User talk:Deathphoenix/RFA questions

"Four Reverts in 25 hours" question
You can delete this page if you like by way of removing the info it reveals: the 3RR question is either a one-time trick or a mistake. The 3RR is 4 times in 24 hours, not 25. Anyone reverting 4 times in 25 hours is not subject to the letter of the 3RR. -Splash talk 16:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed that was the entire point of the question, designed to draw out responses about common sense, letter vs spirit of the rules, and all that. Friday (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the purpose of this question, and hence the reason why I bolded "25". But thanks for your response, I am really seeking feedback on these questions! :-) --Deathphoenix 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think this question will act as a one-trick pony. People will very soon know about "The 3RR Question". Some question that actually seeks the answer you're interested in might be better, e.g. "What are you feelings regarding editors who make 4 reverts in slightly more than 24 hours, where there is possibly the intent of circumventing the three-revert-rule?", or somesuch. Of course, these are your personal questions; I'm just inclined to think it better to ask the question you mean to ask rather than one you don't. -Splash talk 18:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I decided to put in "instead of 24 hours" so the people know my point. I don't want to "trick" candidates into giving a "wrong answer" and give everyone a reason to vote Oppose. However, I also want to make the question as "clear" as possible, and I hope the current version is good. What do you think? --Deathphoenix 18:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is better; but opts out of asking about the 26th hour. -Splash talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * hahaha... well, I think 25 hours is close enough, or should I ask 24 hours and one minute? --Deathphoenix 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, quite. That was why I suggested asking about "in slightly more than 24 hours". They can interpret "slightly" as they will. -Splash talk 18:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, thanks. --Deathphoenix 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
NPOV's not part of being an admin, per se, since it is a principle for all editing. Some question regarding the use of admin powers in such cases might be more useful, this being RfA. -Splash talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, an editors opinion toward NPOV is paramount before being given admin powers. Admin after admin seems to have a skewed version of NPOV, seems to think that any edit which violates their conception of NPOV (also known as "my almighty personal opinion") is "simple vandalism" rather than a content dispute, and is willing to wheel war over reverting, blocking, protecting, or deleting involved content.  I want to see admins who truly understand NPOV because we are giving them the power to enforce it, even if they claim to only plan to be involved in other areas, and even though content disputes are not supposed to be mediated by admins. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Well, here I'm fairly careful to ask questions that a non-admin would be able to answer (as a non-admin you can still, for instance, report 3RR violations to WP:AN3 and the test and bv templates can be used by everyone). IMO, the NPOV question is relevant because admins are often called upon to deal with content disputes. Knowing how prospective admins deal with NPOV issues as editors can give us an idea of they will deal with NPOV disputes between other editors. Still, I'm thinking that this question might be too hard for RFA candidates to answer. What do you think about this question in terms of difficulty? --Deathphoenix 18:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The questions asks "do you understand one of the 3 core content policies of Wikipedia?". If that's too hard for them, then.... -Splash talk 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Splash. If the person can't answer the question, they probably don't need to be an admin. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:bv question
I don't know if anyone actually reads this particular talk page anymore, but I've changed the first optional question from asking the differences between using &#123;{test1}} and &#123;{bv}} to asking the differences between using &#123;{test4}} and &#123;{bv}}. The first was too easy because the templates are too different. The second compares similar templates, and the responses will probably give a better idea of how familiar the candidate is to the questions. --Deathphoenix 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. (Although this question was revealing just recently when someone said "I've never heard of either them" in their RfA.) The new version also might encourage answers regarding flexibility of approach regarding the issuing of the warnings below test4. -Splash talk 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)