Wikipedia talk:Should you ask a question at RfA?/Archive 1

Archive 1

just started

Levivich, I started this a couple days ago out of pure annoyance. :) It's a mess, and I'm not even sure it's headed in the right direction. Also maybe I'm just being an asshole. —valereee (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You say that like being an asshole is a bad thing. This is definitely worth getting off the ground and thank you for starting it. I have some ideas and will make some edits and ping you here when I'm done. And, I heard pure annoyance is the mother of invention, or something like that. If it wasn't for pure annoyance, we wouldn't have had things like the American Revolution, or the microwave. Hell, pure annoyance is what made me start editing. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: OK, I've gone and made a mess of things, but hopefully with easy-to-follow edit summaries. Feel free to revert it all, of course. I think in order for this to be memorable, it should be funny, but I always think that. Let me know what you think. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I think it looks a damn sight better. And yes, humor would be better than palpable resentment and condescension. Lol on annoyance being the mother of invention. I've definitely created articles because I was annoyed we didn't have that yet. —valereee (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to steal something WereSpielChequers said paraphrase some sage analysis I read yesterday and throw it in, but it's just because I'm still in the 'throw everything in there and see what needs to be weeded out later' stage. I don't actually know whether this belongs, or whether it should replace something else. Ideally this ends up short enough people actually read it. —valereee (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going to start doing some question analysis, but I see Val's got a head start. The "Here is a big list of usernames, what action would you take on each" has mercifully fallen by the wayside. In the past, I've asked questions based on a new article (the content of which is absolutely genuine) or variations of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, but I try not to these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, feel free to add/subtract however you think is helpful. I'd like to tighten as much as possible. For instance, not sure the examples are needed; this could just be linked to a list of silly RfA questions I've seen somewhere, if I could remember where. —valereee (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

ready/what next?

Levivich Ritchie333 Is this ready for prime time? And if so what's the best/least jerky move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs)

If I may interject, it might be useful to add a brief explanation of why canned questions are problematic. New editors may not necessarily accept that assertion at face value. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, thanks, does the addition fix it? —valereee (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly an improvement. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sign your posts, n00b! I'm not sure if it's ready for prime time or if it should be advertised for wider input. I guess it depends on whether this essay is presenting the opinion of some editors, or if it is describing global consensus. If the latter, I think get more input. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Essays like this remind me of Eric Raymond's "How to ask questions the smart way", which originated from Usenet (and maybe mailing list questions), and its key weakness: getting it read by people who could use the advice is pretty hard. For this essay I think the "What makes a good question" section has some chance of setting expectations to newcomers, discouraging more chit-chat like questions. But in terms of benefit-effort ratio, my suggestion is not to spend a lot of time on getting a broad consensus. By which I don't mean to ignore other input, but don't worry too much about getting it just right for everyone. (Except of course my comments; those are sacrosanct. :-) In fact, if you want to avoid future bloat, keeping it in your userspace might be preferable. isaacl (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: ESR's "How to ask questions the smart way" is a seminal piece of work, and I think the main use was to guide people towards it who'd been over-irritating, or to work out if answering "I tried 'x' doesn't work pls help" was a waste of time of not.

@Valereee: It depends what you mean by "prime time". If you mean move it into project space as an essay, sure no problem. In fact, that might be the best thing to do for now, start off as an essay and see how things develop from there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know; that's why I referred to it (and it's interesting to see that it's been updated with references to Stack Overflow). But how many of these people actually read the whole thing as it got longer and longer? By context of course they may have gotten the message "stop asking questions" without reading it. Which is why expending the effort to make this essay longer and longer may have quickly diminishing returns. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Visibility of questions

I think the second paragraph of "Things to think about before you ask a question" overstates matters. Most people won't care about the odd irrelevant question. If it persists, then some may, but honestly there is so much irrelevant discussion that takes place all over English Wikipedia that it's kind of a "who is without sin can cast the first stone" situation. It's not a great thing to be known for, but the type of person who persists in this behaviour is usually either blissfully ignorant or doesn't care. isaacl (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, yes, this essay is more targeted at more-or-less clueful people who don't realize how certain types of participation are perceived by others and would like to have been forewarned. No one cares too much about an irrelevant question (although the person asking it, I guarantee you, is getting a few eyerolls) until there are "too many" questions. Then the irrelevant ones start to get comments. —valereee (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the blissfully ignorant is that they don't realize that the guidance applies to them, and they often shrug off direct messages. fyi, there's no need to ping me on this page, and particularly not three times. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Involvement progression

Regarding the section on the progression of involvement, I disagree with the concept. I think a lot of commenters start with a rationale. I also disagree that people start with asking irrelevant questions followed by relevant ones. I don't see why people would think they should ask questions at other requests for adminship before making their own request. Personally I suggest dropping this paragraph and just going straight to the advice on asking a question (though I don't know why you'd counsel skipping the neutral statements). But I'd also say the reality is asking people to read past RfAs just to prepare for asking a question isn't going to change a lot of behaviour. Those who want to get a sense of previous questions will have done it already. isaacl (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, skipping the neutrals was a humorlike substance based on the fact that for most RfAs, nothing of importance gets said in the often longwinded explanations for why that person has decided to comment there. —valereee (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

OK; at least for me it didn't really come across that way (the text just says "you can skip the neutrals on most RfAs", without hinting at anything humourous). isaacl (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's just a fact of life if Levivich edits a project page, there's going to be humour somewhere in it. Might as well get used to it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If it were humorous, sure.. :-P but "you can skip the neutrals on most RfAs" just doesn't read funny. (Live delivery can make a huge difference; Seinfeld, for example, is a master at timing and bringing the right rhythm to his material.) isaacl (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)