Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/New questions

NOTE: The initial discussion, as of this timestamp, was copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Maurreen (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---
 * Perhaps it would be worthwhile to just identify them as 'Questions'. Looking back at 2005 (back when my own RfA took place as well, IIRC) there have been changes to the layout.  Very good, I think, is the fact that the questions and comments now precede the voting &mdash; though that change of format does tend to imply rather strongly that the 'optional' questions are actually compulsory.  (But who are we kidding?  They really are.)
 * I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to revisit and revamp the questions section. Pretending that there is a distinction between the 'standard' 'optional' questions and other questions may not be realistic these days, nor does it really get to the heart of what the questions seek to accomplish.  The first questions are meant to elicit a wikibiographical sketch, a thumbnail view of the candidates strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and interests.  I'm going to paraphrase them, and tweak their sense just a bit.
 * Why do you want the bit, and why should we give it to you? Tell us about the tasks you'd like to perform.  Show us how you've been involved in the related processes already, and demonstrate that you have a Clue about relevant policies and practices.
 * What's some good work you've done on the project? Show us some stuff that you're proud of. Demonstrate that you 'get' what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish.  You don't have to have written reams of text, but you do have to show that you've made our articles better.
 * How do you deal with conflict? If you actually ever use your bit to accomplish anything, you're going to step on someone's toes at some point. Even if you don't use your bit, you're still going to step on someone's toes at some point.  Has this happened in the past, and how have you dealt with it?  (We're going to find out during the RfA, so you might as well come clean now about any skeletons.)  In conflicts where you're not a central party, does your input and participation tend to make things better or worse?
 * I fear that we may be missing a very important question in our 'standard' panel, however. We're missing one of the most important traits in any potential (or extant) administrator.  We want people who are conscious of the limits of their knowledge and experience, and who will look before they leap.  While we don't want admins who are too fearful to ever take any action, I'd recommend a question like
 * What do you do when you don't know what to do? How do you locate relevant policy pages for your own reference? Can you tell us about any times when you've screwed up, and what you did to remedy the situation?  (Will there be anyone who gives us a less flattering portrait of your behaviour?)  Have you contributed to (asked or answered questions at) the Village Pump, the Help Desk, the Administrators' Noticeboard, the talk pages of policies and guidelines, or the talk pages of other editors?
 * I'd also be tempted to add another question to at least make the editcountitis sufferers at least pause to think for a moment. When I passed my RfA, I had perhaps two thousand edits under my belt.  It amazes me now to see editors with six months' experience and twenty thouand edits.  This is not to say that these editors are not doing good, useful, constructive work with their Huggle or Twinkle.  But from the perspective of evaluating RfA candidates, there's far more information available to voters in a few hundred thoughtful comments and careful page edits than in ten thousand vandalism rollbacks.  I think that we should strive to recognize the difference when we examine the poor sods who expose themselves to RfA.  The Huggle-wielding mole-whacking vandal-blocking admins are absolutely essential to the project, but they shouldn't be treated as more valuable or indispensable than the admins who have a lower edit rate but deal with more nuanced issues of content and conduct (from management of complex, Arbcom-mandated probations and paroles to image-use and copyright problem solving).  Perhaps
 * What automated tools – e.g. Twinkle and Huggle – do you use regularly in your editing? What fraction of your edits are made using these tools, and what tasks do you usually perform with them?
 * Just a few thoughts. Please, tell me what you think. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first four questions seem adequate, but I don't agree with the last one. Most users actively engaged in vandalfight will get a very high percentage of automated edits. I can imagine a prolific vandalfighter acknowledging 90% of their edits as automated, and many users opposing his or her RfA without even bothering to investigate whether the remaining 10% are a remarkable participation in other areas of Wikipedia. Hús  ö  nd  01:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While the "automated tools" question I feel is a bit too specific, I like your first question. If a candidate gets an image copyright policy question completely wrong but at least shows they have the ability to learn, they won't get hammered for it, for example. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As Knowledge Seeker points out above, in his March 2005 RfA he didn't have to answer any special questions and gained the admin bit with 28 supports and no opposes/neutrals. At that point s/he had made 1021 contributions of which 399 were article edits. Having achieved admin status, Knowledge Seeker's log shows only six admin actions from April 2007-March 2008 and none in the last two years. - Pointillist (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, your suggestions echo my  feelings entirely, and  I'm sure they  have already  been addressed at some time or another. Nevertheless, it's good to see them reiterated, and I particularly  appreciate your attention  to  editcountitis. IMHO, the new or reworded questions you propose have a rather too  informal  and aggressive tone for some age groups, and some parts of the English speaking world, and might  not encourage the more conservative editors (whom  we surely  must  not  ignore) from  wanting to  run  for adminship. I assume that your current wording is intended to  give us a well-(k)needed knee jerk, and that  in reality, the prose would be somewhat  tightened up if your questions were to be adopted. Another of my thoughts is  that  the entire RfA process has come to  presuppose -  or even occasionally appear to  insist - that candidates who  are not  already mainly  vandal chasers, CSD, and AfD performers, should be prepared to  give up much  of   their article editing/creation/improvement, or all-round   work in favour of almost pure maintenance and admin  tasks. Another thought is  that some of the inquisitors don't  appear to  realise that  many  industrious gnomes have full-tme jobs (or school), or even families, and can only  dedicate a few hours a week to  any aspects of encyclopedia creation  and maintenance,  but  that  their occasional, careful use of the tools, would be worth  more than just mere,  apparent  drops in  the ocean.--Kudpung (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * TenOfAllTrades is on a very good track here. Maybe we should make a subpage to work out details. Maurreen (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a subpage would be a good idea. I like the idea of rewording the questions, and I like the fourth question also. Not a fan of the automated edits question, it kind of alludes to the idea that we're semi-required to integrate the tool usage in our assessment of the candidate. Useight (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with the idea of a subpage to sort this out. Also, I would reword Question 1 to: Please explain why you believe the WP community can trust you with the Admin tools.  This gets to the heart of the matter very quickly.  Additionally, the 1st part of question 1 above--Why do you want the bit? is essentially irrelevant and the nominee's motivation to accept the nomination has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the community can trust the nominee with the tools. It is the nominee's past contributions and behavior, plus the ability to deal with the RfA that will confirm trust or not.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems a little in-your-face to me. Some of the opposition might say that, but that's not the same thing as making it the first question on their questionnaire.  But I wouldn't be opposed to making a list of things the RFA community has seemed to have a positive response to in the past, and asking the candidate if they want to claim any of those things on their resume (CV). - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it is in your face or not, the question goes to the heart of why we do RfAs--The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Why do we need to ask a lot of questions that merely skirt the issue on the table?  This isn't a game, this isn't a Leisure Suit Larry where if you answer the secret question correctly, you move to the next level. In my opinion, if the nominee can't answer the question and defend the answers with tangible evidence of knowledge of the tools, contributions, civility and collaboration in the project, then they can't be trusted--which is the very reason we are conducting the RfA.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a question that will probably lead to some very specific follow-up questions, just like the existing boilerplate ones often do. The problem with your suggested softening, Dank, is that "a list of things the RFA community has seemed to have a positive response to in the past" is going to give the false impression that the same things are valued now.  You can look at any two months' worth and probably spot different trends in the opposition reasons.  Asking it directly allows the candidate to express the attributes he or she believes are valuable; the community can then decide if it agrees.  I think this question is going to make people sweat, but it's not excessive to me.--~TPW 00:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the question. It also gives a good place for the candidate to self-declare anything that might cause the community to oppose. {&#123; Sonia &#124;talk&#124;simple}&#125; 01:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Mike's question is great. I love someone with a good in-your-face attitude, and as a question it works well on the straightforward front.  It's blunt and cuts to the heart of the point of this damn process.  Just like in an interview for a job or school, the question "Why are you applying" is standard enough but "Why should we accept you" is much trickier to BS.  Noms are one thing, but how the nominee sees his/herself is more important.  There's more of a chance to screw up the nom, but there's more of a chance to make the point that you won't fuck up royally and impress the plebs. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 01:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

←Well, we need to be able to trust brain surgeons and police officers, too, but I guess I would be surprised if the first question they're asked in a job interview would be "tell us why we should trust you"; it sounds like it presupposes that they're up to something shady. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Many editors do seem to be Shady. I'll get me coat... TFOWRThis flag once was red 10:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone summarize what's wrong with the current three standard questions? They seem quite sensible to me.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 07:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with SlimVirgin here - I feel that the current 3 questions are adequate (although I would make them mandatory rather than 'optional'). As for the "What do you do when you don't know what to do?" question - I feel that the additional questions which people ask should bring this up - and if not, it could always be explicitly asked. I do not feel that it should be a standard question. I am also dead-set against the "automated edits" question. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, no changes to questions are needed. Let's not try to fix what is not broken. The automated edits question is a particularly bad idea.  Aiken   &#9835;   08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The current questions are:
 * "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?"
 * "What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?" and
 * "Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?"
 * They seem to cover all the bases, and there's no hint of aggression in asking them. I wouldn't want to see them extended or made more complicated. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)