Template talk:RfA

Use is as such: {{Subst:RfA|User=Redwolf24|Ending=September 22|Description=zOMG THIS USER IS SO 1337 ~~~~}}

{{{user}}}

When you are ready to transclude your nomination, substitute this template; this will start the timer and give the closing date and time of the nomination.

Monitors:

Nomination

User-multi error: no username detected (help). –

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A:

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A:

3. 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?

A:

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

Links for : [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support

Oppose

Neutral

General comments

Bugs

Any bugs you see should be mentioned at my talk page (I say this not in an arrogant way, but in a I-should-know-what's-wrong-as-I-wrote-it-and-I-knew-there-may-be-a-bug-or-two-in-the-code way) or at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. The bug won't be fixed too fast if you list it here. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edited

Template to the original, better example demonstrated by Redwolf. --Chazz88 15:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth question

Guys, before this degenerates into a revert war, here's my rationale for the changes I made in the "questions" section:

My new introductory phrase is far more polite, I feel. I think it is well worth pointing out that candidates are offering us something; they are not applying for a job. If you think it's too long or "clunky", it could be shortened to e.g. "Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Here are a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:" or some such. But I think it's time that candidates be thanked.
The fourth question, "What do you think of these questions?", is mainly the result of a genuine desire of mine to know how the candidates feel about this questionnaire. If there's widespread opposition to my including it here, remove it by all means and I'll go ask each and every candidate privately. A lot more work, but what the heck. On the other hand, the answer might give some insights about a candidate's view of the role of an admin. Some might say for instance "I don't see the point; this should be no big deal", others might even feel offended, yet others might like them as a kind of platform to present themselves better, still others might like the idea of a questionnaire, but have valuable suggestions for better questions, or some people might feel indifferent, or be perfectly allright with the questionnaire as it is, or even think it was necessary for a variety of reasons.
I think a little variety doesn't hurt. This questionnaire has been essentially unchanged for ages; it gets boring. Why not try out something new from time to time? And why the quick reverts? Why not just see how it works out? In any case, reverting over a content dispute is bad style anywhere on Wikipedia. If you think this question is horrible, why not voice your concerns here first?

In short: I think a polite "thank you" is in order, and I personally think this question is intriguing, but I won't insist on it being included here. Lupo 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pointless. It bears no relevance to being an admin at all, and if you think it'll give an accurate insight into the user as a person, all you'll get are standard stock answers, "I liked the questions", or thereabouts. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of avoiding the job interview feeling, I think Lupo has the right idea, and I've restored some of his changes. On the other hand, I agree with enochlau that the fourth question is pointless - realistically, do you expect to get honest answers? --Michael Snow 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I assume good faith on the parts of the candidates and thus do assume they'd answer it honestly unless proven otherwise. Maybe that's a bit naive, but the alternative is the cynical assumption that any answers to any questions cannot be trusted. If one assumes they'd lie on that fourth question, then why should one assume that they'd answer questions 1 and 3 honestly? Anyway, your changes are fine by me. I still think it was worth a try. Lupo 07:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more precise - I didn't mean to suggest that candidates would lie. But as they're generally expected to be on their best behavior during the process and try not to aggravate people, I would expect them to be vague and not discuss objections they have. The issue is more unvarnished answers than honest ones, perhaps. --Michael Snow 17:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions

Hi, I've been adding the following optional questions to each RfA as I see them, if I'm active on Wikipedia:

4. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?

A.

5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)

A.

6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?

A.

7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?

A.

8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?

A.

This was an experiment, but I think people have gotten used to seeing them (so much so that Ashibaka automatically added them to his own RFA and answered them. I'd like to propose adding the following above questions to this template. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! --D e ath phoenix 12:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I think this makes the nom too long. I'd actually be for no standard questions at all, rather have the candidate make an opening statement and then a series of direct questions, and then comments in support or against the candidates, but I doubt that would fly. Would it be possible to perhaps merge any of these questions? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against adding any more questions. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's important to limit the number of questions, and in fact I'd support doing away with them altogether. I wouldn't mind replacing the current question #2 with one of these, though. #5 or #6 would be best, as these are the ones that have most to do with adminship. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would Deathphoenix provide some diffs for answers to these questions that have helped him vote? Chick Bowen 01:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how posting exact diffs can really help you (do you want me to post diffs of my votes, or diffs of the candidates answering the questions?), but I can provide links to RfAs where the candidate's answers had a hand in my voting support. Normally, I only vote support for users with whom I've had direct contact, and there were a few there where I would have voted support anyways (unless their answers were very bad). The first candidate to see these questions (and answer them) was Aecis, but his answers didn't really push me to support because I've already seen this user around and probably would have voted support without the questions. Apart from the week or so when I was away on assignment, I posted questions for all the other candidates who came up (except for one who had only 86 edits or so, so I decided not to bother). There were some candidates whose answers didn't really impress me, but I decided not to vote because I don't usually like to pileon oppose votes unless I have something to add (such as advice) or if I'mThe following are candidates whom I normally wouldn't have voted for (because I don't interact with them enough for me to vote), but whose answers impressed me enough that I voted for them:

There were a couple of candidates whose answers to the questions were pretty bad, so I voted oppose. I'd rather not bring these candidates into focus here. I've seen a few voters mentioning in their votes that the candidates' answers to the optional questions were a factor in their voting.

I just want to say that all the time I've put into scanning RFA and adding optional questions were in the hope that RFA voters would find candidates' answers to be useful in helping them vote. I've also been extremely careful not to be heavy-handed (for example, I've been adding the questions manually instead of unilaterally adding them to the RfA template, and taken care to point out that these are optional questions). --D e ath phoenix 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer candidate specific questions. With 8 standard questions, people may be less likely to add their own personalized questions. Why not wait 24 hours to see if anyone has some questions, and then add these if no one does. Also, each candidate may have different perceived weak areas, we should only ask those questions that probe into those weaknesses. Deathphoenix was away the week I had my RfA, the 4 specific user created questions I was asked were much better than these standardized questions would have been. NoSeptember ^talk 01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, people weren't asking too many user-specific questions (unless the candidate had done something very bad in the past and the questioner wanted an explanation), but your idea has merit. However, even if we go with your idea of waiting for user-specific questions, then tacking on my optional questions if no-one asks, how many days would it be? Two? Three? An RfA lasts seven days, and if there are no user-specific questions in this time, the voters who have already voted didn't have any additional questions to help them vote. Plus, that's just added bureaucracy. I was hoping these additional questions would improve the voting process without adding necessary bureaucracy to the RFA process (I have typically voted against anything that adds red tape to the RFA process). --D e ath phoenix 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think 24 hours is enough. It seems much of the voting happens in the first day anyway. As for bureaucracy, I like the idea of questions being asked by users, including these questions above. Having a list of questions like these and perhaps more, and letting anyone pick and choose on a case by case basis which question(s) from the list to ask each specific candidate would be an option. NoSeptember ^talk 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your examples, Deathphoenix--I've read through them. It seems like the most interesting responses were to question 6 (CSD), with question 5 (3RR) a runner up. I'd be in favor of adding just those two to the template, but probably not the others. Questions 4 and 7 have mostly gotten the same responses from everyone (bv is for penile pictures rather than "Does this work?"; NPOV is a tricky issue that must be handled according to the particular situation). Question 8 you added to the group fairly recently; it seems to have produced a couple interesting answers--though other people have essentially politely declined to answer--but not necessarily answers helpful to deciding how to vote. Chick Bowen 02:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the same about question 4, and I didn't really notice that about question 7, but you're right. The NPOV question is just as unhelpful. Question 8 was a good way to look into the mindset of the candidate, but you're right. If the main concern is that there are too many questions, this is one question that can be taken out as well. Thanks for your feedback, D e ath phoenix 02:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chick on the NPOV thing, and I'm a bit concerned about the test/bv comparison. A lot of vandal-fighters, especially those without admin privs, seem to be confusing the templates with the concept of warning users these days. Particularly galling are cases when people use "test" as a synonym for "warn" ("you have to test4 the user before blocking ..."), and IP talkpages with several months' worth of test1-2-3-4-5 repeated endlessly. The templates are damn useful, and the point behind the question (how far should one AGF when warning someone) is a good one. However, I feel the question places undue emphasis on the templates as a substitute for engaging one's brain when talking to a vandal. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general I'm in favour of having a candidate statement, with some questions, but not many standard ones. I don't in any way object to Deathphoenix's optional questions, and would be happy to answer them if I was a candidate. However, I think that any standard questions tends to attract very similar answers if there is seen to be a correct answer (such as 4 and 7); or in the case of 8, as pointed out above, the answer might be interesting but not very useful in determining the suitability of the potential admin. Though I'm pretty new to voting on RfA I've added some extra questions, which have helped at least one person (me!) come to a decision. I will probably over time develop some regular questions that I'll ask quite often, but not as a standard addition to every RfA. Petros471 13:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eight questions is too many. I'm in favor of dropping the "original" three because they haven't been getting useful answers in awhile; people answer them in socially acceptable cliches. I like DP's questions, but also think we should change the questions every now and then anyway. I think it's useful to ask candidates an obscure-sounding question involving such terms as "test4" and "#A7" - not because any candidate must have used them, but because if a candidate is unfamiliar with them AND unable to find out at least what they mean by himself, he is unsuitable to become an admin. R adiant _>|< 13:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted

In the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold, I've edited the template to add proper section headers to each section. I've also moved questions above the poll responses, I think I'd like to trial putting the discussion parts above the "vote" parts. Comments? Rob Church (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons to have no headings in the subpages is so we maintain a simple TOC on the RfA mainpage (just one line per candidate). I'd rather enlarge the font size of the words (if bolding is not enough) than turn them into section headers.

Since you're a developer: Is there a way to create a heading that shows in the TOC of the page its is on, but won't show in the TOC on any page that it is transcluded into? There are plenty of main space pages that this would be useful for too. NoSeptember ^talk 12:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section headers are to allow easier editing with section links. I suppose we could look into providing a non-TOC heading feature, if the request is put in the right place. Rob Church (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section headings should be removed because of the TOC problem mentioned above and because it doesn't really make things any easier if you also update the count like you're supposed to. However, I do think that having the questions above the voting is a good idea. -SCEhard T 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I complete agree with SCEhardt. Personally, I think the changed should be reverted until there is a little more discussion that has taken place. Someone changed the layout of the first nom to use this formatted, presumably because s/he was unaware of the change, so I'll post a message as Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship to let people become more aware of this. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, lots of people don't bother with updating the count, which is unsurprising given that the page is already formatted to provide an automatic count. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I see several incorrect counts. -SCEhard T 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you'll notice that the lists of comments are conveniently numbered under each header. A separate tally is really not worth the trouble, IMO. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I think the manual count at the top is nice to have, but I'm neutral as to whether it's worth the trouble of maintaining. -SCEhard T 07:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about this discussion and edited the headers in Christopherlin's RfA under the assumption that someone made a mistake. Sorry about it and please revert it if the consensus is otherwise. Tintin (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of adding edit sections, especially because of unwieldy RfAs. The problem, of course is the ToC thing. (Has anyone also remembered that the template for each nom will also end up with its own ToC?) Hopefully we can come up with a native MediaWiki solution for this instead of some hack. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to revert it back. All 4 nominations since the new modified template was put into place has since been reformatted to closer match the original layout. This was done by at least 3 people. I am sure most of the people who are reverting the formatting aren't aware of this debate, but since the people who have discussed this haven't reached a consensus, I think it is best to revert it to the original for now as I have a feeling this will keep happening. Personally I like the questions first, but this is starting to cause minor problems. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Rory096/BetterRfA where I've made some edits to Rob's original change, but based it off it. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Moving around_stuff in RfA. --Rory096 04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autocalculation

I've tested {{A week from today}} for all dates in 2006, and it worked correctly (including at the end of the year). It should similarly work correctly for next year, and probably the year after that (unless I screwed up the leap-year part). On the off chance there are problems, of course, revert this and {{RfAsubst}} to the older versions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who would find it useful, I have a date-calculation tool availabe: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/DateCalc.php. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally

Why was the tally moved right in front of the votes. It was much more useful near part of the header.Voice-of-All 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be growing at WT:RFA#Location_of_tallies that if the tally remains, it should be at the top where people can find/update it easily. Anyone object to moving it back? -- nae'blis 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back. --Rory096 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to where it was yesterday, why is there not a discussion on this issue here? Has there been a big consensus change? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some discussion on WT:RFA and on my user talk page. Only Everyking disagreed, and he didn't provide a reason. On the other hand, many people have enthusiastically supported removing the tally. --bainer (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section heeaders

For "support", "oppose" and "neutral" have been added per the consensus on the RfA talk page. Please tell me if I did this wrongly. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify the questions section please.

Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. We only need one question here.

Why do you want to be an administrator?

This should be enough to judge one's motives for wanting adminship. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. When one requests the tools, three things need to be looked for: dedication, need for tools, and lack of potentional for abuse. Restricting this to one question is completly ineffective and doesn't really give us a feel for the candidate or what they have done. Yank sox 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication is a non-issue. If we give someone the mop and bucket and they don't use them, no harm done. The question of why someone wants to be an administrator answers their need for tools. The question of whether or not someone can be trusted can't really be answered by any questions of the candidate - the type of people that really can't be trusted will tell you exactly what you want to hear anyway - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we are given a feel for the candidate, their tone, and their experiences. We can't just give the mop and duck and cover. Yanksox 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we did cut down to one question, RFA !voters would add their own questions anyway, so there's really no point. Additionally, I personally like to see that it takes a while for a candidate to answer all the questions well. It's easy to tell from the answers to the questions two very valuable pieces of information: (1) whether the candidate is willing to put time and effort into the project and (2) whether the candidate has satisfactory communication skills. Srose (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want someone who wants to be an admin? As far as I know, RfA prefers sane candidates. ;-) --Rory096 08:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL. It does make things rather easy: anyone who answers this with "NOT" will get my automatic support. (other answers might get a near-automatic oppose, unless the candidate shows many many redeeming properties). The only question is... how do we prevent people from lying? :-P --Kim Bruning 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ending or due to end?

Should the timing at the top of RfAs say ending or due to end? Thing is, many RfAs finish early, and so the statement isn't true. Any comments? --Alex (Talk) 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...it seems like "Due to End" would sound better than "Ending" per the reasons you provided. Let's see what others think. --Nishkid64 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to end/Scheduled to end sound better and are more precise, since RfAs can be extended/cut short by nominator withdrawl, b'crat discretion, etc... -- nae'blis 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it more with "Ending...". "Due to end/Scheduled to end" just sounds clumsy, and is an unnecessary pedantry. If you really want to be precise you can say "scheduled to end no later than", but I don't think any of this is worth it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like "Scheduled to end", just because it helps to emphasize that late !votes do count as long as it hasn't been closed. Ral315 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User -> User2

I've changed the user template to include the edit count via the Wannbe Kate tool ({{User2}}). This tends to be of interest in RFA discussions, so I figure that would be useful. --Brad Beattie (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that because in a recent discussion at WT:RfA people concluded that that tool was too wasteful of resources and the talk page of each admin candidate already has the edit count as a table, so there is no need to retrieve it every time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of optional questions

There has been a lot of discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship about optional questions (see these, to name but a few:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). I have no qualms if people want to ask nominees specific questions - I've done so myself in the past. However, placement of the "optional" questions with the approved standard questions elevates their status unnecessarily.

In particular, most of the above noted discussions have been about the near-automatic placement of certain optional questions in almost every RfA nomination. In the case of repeatedly asking the same set of "optional" questions, to me it verges on creating de facto "standard" questions and by-passes the consensus reached to date on what the actual standard questions ought to be and verges on WP:POINT.

In the case of one-shot or nominee specific optional questions, having them put in the same section as the community-sanctioned questions gives the illusion that the question has some sort of equal status or community approval.

I suggest that this template ought to be arranged so as to encourage editors to place their optional questions in the "Discussion" section so as to make it clear that these questions are not part of the standard set. This should also make it clear that the optional questions are not those of the community but of individual editors. The "Discussion" section could simply be renamed "Discussion and optional questions". Agent 86 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you are talking about. Candidates should answer questions, and people should read those questions before commenting or voting. —Centrx→talk • 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have never said that optional questions ought not to be permitted or that people should not read the answers before !voting. What I did say was that the placement of the optional questions in with the standard questions in the template gives them the patina of "official" (for lack of a better word) sanction. That may be oversimplifying my point, but I am not simply being obtuse. Please review the linked discussions at the beginning of my comment for the more complete story. I need not repeat it all here. As for "candidates should answer questions", I don't think there should be the same obligation to answer them as the "sanctioned" (again, for lack of a better word) standard questions, especially if a non-standard question is inappropriate, POV pushing, or there to just make a point. Agent 86 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People don't need to answer the standard questions either, but no one will vote for them. If a candidate doesn't answer any optional questions either, the same thing will happen. Also, the questions are always clearly labelled as "Optional question" or as "Question from John"; no reasonable person can confuse them for the standard questions that have no such preface. —Centrx→talk&nbsp:::;• 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just highlighted one of the problems. People should be free to not answer optional questions, or at least the sense of obligation ought not be so high. The standard questions are there by consensus, unlike optional questions. Besides, the key point is the placement of the optional questions, not the existence of them. This was all covered in previous discussions, linked above. Agent 86 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your stated standard for "reasonable person" conflicts with your postulation that no one will vote for someone if they don't answer optional questions. I think Moving them to the discussion section is a good solution to the patina of official status they seem to have acquired. -- nae'blis 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell the user they don't have to answer stupid questions, and tell the person asking them to stop it. Most of the questions are legitimate and if the user refuses to answer them the RfA will not pass. —Centrx→talk • 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging kinder, gentler RFAs

I'd like to insert a line in the template encouraging kinder, gentler RFAs. Much cyber ink has been spilled on the subject of RFA having become a mauling for even borderline candidates, let alone clear failures, as indicated by the warm response to Keitei's civil oppose in Crzrussian 2 (Keitei's oppose has become the exception). I propose adding: Please keep criticism constructive and polite. between the horizontal line and the discussion section. I'm flexible on the wording, but I think we should try something. Your thoughts?--Chaser T 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I totally agree. Especially on ones that are doomed from the start. --Majorly 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And the RfB template, for that matter... Grand master ka 12:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good place to have that good idea. RfA's ~~can be~~ often are stressful so a small reminder might prevent a few edits users might regret later. James086Talk 14:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; going through RFA is hard enough and especially for good faith self-noms that are doomed to fail there is no reason to salt the wounds. Maybe the text would encourage people to think twice before adding insult to injury.--Isotope23 16:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this idea; there really exists no reason not to add a polite message encouraging participants to comment in a more gentle/civil/calm way. Yuser31415 19:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be general consensus for this, but I'd like to give a few more days for any objections. I'll also insert it into the RfB template.--Chaser T 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a good reason not to add it, but I'm not sure it will make much difference... I think people already know they should be constructive and polite. Anyone being otherwise isn't doing so out of lack of knowledge of the correct way to behave. --Tango 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it is a good idea. Arjun 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it making much of a difference, but if it helps in just once case, it'd be a useful addition. I say go ahead. --Deskana (request backup) 03:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to both the RfA and RfB templates. Thanks, all.--Chaser T 12:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil comments are most likely going to appear in the "oppose" section, so I moved the note there. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion please

I reverted to the old version, I think we should agree on this here first. Contrary to what may be thought, I support changing RfA. However, can we please agree on the changes before we make them? I understand the discussion on WT:RFA has brushed on this, but I think we should hold some serious discussion here. Personally I think the tally should be removed, it has to be manually updated, and the toolserver provides better info. I actually like the old questions better though, I think they make the candidate think more seriously. Obviously the "I accept." change was good, so I kept that. So: Prodego ^talk 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I reverted back. We should only discuss this if it needs discussing. So far in four days, no one complained. Majorly (hot!) 22:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to notice until it is on an RfA, and that only happened two days ago. While the tally and such are ok - though moving them to an unnoticeable place will cause no one to update them, which isn't a bad thing - I think the old questions were better, as I explained above. Could you point me at the discussion of that change? Prodego ^talk 22:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion, I was bold :) There's no need to over complicate questions, especially as they're optional. Majorly (hot!) 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth level headings?

Due to a new table-of-contents feature, it's now possible to put subheadings on this page without affecting the table of contents. I'd like to propose changing the bold headings here ('Questions for the candidate', 'General comments', 'Discussion', 'Support', 'Oppose', and 'Neutral') to ====fourth-level headings====, so that they can be section-edited. The change has already been discussed at WT:RFA; it didn't attract much attention, but what attention there was was positive. Does anyone have any objections? How will the RfA bots handle the change? --ais523 12:26, 20 April 2007 (U T C)

I object, because there shouldn't be headings in the first place. It's a discussion, and who cares about the bots :) Majorly (hot!) 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too keen on the headings either, but it seems to me that an RfA system using clunky bolded headings that don't allow section editing is even worse than an RfA system using fourth-level headings that at least allow section editing. --ais523 12:51, 20 April 2007 (U T C)

Section breaks can be added if needed I suppose. Majorly (hot!) 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As stated at WT:RFA, I don't think 3 subheadings each would even disrupt the table of contents, and would make it easier for editors to get to the exact section where they are engaging in discussion (usually the "Oppose" section). I imagine the change would be trivial for the bots. –Pomte 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we even need sections. If the RfA becomes too big, a break can easily be added in. Thus, I oppose this. Majorly (hot!) 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section headings are, as is, anti-thetical to the purposes of generating consensus. Enabling people to section edit isn't going to make this any better, in fact it'll make it worse in my opinion. --Durin 17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how discussion or consensus will be compromised by providing a few [edit] links to make editing easier. Assuming good faith either way, each user considers all sections before editing a particular one. Arbitrary section breaks work as well, but are more likely to cause confusion between 2 sections while the current format exists, and focus attention on the immediately surrounding comments. –Pomte 03:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Total" and "tally" pretty much synonyms

There has been over a year's worth of discussion on the tally/total. No consensus was ever reached. I can find no discussion about removing or moving the total/tally. Saying the move is warranted because it's now called a "total" doesn't change anything and it's really semantics - whether you call it a tally or a total doesn't mean it's a vote. Agent 86 17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to add the tally either, so it should rightfully be removed. Majorly (hot!) 17:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a consensus to add the optional questions, as I recall... should those be removed? --W.marsh 18:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Majorly (hot!) 21:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I have protected this template until the matter of what should be included, which lists numbered, etc is resolved; either here, or WT:RfA. Administrators shall respect the protection guidelines with regards to editing the template. Миша 13 18:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, perhaps I should impose a ban on myself editing this template... :) Majorly (hot!) 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that this is a perennial dispute. There's no way to even ascertain if it's been protected in the wrong version. RfA can't agree on the changes done during this edit dispute. The protection solves nothing really. --Durin 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes it does. It stops further lame warring over the template until something is decided. If it requires a step further (an RfA reform, for example), then let it be. However, I detest such counterproductive edit wars (especially when admins are involved) and will not allow this to continue just because it's a "perennial" dispute and everyone's got used to it. Миша13 20:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not suggesting the edit war should be allowed. I'm saying that attempting to stop it is like permanently stopping the Nile River. Eventually, it will flow again. Since RfA can't come to consensus on what to do, other methods than protection will have to be used. --Durin 20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. And while those other methods are being used, it's protected so people don't edit war over it. -Amarkov moo! 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you missed the point. Stopping the Nile is all well and good...temporarily. But, if all you do is stop it and not try to fix why it will continue flowing after it breaks the dam, then you've done nothing to fix the problem. All you've done is repeat the mistakes of the past. That's not constructive. You may think you've stopped the flooding, but you haven't. --Durin 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All of this assumes something is broken, but that's not been established. All kinds of wacky engineering projects to "fix" RFA (or the Nile) could actually create problems where there wasn't one. --W.marsh 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh. I'm sorry. I thought edit warring was bad. My mistake. Or, did you not mean to say that the edit warring is no indication of the template being broken? :) --Durin 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Majorly was the one making the changes... multiple people were reverting. Just because someone is convinced there's a problem doesn't mean there actually is one. People edit war to insert POV in articles all the time... it doesn't mean the POV automatically belongs there and the people trying to remove it are just as at fault. --W.marsh 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to make the (unrelated) change of ; to ==== on this template, as I've proposed above, unless new objections are raised (as this template is protected to avoid edit-warring I'm stating my intention to change it again first just to make sure, so as to avoid two concurrent edit wars). --ais523 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I object, we do not need sections in a discussion. We can add them as we need them. See this RfA for how it works fine. Majorly (hot!) 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I said 'any new objections', because I had the feeling that you would bring this up again. I don't see why objecting to the current layout of the template is a reason to object to a fix designed to make the current layout easier to use; after all, surely it doesn't make anything any worse from your point of view, except possibly that maybe keeping the old format slightly more inconvenient would in your view make a change more likely... Besides, this change would also help in various other proposed RfA formats (it would have left the pre-refactoring Matt Britt RfA format much simpler and removed the need for refactoring in the first place, for instance, and is helpful even in the Moralis RfA format to separate the discussion from the questions and nomination statement). --ais523 14:32, 24 April 2007 (U T C)
I don't mind sections; I'd love sections if the RfA gets big. Just not Support/Oppose/Neutral sections. It encourages people to vote, instead of discuss, which is not wanted. Majorly (hot!) 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as removing the sections is probably prohibited for the time being due to the protection on the page (much as it may be a good idea), can I at least reformat them? --ais523 14:47, 24 April 2007 (U T C)
Why though? Most RfAs don't even need them. If an RfA becomes so bulky so it's hard to edit, sections can be readded then. We're only encouraging voters more by doing this. Majorly (hot!) 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say most RfAs do need them; but what about just sectioning off the 'Questions', 'General comments', and 'Discussion' pseudo-headings as a compromise? That way, the bulk of the RfA is easier to edit (most RfA votes are to support anyway, so sectioning off oppose and neutral is less of a gain), but it doesn't leave /* Support */ in edit summaries and so doesn't encourage a voting mindset. --ais523 15:06, 24 April 2007 (U T C)
Yes that sounds fine :) Majorly (hot!) 15:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "voice your opinion" link should then lead to the discussion section, though I think the link is unnecessary because editors know how to edit sections. Majorly, do you oppose people writing "support/oppose" in their edit summary? What else can they put while the current format exists? There's no point hiding what you perceive as faults of the format as long as the format remains. –Pomte 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose it if they give a reason as well. But I'm just as guilty :) Majorly (hot!) 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it won't gain approval because RfA refuses to acknowledge it's state, but the "Discussion" section needs to be changed to "voting" now, if we're going to do this format (i.e., this format). --Durin 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should add the tally back, and change "Voice your opinion" to "Vote here". How about get a bureaucrat bot as well? =) </sarcasm> Majorly (hot!) 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate suggestion

Since many of the issues revolve around easiness of editing/reading the RfA, has anyone actually bothered to approach the great folks that in the end have to read through the tons of votes/comments/whatever and assess consensus (read: bureaucrats) and asked them what format is convenient for performing their tasks (we're not paying them for their valuable time, so why not make their voluntary work easier)? Миша 13 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the section edit links are designed to be convenient for RfA commentors rather than closers, and the names of the sections should be irrelevant to the closing 'crats. 'Crat input might be more useful in determining things like whether to have a tally, and whether to mark votes/!votes/comments/whatever with # or *, and whether to sort them, etc., etc..... --ais523 16:30, 24 April 2007 (U T C)

I think I would be okay with letting the b'crats decide on the tally and numbering/bulleting issue and hopefully ending this silliness. Preferably after they read the various arguments for either, if they feel they aren't familiar enough with the situation for some reason. --W.marsh 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I've notified them and am now hoping for some sensible input. Миша 13 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that input received so far has not been sensible? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was uninsightful. All compromise reached so far deals with uncontroversial sections, while the true conflict remains unresolved with sides entrenched. Миша 13 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an implication that bureaucrats are the arbiters of what is acceptable at RfA. They aren't. --Durin 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I've been on Wikipedia for a while and seem to remember times when bureaucrats where actually moderators of RfAs, not merely judges. Not sure if it was ever a written law, but IMHO a very good practice (that now seems forgotten). Anyway, fact remains that they are the ones who have most work to do on an RfA, so I'd value their opinion greatly. Mind you: I have never suggested that they should decide on the template's final shape, just that their opinion is very important. Миша 13 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection lifted

Since things seem to have calmed down and people started discussing things (actually, talks are in stalled state, probably pending proposals on WT:RfA), I have lifted the protection. If l4m3ne$$ resumes, I might resort to other measures. Миша 13 21:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's end this silliness

Hey there fellows! I originally posted this on WT:RFA, but figured I'd mention it here as well. I haven't been active on WT:RFA for some months, because quite frankly, it's silly. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and here we all are devoting hours upon hours of our time debating/discussing/arguing about it. As such, I believe I have a solution to this problem. Much as Radiant! was able to solve (sort of, hehe) the problem at WP:AFD by creating the proposed deletion system, I've created a "proposed adminship" system, the beginning of which can be seen here. You'll be able to see this as soon as you click on that link, but I'd like to mention my complete ignorance of templates and how they work in advance, hehe. Basically, anyone that wants to be an admin or wants to nominate someone can just throw that tag on their userpage, and there'll be a link to a discussion page. If there are no serious objections on that subpage, then the bureaucrat can hit "makesysop" after seven days. The template will add a category, so we'll all have a main point of reference to see who wants buttons. Hope this helps, and please feel free to fix the template, as I really have no idea what I'm doing in that respect :) Cheers fellows gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussing the format of RfAs generated with the {{RfA}} template and any technical issues/suggestions the template might have; WT:RFA (where you originally posted) is probably the best place to discuss this. --ais523 09:41, 26 April 2007 (U T C)

True enough, I just figured I'd post it here, as it'd be cool to make what I've suggested {{RfA}} at some point. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 09:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usercheck

What do people think about the idea of adding a {{usercheck}} to the 'General comments' section of this by default? That way, there would be links to the log, block log, etc. of the user in question, and also to things like RfCs there might be on the user; for instance, it would appear as Ais523 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) for me. --ais523 16:53, 27 April 2007 (U T C)

4th question

I just added a question 4, the standard "Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?" question that has been asked in, as far as I can tell, every RFA for months now. Hopefully this won't be controversial. Mango juice^talk 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't asked in mine, and I'm quite a recent admin. --ais523 14:51, 30 April 2007 (U T C)

I asked myself something like that on mine but I still don't think it's standard enough or useful enough to build into the template. Haukur 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is controversial, please remove it immediately. We have enough questions as it is. Majorly (hot!) 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a silly question. The only correct answer is "use common sense". -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is controversial, just like the rule itself is. I believe standard questions should be as neutral as possible and concern the candidate as an editor, not a WikiPolitician. This is a good question, but only to be asked by a third party. Миша 13 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

These are optional. RFAs have been passed with the questions completely left unanswered. There's no need to make them compulsory. Moreschi ^Talk 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to such an RFA? Melsaran (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss. Moreschi ^Talk 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That RFA has 13 opposes and 8 neutrals just because he failed to answer the questions. Stating that the questions are optional is needlessly misleading. Yes, they ought to be optional, but in practice it's a very stupid move not to answer them. It's unnecessary to explicitly state that they are mandatory, but we shouldn't mislead the candidate. Melsaran (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the change. They are optional, and the word is there not just to inform the candidate, but the participants too, who think opposing for that reason is a good idea. It should be added back. Majorly (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they should be optional, but I think the word "optional" may be misleading to the candidate because they'll think "I won't answer the questions, don't see the need, they're optional anyway", and then get many opposes/neutrals. Isn't there a better way to state this? Maybe something like "it is recommended that you answers these optional questions (...)"? Melsaran (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but keep the optional bit in. I'm thinking of people who like to oppose just for having no answers, which is disruptive to the RfA process. Majorly (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on the recommended verbiage. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this?

I don't think we're going to get a consensus on the "vote vs discussion" issue (tallies or not, sections or not) in the near future. How about two separate templates? We could have one template that looks like this, and another that looks like this, and the candidate would be able to choose what RfA style they prefer. Thoughts? Melsaran (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it - we should make the current template the second one, and the vote counters can have the alternative. Majorly (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, we can just not use a template anymore. Majorly (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck getting support for that change. The problem I see with having two templates is the additional complication. Some users already find the nomination process overly complicated (why, I don't know), and the ease of automatically generating the template is an attempt to resolve that. Adding an additional template would just complicate things. - auburnpilot talk 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "not use a template anymore" a serious comment? How would you propose we have any standard formatting? It would be utter chaos. - auburnpilot talk 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very serious. On Meta, Simple Wikipedia and Commons, where I also work, there are no templates for RfA (or very, very basic ones). Not having a template would remove the need for lame edit wars. Majorly (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but both Simple Wikipedia and Meta have so few users, there's no need for a standard formatting. If I've counted correctly, there are only around 20 admins on Simple anyway. That's hardly a comparable system. Also, I can't say deleting a template is the best way to avoid edit wars. - auburnpilot talk 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how user numbers come into it. Someone just adds their RFA to the page, under a header 2 section, and people discuss underneath. Here, we have a tally, end time, questions, discussion areas, support/oppose/neutral sections, voice your opinion link... all completely decoration and unnecessary for the process. That is what complicates things. Removing will remove the complicatedness. Majorly (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users numbers come into it because a project with larger numbers has larger participation in the process. I believe the bureaucrats have already stated that such an approach (one mass discussion) is unmanageable. Further, with people so hell-bent on not allowing 'crats any room for discretion, this system could never work. Regardless, this seems to be a fundamental disagreement on how the process works. I see removing the template as having a disastrous effect; you seem to think it will eliminate all our problems. - auburnpilot talk 15:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion about sub-headings

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Subheadings for discussion sections for a centralized discussion about adding some additional sub-headings to this template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about alternative accounts

I have removed the question added by User:Jossi - judging by this page's history, adding questions is a contentious issue and should be discussed first. Redrocketboy 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I think question should be added only after there is consensus at WT:RfA --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a contentious issue. WP:SOCK is official policy. Read also the "disclosures" section at Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#Things_to_consider_before_accepting_a_nomination ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I'm not sure whether all candidates should get the same questions (as implied by using consensus), then we'd get a whole load of copied answers. — Rudget _speak.work 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock is a policy, but so are loads of other policies. That page you quote is an unofficial guide. Redrocketboy 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Jossi, you boldly added a questionable imperative to the Guide. I don't think such disclosures should be mandatory for a variety of reasonable privacy concerns. And hence I don't think the question is reasonable either. Please take it to WT:RFA. Dragons flight (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not questionable, Dragon flight. It is most pertinent. In any case, I have started a discussion at WT:RFA#Question_to_candidate_in_RfA_template ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGK's edit—Abstain

For the purposes of the record, and as a starting area for any follow-up discussion, I would like to note that I have retitled the section previously named "neutral", to "abstain", per suggestions on WT:RFA, WP:BN, et cetera.

Although I suspect some folks may seize up at the idea of an editor making a change to the hallowed RfA template, in essence my change is not a huge difference, and will simply serve to implement the true purpose of the neutral vote, and the purpose the section has been utilised for, for a long time now.

To reiterate my comments elsewhere, abstain is essentially a "here's my view on X, I do not wish to support but do not wish to oppose, so I will withhold my vote" comment, which is exactly what neutral is used for in the present-day system at WP:RFA.

I am absolutely open to discussion on my edit, but I do see the evidence in support of the change as pretty solid. Having said that, perhaps an editor previously new to the "abstain, neutral, recuse, etc..." retitling debate will bring some fresh blood into the ping-pong game we're playing at the moment. AGK (contact) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to play semantics AGK, but being Neutral but lending an opinion is not the same as abstaining. If I want to abstain I just go hit RC Patrol instead. Pedro : Chat 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand where you are coming from—it is certainly true that, in an everyday sense, abstentions are an intentional withholding of one's say on a matter. However, when the context is that of a voting scenario, it is often the case, and RfA is a prime example (despite the mistitling of "neutral") of this, it is possible for one to go on-the-record to note their abstentions, and furthermore to document their reasons for doing so, on the location of the vote. You say "not to talk semantics"—I think the very nature of my change means we have no option but to do so :) thoughts? AGK (contact) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A possibility may be "Abstain with Comments" although it looks slightly unwieldy. My understanding is that 'crats will certainly take note of "Neutrals" and wether they "lean to oppose" or "lean to support". It's no major matter really. Semantically "Neutral" implies no opinion at all so is neither better nor worse than "Abstain" within this context. I'm keen that the "discussion" area at the top is not used for neutral opinions as I feel that is for discussion of the RfA itself and not input by an editor on their opinion of the candidate. Maybe renaming the last section to "Comments" ..... although that then looks confusing against the discussion heading..... Tricky ! Pedro : Chat 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really just seems to be a more cemented version of the discussions section, and in theory can be abolished. However, the community has fairly taken to it, and seems rather fond of using it, so in practice that's probably not feasible, except if implemented in the middle of some sort of RfA über-shake-up where it wouldn't be noticed, and people would have a chance to actually get used to it (a la undo feature)... But that's not ideal. Would you be opposed to leaving it at abstain, and allowing folks to get used to it. AGK (contact) 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all opposed. In general, and I admit this is a generalisation, RfA commentators know their way around anyway, and therefore should easily be able to understand the purpose/value of the sections. Further input from others would help at this time though. Pedro : Chat 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been missing something in the discussion, but I absolutely disagree with making neutral "abstain". Abstaining is not commenting, Neutral is lending an insight without necessarily endorsing/not endorsing the candidate's sysopping. Putting an abstain section in that requires editing contradicts the meaning of the word, in a sense, and in any case it sure isn't a neutral. Plus there's the discussion area, which I'd say is more equivalent to abstaining. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Dihydrogen Monoxide. "Abstain" and "Neutral" cannot be used interchangeably here, as they carry a very different connotation, if not a very different meaning. If I abstain from participating, I simply don't participate; however, if I have no strong feeling either way on a candidate, but still have something to add, I would be remaining neutral (but I would not be abstaining). - auburnpilot talk 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've undid my edit, pending the outcome of the discussion. Furthermore, I think it's clear that the specifics of my change could be improved—to that end, are there any suggestions? Do any editors believe that neutral is an acceptable term, or are there alternatives? AGK (contact) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think undoing that was a good call, pending discussion. My concern is that the "discussion" header should be more for general remarks unrelated to approving or not approving the candidate. Therefore there needs to be a clearly defined section, that is neither a support or oppose, for comments related to the approval request. What it's called is academic, as long as everyone is clear as to what its purpose is, and we should ensure that this is the end result of this debate IMHO. Pedro : Chat 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGK: Thanks for reverting, you made the right call in doing so. Pedro: I don't think we need another section...there's really no harm done in using the discussion section more, and there isn't that much "abstaining" anyway. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing another section. Discussion, Support, Oppose, Neutral are what we have right now ... i.e. call "neutral" what we want as long as it's purpose is clear - a non !vote with commentary about the candidate regarding adminship suitaility. Pedro : Chat 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the following sentence

The sentence: "It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:"

...is very awkward grammatically. "Please" is the polite way to say "It is recommended that you". And "optional" implies that nobody will mind if the questions are not answered, but that isn't usually the case. People typically oppose when questions aren't answered. Optionality is already implied without having to state it in the same way that eating is optional, but we don't instruct our kids that eating is optional, because that would be dangerous or harmful. The same principle applies here.

I propose that the above sentence be replaced by a simpler sentence with less potential to mislead nominees:

"Please answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:"

That's one possibility. I believe it fits the context of RfA and how it operates, and is straight-forward and polite. Other suggestions are welcome.

The Transhumanist 07:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but I'd drop a quick note on WT:RFA leading to this discussion. This template talk page is likely to be far less visible, and a change like this could do with some wider input. Pedro : Chat 07:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip. The Transhumanist 07:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, shorter and clearer. And who was the last person to get away without putting something down as an answer to the standard three? MBisanz ^talk 08:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ragesoss, some time in 2006, I think. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withhold, for now, my opinion on this change, but strong suggest nothing happen without significant discussion...this isn't just changing a template, this is changing the way an attitude is portrayed to outsiders. That's a big deal. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest being blunter: "You are required to answer the following three questions as a courtesy to the community". It is, afterall, the truth. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 12:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy implies a voluntary act of consideration or kindness, which this wouldn't be... And using "required" implies some official sanction for failing to meet the requirement. There is no official response, except that the vast majority of participants would oppose on that basis - which amounts to the same thing, really. We un-transclude RfAs that aren't properly formatted - i.e., they don't use the template properly, don't accept, etc. So, could we add the questions to the formal instructions for RfA? Make answering the boilerplate questions a prerequisite for transclusion, just as much as accepting the nom is? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Transhumanists, simple, direct, and reflects the current feeling about (at least) the first 3 questions. Alternative (to get rid of "required", I agree with UEZZ), ~~It is strongly encouraged that you answer the following three questions as a courtesy to the community~~. Yeah? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that's pretty much the same problem that the sentence as now. Striking it. I like transhumanist's, I would support the template change to his wording. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its just me, but I prefer the politer versions of the same communicate. Please, consider answering the following questions, typically addressed by the candidates, although is phrased tentatively, clearly informs of the custom, but leaves a small window for free will. Putting it as mandatory makes the whole process a bit more uncivil (and remember that the candidates already are reluctant to run the ~~gauntlet~~mop). Pundit|utter 17:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that begs the question of "why consider it?" Perhaps providing the reason for answering the questions will make the request even more personable and polite. See my suggestion in response to #Alternative to TTH's proposal, below. The Transhumanist 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to TTH's proposal

"Please respond to the following questions, in order to help provide participants some guidance:"

First, I strongly prefer "respond" over "answer". Because I've noticed that there are times in which a question may be responded to, which doesn't necessarily answer the question. (And, depending on the question, that may or may not be a good thing.)

Second, I don't think that the latter part of TTH's word makes it clear enough about the "guidance". Where it's targeted; how much the questions are a facter; etc.

Further thoughts would be welcome. - jc37 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "respond" is better than "answer".

I see what you mean about "guidance". "Guidance" is vague. Perhaps change "to provide guidance for participants" to "to help participants decide if you are ready to be an admin at this time."

Which gives:

"Please respond to the following questions, to help participants decide if you are ready to be an admin at this time."

Further suggestions welcome. The Transhumanist 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's about whether the editor is "ready to be an admin", I think it's about trust. (trust: to use the tools and to exercise the duties of adminship; thoughtfully and responsibly, with discernment and discretion)

That said, I don't think we should get into that debate here. And so we should also probably leave that debate out of the sentence. - jc37 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust has many facets. Trust that the person will do a good job. Trust that the person won't abuse the tools. Trust that the person won't put his or her foot in his or her mouth every other post. Trust that the person won't blow his or her stack. Etc. Trust is factored into "ready to be an admin". By the way, if the questions aren't for determining whether a candidate is ready for the mop, what are they for? Just curious. The Transhumanist 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself:

"That said, I don't think we should get into that debate here. And so we should also probably leave that debate out of the sentence."

This should stay as non-contentious (and therefore, non-defined) as possible. - jc37 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, maybe simple is the best:

Please respond to the following questions:

Let's skip the reasons "why", entirely. - jc37 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that gives too much of an impression that responding to the questions is required. It is not, they are optional. The candidate needs to communicate a certain amount of information to participants (about their trustworthiness and competence) - how they do that is up to them. They may rely on a nominator, write a statement or answer the optional questions. They could also rely on participants obtaining the info themselves through review of their contributions or that they will be known already to participants. I would prefer something along the lines of: "answering these questions may help participants determine whether to support your request". WjBscribe 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the other extreme-a note saying that you are under NO obligation to answer, and indeed, there is very little reason to do so. Notice how Ragesoss's RfA worked so much better than those where people are opposed for having a content-typo on Q1? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ragesoss was a rare exception. Note that you are under no obligation to request adminship in the first place, that is, to engage in the RfA process. But if you request adminship and then don't engage in the RfA process, what business do you have being there? And if you are opposed for not answering the optional questions, just how "optional" does that make them? The Transhumanist 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ragesoss shouldn't be a rare exception. The questions shouldn't be an essential part of the process. That isn't the case now, but that's how it should be. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WJBscribe, you almost captured it in a nutshell (fixed grammar): "Candidates need to communicate a certain amount of information about their trustworthiness and competence to participants, and how they do that is up to them. They may rely on a nominator, write a statement, or answer the optional questions." But you missed something. It isn't just up to them. The participants decide what constitutes an acceptable application for the position being offered. And rarely do nominees forgo the questions without being opposed for doing so. Not answering the questions is optional, true, but so is shooting yourself in the foot. The problem is that RfA's context is not currently conveyed well in its instructions or in its title. Speaking of its title, "Requests for adminship" implies that all you need to do is make a request, and those who process the requests will take care of the rest -- that's how most of the other request pages on Wikipedia work. But RfA is more like applying for a position at a company or other organization, and participating at RfA as a nominee is a cross between writing a resume and being interviewed. You wouldn't go to a job interview and then refuse to answer the interviewer's questions, would you? Due to lack of good instructions, admin hopefuls are forced to participate in RfA for weeks to get a feel for it before they run the gauntlet, or resort to trial and error. If the process was made clearer, it would save a lot of wasted time and effort. The Transhumanist 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(noting the comments above) - Hence why I was suggesting that we shouldn't get into the debate by injecting it into the text : )

Let's see if we can merge the two proposals with the original:

It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

and

Please respond to the following questions:

and

answering these questions may help participants determine whether to support your request.

Let's change "determine" to its infinitive form.

"Answer" to "respond"

And while it's "Request for adminship", that's been a bit blurry as to who's requesting, of late. So removing "your".

Added "consider", since these are optional, though strongly suggested.

Added "or not", to help make it clear that responding may cause negative response.

Resulting in:

Please consider reponding to the following optional questions, which may help participants to determine whether or not to support this request for adminship.

Further thoughts/ideas welcome. - jc37 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Instructions

To go along with this change, I would recommend changing the instructions for nomination as follows, under the section "What to do if you are nominated by someone else". The instructions currently read:

2. After you accept your nomination, answer the standard questions for all candidates. While these questions are considered optional, chances are very high that the RfA will fail if they are not answered.

I would propose changing the line to read:

2. After you accept your nomination, answer the standard questions provided to all candidates.

We might also consider noting that "Your nomination is considered incomplete until you answer the questions or, alternatively, explicitly state your intent to not answer them." They cannot simply be ignored or blown off, but the candidate could indicate their intent to disregard them, for good or ill. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist's proposal ("Please answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants"); it avoids the concerns above, of it appearing as "official sanctions" being in-place, as well as the appearance that answering the questions is part of the accepted process (although that only a handful of requests have passed without answering the optional questions perhaps suggests that it really is :). It also reflects, as discussed above, that answering the questions is, as a rule of thumb, necessary in today's rfa process. Anthøny 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. After you accept your nomination, please answer the standard questions provided to all candidates.

Should have the "please" noted above, at least. - jc37 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier when I used the term "required", I wasn't exactly being facetious. Why fool ourselves. I realize there's a good deal of discretion and congeniality that is required here - afterall, we don't want to scare people away, but let's be realistic. The question are, for the most part, required if an RfA is to be taken seriously. I sincerely suggest that it is gently suggested to the candidate that the questions are to be answered. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reprinting the original text:

2. After you accept your nomination, answer the standard questions for all candidates. While these questions are considered optional, chances are very high that the RfA will fail if they are not answered.

So merging my suggestion above (for consistancy), I suggest changing the first sentence to:

2. After you have accepted the nomination, please consider responding to the optional questions, which are standard to all nominations.

This should add the "politeness facter". (Use of "please"; replace "candidates" with "nominations"; etc.)

And then add a shortened form of the rest of the suggested sentence, as the second sentence:

2. After you have accepted the nomination, please consider responding to the optional questions which are standard to all nominations. Your reponses may help participants to determine whether or not to support this request for adminship.

As above, ideas/thoughts welcome. - jc37 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original proposal withdrawn. New proposal inspired by the input above.

I withdraw my proposal, and propose this instead...

As they stand, the "optional" questions are trick questions, the trick being if you don't answer them you are more than likely screwed. Is this really the context in which the questions should be asked? None of the instructions proposed so far capture the essence of the context in which the questions are being presented. It might help if, while remaining polite and personable, we conveyed the role of the nominee and the participants, and the relationship between answering and !voting...

Dear nominee, in the spirit of an interview, please answer the following questions. Participants base their decision to support or oppose in part upon your answers. Good luck. May the Force be with you.

The Transhumanist 16:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights