Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Question profiles
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RfA reform 2011/Question profiles page. |
|
Cherry-picking data
editI think there is a risk, both here and at voter profiles, of selecting data which supports the 'RfA is broken' rationale and skimming-over data that could oppose this view. An example is this:
"The second most prolific voter(questioner?) (39) votes had 1,604 edits"
Out of context, this does seem surprising, but looking at the table it's clear that the 1st, 3rd, 5th most prolific questioners are respected admins with huge edit counts. So in actuality, the following point in this section could read:
The majority of the top 5 most prolific questioners are admins in good-standind with heaps of experience and large edit counts
This is, of course, 'cherry-picking' data for the opposing view. Also, the user in question has posed the same question multiple times, possibly in a pointy way, and as such could be considered an anomaly for statistical analysis. I realise I have questioned the validity of 'RfA is broken' before, but I do not have any don't change RfA agenda, honest! Jebus989✰ 09:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your comments are extremely valid and it's exactly the kind of feedback we need from this and the voter tables. Stats that stand out a mile are not cherry picking - they enable us, as you have correctly stated, to identify the experience/maturity level of the questioners and voters, especially if their other work, user pages, talk pages, and logs are taken into account. The tables are not to isolate any good or bad questioners voters, but to get an overall picture, should the task force decide to propose a minimum set of qualifications for voters and/or a set of rules for questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Question Ban
editThere should be something incorporated here that only allows questions relevant to the RFA. None of these bullshit questions. Any questions not relevant to the RFA should be immediately removed. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- You have to have a very good reason to ban anything on this project, an open wiki. Bans inevitably result in disputes about their scope, interpretation and application. What is the significant harm that these questions pose? Relevance is a subjective assessment. In any case, mere "irrelevance" is of marginal harm. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Using the question I linked to as a reference, why should they be allowed to be asked? Maybe it's just me, but questions of those type I don't find funny nor productive to the overall RFA. Just my 0.2 Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- The question isn't "why should they be allowed to be asked?" It is "is there an imperative to ban them?" --Mkativerata (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Using the question I linked to as a reference, why should they be allowed to be asked? Maybe it's just me, but questions of those type I don't find funny nor productive to the overall RFA. Just my 0.2 Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This could be quickly resolved by making the additional questions strictly optional, with no oppose !votes allowed for not answering them. That would rapidly put paid to the interest in placing hackneyed boilerplates and other nonsense. We already have an excellent catalogue of such questions (for discussion of course). There are suggestions that these questions are posed out of some sophisticated psychological rationale to test the candidates' reactions under stress. Until those questionners can show me their doctorate in psychology I find the suggestion laughable - look at the table, work back, and see who asked them; a lot of it boils down to the maturity of the participants, and that's another section of this project. Here's the list of suggestions again with some additions - feel free to add more:
(Please remember that these are suggestions only, and because they are ideas some of them may even be contradictory. They are here mainly to stimulate discussion. )
- Three standard mandatory template questions.
- Five standard mandatory questions - includes two additional one from the most commonly asked reasonable user questions.
- User questions are definitely optional.
- No oppose vote can be made for not answering. Neutral vote can be made for not answering.
- Questions from voters only, and possibly only from experienced editors.
- Maximum of one question per user.
- No compound questions
- No follow-on questions.
- No discussion threads in the question section except one answer from the candidate.
- Relevant questions only (see User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#The questions they ask)
- No trick questions deliberately contrived to lead the candidate to err on the side of negativity.
- A maximum number of user questions.
- Questions to be placed on the RfA talk page only
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Relevant Questions -- exactly my goal. No more Keepscases type questions should be allowed at RFA. But then we go into how do we say what is and isn't relevant and.. bahh. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Some people find them an interesting insight in to the editor's personality, distinct from policy and TLAs, others see them as irrelevant nonsense; but overall there isn't/wouldn't be consensus to ban such questions in my humble opinion Jebus989✰ 19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, RfA isn't a game, nor is it a joke. It's a job interview; nonsense questions are never asked at job interviews, and there are ways to gain insight into a persons personality other than asking silly, irrelevant questions. Swarm X 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure job interview is a great metaphor, generally to do volunteer work the job interview is minimal to say the least. And personally I've found good humour can go down well at a job interview ;) also, a single jovial question doesn't make the entire process a joke or game. As your userpage states you're a supporter of NOBIGDEAL, I'm suprised you have such a hardline stance against injection of harmless light-heartedness in this process many are calling a 'bloodbath', uncivil, 'trial-by-fire' etc. Jebus989✰ 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Swarm, I'm not advocating it, I could take or leave the silly questions at RfA, but nonsense questions ARE asked at interview. Google is famous for it, for example. WormTT · (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unreliably sourced article apparently :p Jebus989✰ 20:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a hardline stance against Keepscases questions, my feelings about them are ambivalent. The point is that I believe that questions should be relevant, not because it would target Keeps, but because I believe it's an aspect of improving RfA. "Irrelevant" doesn't just mean "silliness", but it is an aspect of what's considered irrelevant. I apologize if my metaphor missed its mark, but comparing Wikipedia to Google is like comparing an office party to a pool party. Heck, we play some pranks on April Fools' and half of the project bitches about it (no offense intended to those who partook in the bitching, but I digress). Swarm X 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unreliably sourced article apparently :p Jebus989✰ 20:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, RfA isn't a game, nor is it a joke. It's a job interview; nonsense questions are never asked at job interviews, and there are ways to gain insight into a persons personality other than asking silly, irrelevant questions. Swarm X 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Some people find them an interesting insight in to the editor's personality, distinct from policy and TLAs, others see them as irrelevant nonsense; but overall there isn't/wouldn't be consensus to ban such questions in my humble opinion Jebus989✰ 19:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Google is interviewing for salaried jobs. We are all volunteers here, so the question is: should we subject our candidates to such nonsense? I'll repeat again just for good measure, that I don't believe for a moment there is any truth in the suggestions made by some editors that the questions at RfA have been posed as a deliberate psychological test - where are the posers' PhD's in psychology, communication science, or management?
Let's also not run away with the idea that Keeps is the only one who poses inappropriate questions so let's leave him alone for now and concentrate more on just what we think are irrelevant/inappropriate questions, what percentage they constitute of the questions at RfA in general, and whether they should really be allowed.
See next thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
1. People are not flaring up and quitting because of Keepcase questions.
2. There's only one of him so it doesn't disrupt things much and people don't usualy discuss the answers much.
3. Kind of breaks the deathly seriousness.
4. Pretty much amazed that Kudpung is jumping on problem solving this, with more Byzantine processes. There are much bigger fish to fry, even just this whole initiative to keep on track.
The questions they ask at RfA
editThis list is subjective, compiled by Kudpung at the close of 2010. Some question have (Task force note) added. These were originally comments by Kudpung. The most unhelpful tactics include: deliberately asking questions on areas of admin work that the candidate has already clearly expressed that they neither have experience nor particular interest in, and do not intend to get especially involved in; using questions that have been devised by previous questioners; asking opinions on whether Wiki policies are good or bad – any question that begins with “Do you believe...?”; and using RfA to get answers for things they don't know themselves.
On one RfA that failed marginally, because of a trick question, a further question was posed based on that question, participants refused to acknowledge that one major long oppose diatribe was posed by a confirmed, blocked sock puppet, based on that question. No less than 18 Opposes were subsequently wholly or partly based on that question as exposed by the blocked sock puppet’s mammoth diatribe.
On one RfA a participant asked: 'Are these questions really necessary, or are they simply questions for the sake of having questions?' The answer was: "They help reinforce the candidate's qualifications when correctly answered, and surely anyone willing to undergo a request for s/abuse/adminship would be willing to answer a few questions." I think that answer was made simply to appease the questioner. Another participant also asked on another RfA: "Do you think that our current RfA process presents candidates with too many questions?"
The sample 156 questions below are taken from a total of roughly 772 questions on all passes, and all full-term fails in 2010. They are not exhaustive and for many questions only one example might be provided. Some of them, particularly multiple questions bundled under the guise of one, may not be strictly in the appropriate section, because they fall into several categories. They are listed below under:
- Plain silly (22)
- Difficult (7)
- Potentially misleading (5)
- Time wasting / fishing for advice (19)
- Broad (9)
- Irrelevant, or prying into private personal opinion (68)
- Negative (3)
- Multiple questions under the pretext of one (1)
- Questioner doesn’t know (1)
- Questioner doesn’t give a cue to the number of keep votes. (3)
- Questioner not understanding clear answers (1)
- Questioner fishing for feedback on his own work (3)
- Deliberately prolonging the agony (1)
- Participants not doing their the required homework (7)
- Miscellaneous (5)
- Close Paraphrased repeats of set questions (1)
Note: You are welcome to add your comments to these questions. Please put your comments in italics, and if you indent or outdent, please do not disturb the numbering (use your 'Show preview' button) - we need the numbers for a quick reference. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The questions
|
---|
Plain sillyedit
Difficultedit
Potentially misleadingedit
Time wasting / fishing for adviceedit
Broadedit
Irrelevant, or prying into private personal opinionedit
Negativeedit
Multiple questions under the pretext of oneedit
Questioner doesn’t knowedit
Questioner doesn’t give a cue to the number of keep votesedit
Questioner not understanding clear answersedit
Questioner fishing for feedback on his own workedit
Prolonging the agonyedit
Participants not doing their the required homeworkedit
Miscellaneousedit
Close paraphrased repeats of set questionsedit
|
Trick
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- "Trick" is ABF in all those cases. You should withdraw it. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- As stated, this is purely a subjective list. If you have any objections to any of it, do feel free to modify it - that's what we're here for. IMO, this sub list could be renamed 'difficult questions' or anything else. I think the ABF is just in the list name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that's right. By labelling a question as a "trick" you are alleging bad faith by the person asking it. Not good at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not true. Trick questions can be made in perfectly good faith. Swarm X 23:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Open a dictionary. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- To me, that comment came across as unnecessarily condescending and rude. That doesn't mean you made it in bad faith. Trick questions are inappropriate, but that doesn't mean one must be acting in bad faith to pose one. Swarm X 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Bad faith is necessarily implicit in the meaning of trick. As I said, just read a dictionary entry. Kudpung has changed it to "difficult" which does not imply bad faith. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe "trick" was meant as in "trick question", not as in a flat out "trick" (something purely deceptive). Swarm X 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not when you look at the context. Is there any purpose for engaging in this back and forth when the issue has been resolved? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- The purpose is to say 'I think you're mistaken and this is why'. It would be easiest for Kudpung to simply explain what was intended rather than assuming we're right and everyone else is wrong. Swarm X 23:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to fish out diffs that will explain the context to you when the matter is resolved. This is totally unproductive. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- The purpose is to say 'I think you're mistaken and this is why'. It would be easiest for Kudpung to simply explain what was intended rather than assuming we're right and everyone else is wrong. Swarm X 23:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not when you look at the context. Is there any purpose for engaging in this back and forth when the issue has been resolved? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe "trick" was meant as in "trick question", not as in a flat out "trick" (something purely deceptive). Swarm X 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Bad faith is necessarily implicit in the meaning of trick. As I said, just read a dictionary entry. Kudpung has changed it to "difficult" which does not imply bad faith. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- To me, that comment came across as unnecessarily condescending and rude. That doesn't mean you made it in bad faith. Trick questions are inappropriate, but that doesn't mean one must be acting in bad faith to pose one. Swarm X 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Open a dictionary. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not true. Trick questions can be made in perfectly good faith. Swarm X 23:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that's right. By labelling a question as a "trick" you are alleging bad faith by the person asking it. Not good at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- As stated, this is purely a subjective list. If you have any objections to any of it, do feel free to modify it - that's what we're here for. IMO, this sub list could be renamed 'difficult questions' or anything else. I think the ABF is just in the list name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I realise you state this thread is effectively 'closed' but in a similar vein other titles could be renamed for the same ABF resoning:
- Deliberately misleading -> Potentially misleading
- Too broad -> Broad
- Deliberately negative -> Negative
- Deliberately prolonging the agony -> ?
- To be honest, if I were the one who posed a question you have placed under these headings I could probably be a bit offended. Presumably, the askers didn't find the questions "too broad" and weren't "deliberately trying to mislead". If you truly meant 'tricky' instead of 'trick' then what did you mean for 'deliberately misleading'? Jebus989✰ 15:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Removing Irrelevant RfA questions.
editWikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA (Expressing opinions) clearly states:
Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored.
Clearly a rule that should be implemented. it appears never to have been taken into consideration by those who up to now have voluntarily indenting !votes and moving irrelevant discussions to the talk page. A task for the RfA clerk.
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A. Thanks for doing the grunt work on the question reading. Serious.
B. think we need analysis of the "non failing questions". Look at the whole process, not just flaws.
C. If we are batting 80% good questions, 20% bad, that is not so bad, really. Much better than the to and fro on ANI or even talk pages.
D. Again, if RFA is not a vote, then the questioning is one of the best parts of it. In addition, I sort of like the stateliness and slower pace and consideration involved in these essay questions. It's an honest improvement over the typical yes-no-yes-no-I don't hear you-AGF that we have in many conflicts.
E. For those who do not beleive in the "let anyone have the tools", it gives a chance to learn the candidate.
F. Gain insighte not just by the facts of his response, but the presentation.
G. I'm not crazy about policy questions or broad ones, but there are people who get insights from them. And really, I learn a lot from the responses at times with some very thoughtful reflections from candidates.
TCO (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- RFA candidates should be ignoring some questions. This will take some wisdom. Instead of not giving any kind of answer, they can announce that they are not going to answer and particular question , and optionally give a reason. It would be rare to remove a question - perhaps an attack or disruptive edit should be removed. Perhaps some could be struck off by clerks if obviously inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
'Questions' that set tasks for the candidate
editI am slightly concerned by Q.10 at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N5iln. IMO this goes beyond the definition of question. Candidates have enough to cope with without being set tasks in order to gain one !vote. As answering questions is not mandated by policy, the candidate would probably be perfectly within his rights to ignore the question entirely. I think we must not allow this kind of question to become precedent. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is an inappropriate question. And N5iln wasted too much time on an answer! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Minimum qualifications for voting/posing questions
editThe page at Voter profiles discusses minimum qualifications for voters. A script is available here that could easily be adapted to check on users' eligibility to vote and to add to the question section. Slightly more complicated sorftware-wise, this script could also be automatically triggered by an attempt to edit the question' section. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Where can I find...
edit(Note: Discussion moved from WT:RFA2011)
...a list of questions based on how often they are asked? Does anyone have this information? I think it would be a good idea to implement some of these questions in the standard questions. I got the idea from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Question profiles but it doesn't seem like it was ever discussed in full and I think it would be an easy change to make. One question that I have seen a lot is the question on what constitutes being an involved administrator. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- We don't currently have that, but feel free to add it ;) WormTT · (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll try to start doing some research. Mine might not be entirely scientific but I will peruse the recent RFA's and create a list of common questions. Now, I was recently told by Kudpung that this project isn't supposed to modify how RFA works, but is instead supposed to modify the behavior of !voters. I think Kudpungs approach is much too narrow and is much harder to implement. With that being said, where would I actually take a proposal to change the questions? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was recently discussing a similar point with someone else, and I'll say the same thing here. We need to remember that we're working on a perennial proposal and that successfully introducing any change would be a huge accomplishment. We need to be realistic about the changes we want to introduce, and rather than putting work into proposing changes in the RfA process (which may be very difficult), we should focus on proposals that don't require consensus to implement (if possible), and and moderate, realistic proposals that will be easy for the community to swallow in an RfC. This was what we agreed upon at the beginning of this project, and that is the "mainstream" focus under which we operate.
- Ok, I'll try to start doing some research. Mine might not be entirely scientific but I will peruse the recent RFA's and create a list of common questions. Now, I was recently told by Kudpung that this project isn't supposed to modify how RFA works, but is instead supposed to modify the behavior of !voters. I think Kudpungs approach is much too narrow and is much harder to implement. With that being said, where would I actually take a proposal to change the questions? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- All that said, there's nothing preventing any of us from working on more radical/far reaching proposals (i.e. altering RfA process in some way, introducing an alternative, adminship reform) under our banner. It's certainly not banned. We don't encourage you to focus on things like that, but you're definitely free to do so and I'm sure we'd all be glad either to support your efforts or give you constructive criticism. Swarm u | t 22:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Brilliantly summarised Swarm. We have even created a space at WP:RFA/RADICAL for offbeat suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ryan, anything to do with the RfA questions can be discussed at WP:RFA2011/QUESTIONS. We already have a list of 200 or so questions that might possibly considered as inappropriate - although some people don't agree they are all nonsense. Gathering background info to make tables and stats is slow and painstaking work, but if you want to have a go at analysing the rest of the questions, you are more than welcome to give it a try. However, the reason why we don't have such a list already is because I don't think anyone has considered that the possible uses of such a list would justify the hours it would take to compile it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- If any standard questions are going to be added to the usual 3, they shouldn't be "knowledge testing" questions like "what is an involved admin" or "when is it appropriate to block a range of IP's", for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it becomes far too easy for candidates to plagiarize previous RfA's for the "correct" answer. And second, these types of questions are generally reserved for candidates for whom the question is particularly relevant. For instance, for a candidate who plans on working heavily at AIV, the rangeblock question would be appropriate, but for a candidate who plans on doing speedy deletions and working at DYK, the question really has no relevance. Standard questions should be limited to those which give us a better idea of their personality, their history on WP, and their plans as an admin. —SW— gossip 14:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I absolutely endorse this comment. WormTT · (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)