Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everymorning

Question 4
I don't like it when people assume they're limited to closing in favour of A or B -- it seems clear to me that it shouldn't be closed yet, or closed as no consensus if it absolutely has to be closed. It probably wouldn't be fair to oppose on that basis, though. ekips39 (talk)  20:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This was recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, and several of us agreed that it is basically a trick question, since the hypothetical discussion is not ready to be closed. That was how I responded at my RfA. However, I don't think that is the intent of the person who (always) asks this question, and most admin candidates have accepted the "you must close it" requirement, as Everymorning did. So I agree with not opposing on this basis. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I was there, which makes my post here rather pointless. ekips39  (talk)  00:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This question, like so many hypothetical questions at RfA, is a trap. Those looking for a reason excuse to oppose can twist words to meet their needs...  --Gaff (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Any question can be a trap if that's how you want to view them. The three standard questions can provide responses which can be taken either way. Some questions are worded more openly, some are more helpful, and some encourage a revealing answer, but at the end I think all questions provide an opportunity for the candidate to reveal something about themselves in the way they handle the question. It also has to be bourne in mind that there are devious users who will try to get admins to do inappropriate things, such as helping them out in edit wars by being the first to make a complaint: "Hey admin, user A keeps reverting my addition of sourced material. They did it before at this article I was editing. It's time they were blocked for breaking 3RR." Sometimes they pose hypothetical questions worded such that you give the answer they want, and then they'll bring it up at a discussion occurring elsewhere: "Admin X says it's OK for me remove the infobox, and they will block anyone who replaces it." So, if a candidate answers questions on their RfA which indicate that they don't think enough about their actions or the consequences of their actions, then that is cause for concern.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Result of my checks
Due to copyvios concerns expressed during his last RfA, I did a check of dozens of articles he created. No copyvios. He has good AfD numbers. All his posts at his talk page archives are polite, to the point, and sensible. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Anna.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well
The votes have been balanced since yesterday, isn't that hilarious? --T<b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 20:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be extremely interesting if we used simple majorities.  Kharkiv07 Talk  01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not hilarious, not at all. Kraxler (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of us are not in on the joke. There is really nothing "hilarious" about a dedicated editor requesting admin rights in good faith.  It is actually a stressful and challenging situation that many people take seriously.  --Gaff (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous
Twenty-six questions - and counting? Yeah, yeah - I know that anyone can post a question, and that candidates are not required to answer them. But surely we can get enough information about the candidate from, say, the first fifteen or twenty questions, without needing to constantly come up with new ones. IMO this kind of piling on seems way excessive. It's likely to get the candidate to just say "Forget it, it's not worth this much hassle" and walk away. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. To their credit, Everymorning is continuing to answer in good faith and good humor - with no sign of irritation such as I would have felt. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more, something has to be done about this. I have no clue how though.  Kharkiv07 Talk  15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't checked the RfA as I haven't been as motivated to edit here lately, but today I checked this RfA and, really? 26 questions? And it still has four more days to go? Some of the questions are even almost the same as previous questions. I wonder, why are they torturing him? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have noticed in RfAs that the more uncertain people feel, and the shorter and more opaque the candidates' answers, the more questions people ask. Clearly strong candidates, and obviously poor candidates don't get many additional questions as people know from what they can see which way they will vote. For those RfAs where folks are uncertain which way to vote they have a choice of A) Tossing a coin to decide which way to vote, B) Not voting at all because they are unsure, or C) Asking a question to see if the answer will help them decide. In such situations I think that asking a question is both appropriate and desirable.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I generally don't see any issue with asking many questions, since the user may not be well known to those asking questions, the duplication of previous questions does bother me. What use is a second "How would you deal with these usernames?" question for example, especially when the candidate hasn't mentioned wanting to work at UAA? Sam Walton (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, however if the candidate chooses not to answer there will be a flood of opposes because of it.  Kharkiv07 Talk  15:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)