself, but I'm not sure how to. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I've unlinked the dates, as per the above rationale and It Is Me Here's suggestion. AGK 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't mainspace though. Since RFAs are primarily for logged in users, not only readers, people with preferences may well prefer to keep them linked. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But in my opinion, the linking is only used at present to highlight the dates, rather than for its intended purpose (as a link). After all, what happened in the past on a certain date on which an RfA happens to be scheduled to end is hardly relevant to the RfA itself. Thus, perhaps we could change the links to italics or something similar? It Is Me Here (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dates no longer need to be linked in order for the MediaWiki software engine to be able to re-arrange the dating in accordance with a user's preference. The linked-dates are therefore unnecessary, insofar as I'm aware. MOS:UNLINKYEARS has more information. AGK 22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be that way for me. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This function doesn't work for you? It certainly seems to be written into the software (again, see link). AGK 22:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about user's preferences on that link. That's for articles. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=250119809.

Add "nomination" heading to the top
I'd like to add ====Nomination==== right below the top line.

This will reduce edit conflicts as the !vote counters are updated.

The potential downside is the generated RFA will no longer have an "intro" section. Some people may complain that this is un-wiki but since this isn't article space I say "big deal."

Thoughts? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just add a section-0 link? Icewedge (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that work with transcluded pages? If I'm editing Requests for Adminship and want to update the totals for each candidate without opening the pages for each RFA, I don't think section-0 will do that.  I could be wrong though.  If there's a way to do this without changing the template or changing its appearance on-screen then great.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified User talk:Oleg Alexandrov and User talk:Tangotango on their respective talk pages. Announced on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. I don't see many problems arising from the addition of this section. Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of bot issues, I need assent from User talk:Oleg Alexandrov and User talk:Tangotango. I don't want to break anything.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think my bot will break. If it does, I will fix it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's done please revert and discuss here immediately if it causes any problems that can't be quickly fixed in other ways. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Voice your opinion
Since some people seem to be confusing this with "Voice your opinion about anything you like, relevant or otherwise to the candidate being discussed", I suggest it be reworded to "Voice your opinion about this candidate". Or even better - just remove the damned link. It serves little use when there's at least two other edit buttons to use.  Majorly  talk  03:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So. No one object? I'll take this to RFA talk.  Majorly  talk  20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I say "removed the damned link." I think the confusion you reference is pretty unlikely (or if they do think that, it's not because of the link itself), and if someone's already on an RfA, they should be able to figure out how to !vote... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

New Template To Simplify RFA Closes
I have created this template to simplify getting the closing format of RFAs correct and modified the advice accordingly. What does the community think?  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   350° 27' 45" NET   23:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do I take the silence as acceptance?  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   165° 47' 0" NET   11:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess so.  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   184° 56' 45" NET   12:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but I'm no template maven. Why not post to WP:BN and ask the Crats as a group what they think? I'd guess not all of us have this page watchlisted. --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll give that a try. Thanks.  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   334° 22' 15" NET   22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reword questions 1 and 2
I propose we reword question 1 to "What administrative areas to do you have experience in?" and question 2 to "What are your best content contributions to Wikipedia, and why?".

The reason I propose this is that currently question 1 relies on the candidate being honest about their intentions, whereas with a change their own experience is verifiable and would give a better indication of experience. Question 2 should be solely about content. As it stands, it could be about absolutely anything (though it most often is content), and content should be an important contribution from every admin.

Thoughts? AD 13:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is that "content should be an important contribution from every admin". Mine, as it happens, is not AD. Further we've had (certainly historically) RFA's pass easily for "specialist" admins who self-define their "best contributions" often in areas nothing to do with content (copyright, images, counter-vandalism, fixing cut 'n' paste moves, whatever). I for one like candidates to state what they think is their best contributions and I object to narrowing it down. If a candidate says that their best contributions are vandal fighting and they get opposes that's fine. Frankly all I can see by changing Q2 to the proposed is that anyone who has a paucity of content work will simply state that and go on to define their best contributions in their eyes anyway, thus making this exercise a touch futile. Pedro : Chat  13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pedro; content work is not the most important factor to consider in an RfA. Sure, it is important, but XFD work and AIV work are just as important. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 13:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is fine. Re Q1 What people intend to do is important, if they don't demonstrate that they have relevant experience in that area then they can expect questions and even opposes. Re Q2 I doubt if anyone could get through RFA today without demonstrating that they have added content that has inline cites to reliable sources, but that isn't necessarily what they consider their best contribution. My successful RFA was 18 months ago, and RFA is stricter now, but I like to think that someone like I was might still be acceptable to the community.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with WSC. The current wording is superior to the suggested wording. Townlake (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I really like either of the opposed changes. Regarding Q1, if the candidate has significant experience in administrative areas, presumably it would be mentioned in either the nom statement or Q2 as presently worded or simply be obvious from researching their edits. As WereSpielChequers said, looking for experience in the area someone intends to work is a good thing and allows focused questions/analysis. I'm especially opposed to the proposed change to Q2, but then I'm certainly biased since I have a paucity of content contributions and am most definitely a specialist. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's only applicable to desysopped admin applying for the button again, fine; if not, please tell the world how can a non-admin have experience in admin matters? Requesting administrative action and preparing cheatsheets for admin action is one thing; doing it is something different. The big trio: block, delete, view deleted. How many applicants ever came close to each of these three roles? East of Borschov 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with the reword of the template, it's entirely possible for a non-admin to have experience in admin matters via admin requests. For instance, they can make edits to protected pages via editprotected, delete pages with speedy deletion tags, block vandals via AIV, and so on. It doesn't really matter who's actually pressing the buttons in such cases. Pretty much anything an admin can do, there's a process for a non-admin to do it as well, via requesting an admin to help them. (I've even seen attempts by non-admins to close XfDs via db-xfd, although that's one of the most dubious cases of non-admins attempting to do admin-only tasks.) Even tasks like reviewing speedy-deletion or proposed-deletion taggings to see if they're valid can be done by non-admins (via untagging or prod-2). --ais523 18:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-admin can "delete pages with speedy deletion tags"? Now that's something new. Just don't tell the world. East of Borschov 19:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable to assume a candidate's speedy deletion tagging is indicative as to how they would use the deletion button, AIV reports are slightly less informative as they only tell you whether the candidate would block, not for how long.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with #2 especially: sometimes, a user has contributed content, but still feels their best work is something else such as anti-vandal work. #1 I agree with, we rarely know where we will end up working. I never work in any of the areas I said in my RfA anymore, and I doubt many other admins do. ( X! ·  talk )  · @030  · 23:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with X! The long and short of it is that it is not difficult to enter a new administrative area, even without prior experience in it. I'm not saying that we should promote very inexperienced people, but ideally we're looking for people with common sense. I think if we ask "what do you have experience in" at the moment, it helps us gauge this better. I am not keen on #2 at all. Content contribution is given a disproportionate amount of weight right now when considering admin ability for the wrong reasons.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish
I find the "Lorem" text quite silly. It looks as if someone typed gibberish on the keyboard. Wouldn't be better to leave the answers blank? –BuickCenturyDriver 06:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added some explanatory answers to the questions instead of the Latin text.  Rcsprinter  (rap)  15:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing question
Per the recent RfC, should we add a question about Paid Editing to this template? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A previous discussion at WT:RFA came to no consensus in January. However, this has come up in the question section of several RfAs since then. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The admin policy requires Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay., if we don't want it to be a "question" perhaps just adding it to the html comments in the "The candidate may make an optional statement here. If this request is a self nomination, feel free to remove this line"? — xaosflux  Talk 02:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This was to be my suggestion, something simply reciting the policy line and indicating the candidate may note it in their acceptance or self-nomination statement. Part of the hang-up, power, is that (at least by my understanding) aside from the desire to avoid evermore questions, the required disclosure is for users who have been paid to edit, not for users who haven't.  That is, the majority of candidates don't say anything because they are not required to.  They then, of course, get the question anyway. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 10:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)