Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Move RFA questions?

Proposed change
'Move all optional questions to the RFA's talk page and allow threaded discussion as is normal on talk pages, as opposed to the ask, answer, discuss elsewhere'' format currently in use. The standard three questions asked of all candidates are not affected by this change. The goal is to make RFA less like an interrogation and more like what it is, a job interview.'''

Users who support this proposal

 * Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bielle (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC) (I find the front part of the RFAs intimidating and distracting, so anything that reduces the wall of words would be a bonus.)
 * TheGrappler (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC) (as with Bielle)
 * Skomorokh : Strongly support the introduction of threaded discussion (poles) ; optional questions on talkpage could be useful also. Even if this were not to work out, RfA is dysfunctional and cannot get better without either structural or cultural change. There is very little harm in trying new methods of discourse, and potentially a lot to be gained. 21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For a three-month trial, or so, at least. If people start to like it, keep it, if it's failing miserably, get rid of it. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this would make any practical difference, but if there's a chance it might improve the adversarial atmosphere at RFA it's worth a try. Three months seems too long a trial to me, though - I'd suggest more like three weeks. Robofish (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not my ideal solution to this issue, but a good start. Drive-by questions strike me as no better than drive-by votes. Townlake (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a trial of some kind.-- K orr u ski Talk 12:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support because I feel that the questions and answers are a distraction from actually examining the candidates records. There are generally more comments/!votes about the questions than about the candidates editing history. RfA should not be a test on knowledge - voters should have to look at editing history and decide if the knowledge has been demonstrated. The burden should be shifted back to the commentors, and off of the candidates.  Jim Miller  See me 15:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I support voluntary testing of this proposal-- meaning, that in the next three months, candidates be given the options of having their optional questions in this format. I think it'd be interesting to see how it'd work and I think it'd make the atmosphere at RfA less volatile. Nomader  ( Talk ) 22:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per, for a three month trial period. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth a try. I'd support a trial period.  Snotty Wong   confer 00:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is worth trying, and I like Nomader's notion of it being a voluntary option. We have two standard formats for RFC/U pages:  Why not two approaches (at least for a while) to RFA?  Also, I think it might reduce the appearance that "the answer" is dramatically more important than "non-answer" interactions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Users who oppose this proposal

 * Will encourage drive-by !votes, and result in a less through review of candidates. The main problem with the questions section at the moment is the questions asked, not where they are asked, so this isn't fixing anything. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - If I understand this proposal correctly, then it seems similar to the moving of multiple questions at the recent arbcom elections, it didn't work there - except to increase the severity of the tone of "optional" questions and make navigation more difficult. I appreciate the sentiment, but my initial reaction is that I doubt this will actually help. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are obviously problems at RfA, but one of them isn't where "optional" questions are asked. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely per Malleus Fatuorum.— S Marshall T/C 23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per kingpin13  Them From  Space  23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Logan Talk Contributions 01:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What needs moving, if anything, is the pile on after !votes are cast, but not this. The AbrCom elections showed ineffectiveness of moving questions. They'll still be asked, it'll just make everything more complicated.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would make things more complicated. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 03:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this will help. I think the ArbCom elections clearly showed that restricting and splitting questions only served to frustrate everyone involved. –Grondemar 04:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Threaded discussion will probably encourage RfA to become more of a debate than it already is. At least with the question and answer format the debates over the "right answers" are limited to single threads on votes. It might be worth doing a trial to get some empirical evidence, but only with the express consent of the poor sap candidate running the gauntlet. --Danger (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The location (above !votes, below !votes, talk page, sub page) of where "optional" questions are asked is a minor technical detail.  If a trial is desired, take a past RFA, move the questions, and see what difference it makes.  If the questions are asked, and answers are demanded, it's all the same work and stress for the candidate.  If they answers are not demanded, maybe the candidate shouldn't bother.  If too many questions are asked...  I suggest questions should be proposed on the talk page, and only moved to the front page when seconded.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I reject User:Beeblebrox's plea for us to not discuss but to merely vote.  User:Beeblebrox normally comes across as a cluey nice guy, but here he seems to need reminding that voting is evil, largely because it stifles discussion and locks in unrefined ideas.
 * I think optional questions should be eliminated, forcing people to look at the candidate's actual editing history. There's far too much gotcha going on...if someone doesn't have a history that recommends them to RFA than they will be denied. But an open book test is a little pointless. RxS (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be a discussion to be had about the questions, but I'm not sure this is the one. I am not clear on what is the advantage of asking people to make a click through to see the questions and responses. People reading the comments of the !voters will have to look at a separate page to see what questions and answers are being talked about. I like SmokeyJoe's notion that questions should be proposed on the talkpage. I'd like to talk about that. A question is proposed, and if there are three unopposed supports, the question gets asked on the RfA page. Hopefully that should cut down on inappropriate questions or too many questions being asked. The community on the whole dislikes a candidate being asked too many questions, so would object to new questions if there are already "enough". On those few occasions when the community can't quite make up their mind and would like a few more questions, that would be allowed by community consensus. If Beeblebrox is unhappy with people discussing other solutions here, perhaps this RfC could be closed, and a new one started which is a bit more open to looking for a solution.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the optional questions are a problem, get rid of them altogether. Personally, I don't think they are. —WFC— 18:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - because it's not the solution to the problem. As per SilkTork and others: the problem is not where the questions should be located, but the questions themselves. They  should either be severely  limited in number and scope or done away with altogether, except for the three standard ones. Kudpung (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no and no again. The solution is n-o-t moving the questions, because hell, they are still there. The solution is taking the stupidity and uselessness that some questions certainly are, and only posting reasonable questions for the candidate. Some of these "What would you do if [insert random hypothetical situation that would never happen here]" questions have to stop. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not convinced this would be helpful. Nakon  04:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Parts of one RfA should not be on 2 separate places. If the questions would be on the talk, the crat also had to close the talk page, thus 2 close per 1 RfA. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  14:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above. Overcomplicates things, encourages drive by voting.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obviously the content of the questions (and the policy trick questions) are discouraging to read, however the RfA is a process for the community at large to meet a potential Administrator. It makes sense that we'd want to read over the Administrator's credentials and ask the administrator questions before we hand over the "key to the executive washroom".  Splitting the community questions from the required questions would mean a second page for potential expressors of approval (or disaproval) to read through before making their decision.Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think this would solve anything. -- &oelig; &trade; 07:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Without the formality of a specific questions and answers section where the candidate is the only person expected to respond, I see the possibility of the candidate's answer being lost in the chatter about the question.  Worm    TT   15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal
Many of the proposals to change RFA involve adding complex new rules, restrictions, or processes. Because of this they usually fail to achieve a consensus. This change would be simple, easy to implement, and just as easy to undo should it be considered a failure. I can't guarantee that it will make any difference, the only way to find that out is to go ahead and do it. I suggest a three month trial period. At the end of that three months we can discuss whether it has had any real effect and if it should be kept or reversed. There is broad agreement that RFA needs to change, instead of completely redefining it we can start with a simple, achievable change like this and see what effect it has. Bigger changes may or may not follow. We won't know if we don't try. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to say again here, Please don't make alternate proposals here for some other type of change to the questions. The point here is to discuss if we want to do this, and we don't want it devolving into a typical wiki-mess of a fifteen different proposals that all fail to gain support simply because there are too many of them. This isn't to say we shouldn't discuss tweaking this idea in whatever manner seems suitable, but please, please don't make separate proposals for a different type of change. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Especial in re. to Fetchcomms' support, if this is to be a trial that needs to be clear, and it needs to be very defined (i.e. not "three-month trial, or so, at least"). We should learn from past mistakes like the PC "trial" - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with this above. I'm leaning toward oppose, but if there's going to be a "trial" I'd suggest the method used previously.  A single RFA with a volunteer candidate.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're referring to Ironhold's RfA? That didn't turn out too well either tbh, I think to get a really neutral trial you need to try it on multiple candidates, but it's needs to be clear that it will only be tried on a certain number of candidates/for a certain time period, and the it has to stop after that. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just threw three months out as a suggestion. I agree if we do this there should be a defined trial period after which it's effectiveness will be re-examined, but I don't like the idea of limiting it to a single RFA. This isn't as radical of a change as was tried in the case you refer to, and one RFA is not much of a sample to judge by. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Well the process didn't fly, but the 'try it out and see what it looks like' did it's job. But in balance we're in agreement (@Kingpin13).--Cube lurker (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I very much agree that, if a trial is held, it should have a strict cut-off (unlike the PC "trial"). I didn't know what had been proposed before; I just thought I saw three months somewhere on WT:RfA a few weeks ago. At any rate, I'm thinking a trial might have more consensus behind it rather than a general change without any definitive prior testing. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous thing being referred to was an attempt at having a "question period" of several days before allowing !votes. It was tried once and a lot of people didn't like it, (Signpost post-mortem) Instead of trying to rectify the problems and try it again the model was abandoned. After that we entered the period we are in now where everyone seems to agree RFA needs reform but nobody can agree on what form it should take. The hope that this will actually help make RFA more civilized is my primary motivation in suggesting this, but right behind that is the idea of proving that we can at least try something and see if it helps. If it does, we keep it and find another improvement to try out. If it doesn't we get rid of it and try something else. If we change RFA gradually and give everyone time to get used to each change we may eventually change the overall climate of the process. This would be the first small step toward that goal, as opposed of trying to do it all at once. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not true to say that nobody can agree about what needs to be done; the truth is that not everybody can agree about what needs to be done, and that's never going to change. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I agree we'll never get unanimous consensus for anything at RFA, but maybe, just maybe we can get rough consensus for some small incremental change. Not looking to good here so far, but this just opened today. If this doesn't fly we should pick another idea that's been floated and do this again. And again until something sticks. There's got to be some change that we can get general agreement on, once we break that barrier more substantial changes won't seem as impossible as they do now. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot like change for the sake of change. Not saying I don't think change is needed. But I'm not convinced that's the correct way to approach this. - Kingpin13 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But whether or not this is viable, I think that if this is to be tested, it can only be done voluntarily. It wouldn't be fair to people running in those three months who don't want this change. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of aspects of RFA that candidates probably don't want. If it really concerns them, they can always wait until the trial is over. Having it on a voluntary basis will introduce more distortion to the results as the types of candidates who volunteer probably won't be representative, and the RFAs themselves may attract more attention and a different type of scrutiny.-- K orr u ski Talk 12:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @SmokeyJoe: I didn't mean to say we shouldn't discuss, else we wouldn't have this section. I'm sure you have seen the sort of thing I am talking about where a change is proposed and soon fifteen other, different changes are proposed and there is never a clear answer on any of them. By limiting the scope to a single proposal we can look forward to a more definitive closing with a clear consensus. If this doesn't fly we'll try a different change. I think a lot of the opposers don't quite get what the point is here. Moving the questions to the talk page is just the mechanism to accomplish a larger goal. The idea would be to have a more casual, discussion style question section with an easy back and forth that is not necessarily limited to just the questioner and the candidate. If anyone wants a more nuanced answer they can just ask right there for it. If someone wants to tell the candidate they've gotten it exactly right they can do that right there as well. As it is now such conversation is usually in the !vote section, often spread out under numerous votes. Those of us who are regulars at RFA don't think anything of it but if you think about it it can very confusing to someone not familiar with the format. Two things that have come up again and again at WT:RFA are attracting new participants and making the process less intimidating. This simple change is aimed at doing a little bit for both of those interests. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply put, if the options are 1) status quo or 2) this proposal, I'm all for 2). There's no way improvements to RFA will be made in giant leaps and bounds; exploring around the edges of what works and what doesn't seems a useful exercise from where I'm sitting. For those who want to ban optional questions completely, I agree with you, and I think this proposal would be a step in the right direction. Townlake (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can  put  me on  the top  of that  list, Townlake. Start the proposal RfC? Kudpung (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So much for trying a small change first. Good luck with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify my own position - the small first change is necessary before any other changes can take place. There will be no immediate sea change; that's why I think Beeblebrox's proposal is an excellent one. I don't see how moving these questions would deter candidates from applying, and after all, isn't that really what the supposed issues at RFA boil down to? Townlake (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 17 against and 12 for. It's not the end of the world Beeb. With over 2,500 users subscribed to  the RfA talk  page, it's not even representative. It  does however mean 29 people agree that  some kind of change is needed. The questions are 99.9% of the reason why  RfA has become such a farce and fiasco, and why too few candidates of the right  calibre are coming forward. The discussion is perennial and cyclic and has gone nowhere for 3 years,  and all  sorts of opinion  and statistic gathering has been  attempted. There is little reason to believe that any change, however small, is going to achieve a consensus any  time soon, but we should not stop  trying. Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not the end of the world. It's not even the end of this discussion, which hasn't even been open 48 hours yet. Getting rid of the questions would be a fundamental change. This isn't. It's deliberately not a big deal and does not aim to fix RFA in one fell swoop. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know at all that "the questions are 99.9% of the reason why RfA has become such a farce and fiasco, and why too few candidates of the right calibre are coming forward." I think the main deterrent is the penetrating, harsh criticism that can come with oppose rationales.  Being rejected by your peers is never a nice experience.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those 'penetrating, harsh criticisms' are almost always based on the questions that  were asked. So  the questions that  are asked are still  the source of the mischief. Kudpung (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I think your link begins a useful conversation.  If only there were some discussion around the posing of individual questions, you might be able to educate a lot of people.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes: 23 Oppose and 13 Suppport as of my  date/time stamp.Kudpung (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of modification of the proposal

 * Putting forward a suggestion, to see 15 counter suggestions replied, is frustrating, but it is a good way forward. Diffiuclt though.  Counter suggestions imply that refinement or wholesale alteration of the proposal is seen by individuals as prefereable to simply proceeding.  You could rebut all counter suggestions, or you can attempt a fuzzy reading of all inputs and produce a new proposal as per WP:CONSENSUS.


 * Encouraged by SilkTorks comment, I am increasingly liking my earlier suggestion "Questions should be proposed on the talk page, and only moved to the front page when seconded". This can be seen as a generalisation of the current system, where the number of seconders required =0.  I suggest increasing the number of seconders to one (1).  SilkTork suggested a bigger change, to requiring three (3) with zero (0) opposers to posing the question.


 * I suggest that the best approach is via the smaller change, which is my original idea of requiring one (1) seconder, and ignoring opposers. (of course, the first to second will have read any earlier opposing comments, but the process is not bound by opposition).


 * The formal processing of votes to oppose the formal posing of the question to the candidate may be useful, but it would require rules, formalisation of a more complicated process, a deliberation time, and it may spin out of control into arguments about dubious questions and could become worse a distraction than the current method.


 * Personally, I think that questions are very important, but that often questions are excessive or ill-considered. Individual, specific questions of relevence to an individual !voter are best placed under the individuals Neutral !vote, as is often nicely done.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moving the questions and/or getting  them seconded is simply creating  more bureaucracy - it  does not address the core problem: the questions themselves,  and the train wreck  they have been allowed to  make of the RfA process. Kudpung (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see how "seconding" makes things more complicated (and easily game-able by a tag team) but how is moving the questions more bureaucracy? I deliberately put this forward as something simple and (so I thought) easy to understand. We move the questions to the talk page and treat them as any other discussion instead of an interrogation like they are now. Simple, easily done, easy to understand, requires no new procedures other than clicking a link. It would actually be simpler than the way it is done now, and more intuitive for RFA newbies than the templated question format we use now. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving the questions (just  putting  them  out of sight)  won't  change much. It would just  create more bureaucracy  (see next  thread) and would confuse the the !voters by  forcing  them  to constantly  switch  between pages. Serious participants at  RfA visit the inquisition several times during the 7 days (at  least I do), and I  think constantly  having  to  switch  between pages would try  their patience. I'm  not against  driving  the trolls away from  RfA debates, but let's keep  the few intelligent regulars we have. Getting  rid of the questions would not  be so  fundamental,  there was a time when we didn't have them. All we need to  do  is to  demonstrate that they have in fact become destructive to  the process,  and get  consensus to  have them  banned, or at least severely reduced in scope and number. Kudpung (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Restricting random questions from random people requires a bureaucratic impediment. I think there can be no avoiding that.


 * If even just requiring a single seconder is too hard a process (how could the gaming this be worse that not having it), then I suggest a longer list of standard questions, agreed at WT:RFA and removing the option of optional questions. This is of course a massively increased bureaucratic process for asking a question!  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User:RL0919 recently made the following  suggestions:
 * Each editor is permitted only one question on the candidate page.
 * Questions are limited in length, which precludes the "one question" from being a multi-part monster.
 * Questions must be candidate-specific, not repeats of questions asked of every candidate.
 * Questions may not be redundant to those already asked by others.
 * Questions that do not meet these criteria may be entertained on the talk page if the candidate wishes.
 * Questions are not vetted in advance, but they are subject to amendment or removal if they do not follow the rules.
 * Like RL0919, I also think these may actually be more useful ideas for RFA than most of the proposals above, and fail to understand why it would be so  difficult to  obtain a consensus for a small change like that. Crats would radically and immediately  remove any  inappropriate questions. Kudpung (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Each editor is permitted only one question on the candidate page.
 * Would oppose. It happens that a single editor has a particular and pertinent insight and asks multiple important questions.


 * 2. Questions are limited in length, which precludes the "one question" from being a multi-part monster.
 * Support. Questions should be concise.


 * 3. Questions must be candidate-specific, not repeats of questions asked of every candidate.
 * Oppose. Too hard to judge as a firm rule.  No optional question is asked of *every* candidate.  A past question may be a very good question for a new candidate.


 * 4. Questions may not be redundant to those already asked by others.
 * Agree in principle, but unworkable has a firm rule. How would this criterion to be judged?


 * 5. Questions that do not meet these criteria may be entertained on the talk page if the candidate wishes.
 * Pointless. The candidate may always ignore questions.


 * 6. Questions are not vetted in advance, but they are subject to amendment or removal if they do not follow the rules.
 * Oppose. (1) Pre-discussion of the posing of the question is the way to save the candidate the stress of facing stupid questions.  (2) Who’s the judge.  Sounds like an recipe for edit warring.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh my, I would certainly oppose point two. Yes, multi-part monsters are a tricky mess, but so are plenty of things that an admin has to do on a regular basis. Demonstrating the ability do balance policies, sometimes competing ones, as well as community input, notable precedent, and ultimately come out with a backable, explainable, and solidly reasoned result is important. I am more likely to support someone that comes out with a well reasoned argument that I disagree with than someone that can't back up their decision, even if I think it's the right one. A final note is that despite all of this complaining, qualified people still pass, and plenty of people still manage to answer the multipart monsters without garnering a swarm of opposes. Maybe that's because the questions aren't the real issue?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)