User:Balloonman/work in progress

[edit] Keep's ridiculous questions. 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)

 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, Dlohcierekim 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? What virus do you believe currently poses the most danger to humanity? Why? Do you believe that .99999... = 1? Why or why not? Please compose a limerick about your Wikipedia experiences. 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)

<>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, Dlohcierekim 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)

[edit] 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. Dlohcierekim 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. Dlohcierekim 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)

[edit] 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..--Cometstyles 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) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Ironically, just because it is not a vote does not mean it is not politicized. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 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)

[edit] 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 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. What virus do you believe currently poses the most danger to humanity? Why? Do you believe that .99999... = 1? Why or why not? Please compose a limerick about your Wikipedia experiences. 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) A light aircraft recently. Note the absence of wireless internet capability.I wasn't running.Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 28 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)

[edit] 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. Dlohcierekim 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC) You are endorsing these plain silly questions? Really that's what they are.-Pattont/c 13:05, 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) 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 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.--Pattont/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)