Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 113

message: I don't usually complain about things I see on an RFA, but this was ridiculous.  Seven  people voted support before the page was transcluded, and five came before the candidate had accepted the nomination or answered the questions.  If someone had opposed before the questions were answered or nom accepted, he'd get scalded for it.  Something needs to be done about situations like this. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate used to say not to vote before transclusion, but the wording was softened a few hours before the RFA in question was created.  As a side note, I would've brought this up earlier, but didn't feel it would be fair to Mattinbgn.  Merry Christmas from Sasha 12:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but how does it matter that people start before? Redrocketboy 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some feel that users are reluctant/hesitant to oppose if they see a lot of support. Some feel it skews the RfA in that subsequent participants don't look closely enough at the nom to make an informed decision.   Dlohcierekim  16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't say it happened in the RFA I pointed out, but a nominee could use it to gain too much support for the opposition to have a chance.  And like I said, 5 people voted before the nominee answered even answered a question, what would happen if someone opposed before that?  Merry Christmas from Sasha 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with !voting before the page is transcluded on to the main RfA page; if anything, its a good thing — as if people comment before transclusion, it will prevent the user from receiving more criticism, thus potentially preventing new users from becoming upset and/or leaving over an RfA. Qst 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of flaws with RfA at the moment, but I do not think this is one of them. Voting before or after transclusion or whether or not the candidate has accepted will make little or no difference to the final outcome. Lradrama 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think voting before transclusion is ok, but maybe instead of voting before it's been accepted should be replaced with friendly notes convincing the user to accept the RfA, or something. J-ſtanContribsUser page 18:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As Sasha wrote: "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate used to say not to vote before transclusion, but the wording was softened a few hours before the RFA in question was created." But few lines earlier in another section, the same page still says: Please double check your RfA to make sure there are no votes on the page before it is "transcluded" (added to the main RfA page). I took this literally and asked a supporter in my RfA to revert the vote for now (he/she did and later supported again). Shouldn't the text say what, if anything, to do if there are votes? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding CSCWEM... He withdrew it after 3 (3) opposes, and succeeded subsequently. I wouldn't say it 'failed' and certainly the community viewed him as an acceptable administrator. Isn't that the point? AvruchTalk 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that if it's been confirmed that the nominated has confirmed their nomination beforehand, the nominator(s) and maybe one or two users can place a vote before transclusion. Other than that, voting should really stay after transclusion. bibliomaniac15 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the nominator(s) voting, since their support is a given.  I also don't mind seeing people vote if they know wouldn't be able to after transclusion (going on vacation, family situation, etc.), but the given reason here was "Please note that the first 7 supports were added before Matt had transcluded the RfA on the main page. Mainly because the Aussies are all very eager to see him pass." Merry Christmas from Sasha 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, please tell me you weren't taking me seriously there, Sasha! It was an honest mistake and I attempted to soften the situation with a bit of humour - dark rumours about the Aus Cabal taking over WP and all that - instead of making Matt look bad for something which was not his fault.  I share the_undertow's sentiments regarding voting pre-transclusion and have never done it before... and my sheer amazement at your comment... "tempted to protest oppose"... means that I will never do it again. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should viewed as a policy only when it has actually become one. I'd suggest someone propose it, if they feel it should be policy, and let the community decide. Of course, people can oppose for reasons that aren't based on policy. I don't think opposes based on pre-transclusion votes are very well reasoned - imho, a candidacy should be evaluated on the merits of the candidate, not the timing of the votes. AvruchTalk 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; ultimately, the candidate isn't necessarily responsible for the actions of others (though they could remove the !votes when they transclude the RfA, all that will happen is those editors will individual restore their !votes, meaning that the net effect is almost nothing). A notation marking the end of the pre-transclusion edits would be good, though; it would inform all RfA readers of the full situation without additional legwork (let's be honest, how many people !voting in an RfA check the main RfA page for when exactly it was transcluded?). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it really so much to ask that people not stuff their friend's RFAs before the rest of us can realistically be expected to see the RFA? This kind of stuff is what makes RFA seem cliquish. --W.marsh 03:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot echo that more. What is it that makes it so difficult to wait until it's officially started, since RfA is official? the_undertow talk 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its like running up the score before the opening kickoff of a football game Merry Christmas from Sasha 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  What about pre-transclusion opposes? What honest candidate wouldn't feel awkward asking someone to remove an oppose before transclusion? Who is responsible for taking action? Maybe all pre-transclusion comments should be marked as such, if they can't be reverted for whatever reason. J-ſtanContribsUser page 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've seen people comment them all out, and ask people to re-add the "#" to confirm they've read post-transclusion comments, and that seems to work. I've never encountered a pre-transclusion oppose though. A lot of this would be avoided if people just found about RFAs from WP:RFA, not from backchannel communications. --W.marsh 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've got more than one redlinked RfA (and RfB) on my watchlist... I just have the good sense not to say anything until it's officially up and running. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The only time I've seen pre-transclusion opposition was on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 2 when two users voted oppose on the RfA before transclusion. Deskana removed all the supports and the opposes. Acalamari 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess early votes are nearly always due to not knowing the rules, or not noticing that the nomination hasn't been accepted and transcluded. How about adding a clear message to the vote section of the initial page: "Do not vote or comment before the candidate has accepted and this page is transcluded at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship." The candidate could be instructed to remove the message, and others seeing it later could do it otherwise. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the bullshit, unnecessary stress this caused me during my RfA, it either needs to be put in writing that it's not allowed and you'll get opposed for it, or there needs to be something on the page it self to alert people that it's not been transcluded. Use the closed AFD code. Red background and border. No voting until transclusion, wherein the code is removed. Pedro and I worked this out during my RfA. It's in the archives. Check week one of November. Lara❤Love 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find it in the archives, but I do remember seeing it here.  Thats why I waited 'til after the RFA ended to bring this up.  Getting back to CSCWEM's RFA, this comment is the best I've ever seen on any RFA.  Merry Christmas from Sasha 06:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting before Transclusion 

message: Over the years we have had a number of format changes to the RfA page and to subpages, designed to make editing and commenting easier, less edit conflict prone and so forth, while also keeping the main ToC neat and tidy. I remember it took heroic measures (tricks with noincludes, breaks in the lines, special links to make things editable, etc) to achieve, and I have forgotten exactly what versions demonstrated which measures. Right now, though, when I look at the main RfA page, it has in the TOC only the candidates... and when I look at a candidate page, it has a TOC for each subsection. More importantly, while the subsections don't appear in the overall RfA TOC, only in the TOC for the candidate subpage, they are nevertheless editable from either place. Nirvana! 
But how was this achieved? I see none of the heroic measures of the past that I remember. I'd like to crib whatever it was that was done, to aid with the next steward elections on Meta  as discussed here but I can't figure out what was done!  I only watch this page sporadically so I must have missed the discussion. Anyone recall offhand either what was done or approximately when it was discussed? Thanks for any pointers. ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at :Template:TOCright. Redrocketboy 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) The top of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship transcludes Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter which contains . PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict x 2) It's done by  and some code in MediaWiki:Common.css (the same code is also present in  and ); I invented toclimit first and got consensus for the required code to be added sitewide, and then there was a discussion about adding it to  on that template's talk page. The CSS code needs to be added to a wiki for this method to work. (Technically speaking, the TOC links for individual candidate support sections are there, just invisible.) See this diff for the CSS code and  for the required template coding. --ais523 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. That's very clever stuff. Thanks to all of you for the pointers! ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... I tried to implement these changes on Meta, but it doesn't work. Here is the diff on Common.css, and I just imported m:Template:TOClimit. But m:Stewards/elections doesn't show any difference to before. :'( Help would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Thogo (Talk) 09:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, suddenly it works. Must have been a huge cache problem... Anyway. Thanks to Ais523 for that code. --Thogo (Talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulating the TOC 

message: When WP:LA was divided into multiple pages (some time ago), one side effect was that an admin who drops below the "active" activity level (30 edits over the last 3 months) is moved to Wikipedia:List of administrators/Semi-active (and then back again if his or her activity level subsequently increases again).  Moving entries between pages has bothered me for a while, and I've proposed folding the semi-active list into the alphabetical sublists of active admins, indicating semi-active status within the main lists. Others have commented that this doesn't bother them, and even find uses for the separate "semi-active' list.  If you're at all interested in this, please comment at Wikipedia talk:List of administrators#Semi-active and active in same list.  Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LA lists 

message: This page encompasses requests for bureaucrat access as well. I think we should rename this, conveniently, to Requests for access. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the current set-up irreversibly confused that many people so far? (Tending towards a "don't fix it if it ain't broke" argument...) GracenotesT § 07:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine the way it is right now. The main focus is adminship requests, and if the flood of bureaucratship requests come in regularly perhaps a move to Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship is in order, but for now, it feels like the right title. Spebi 08:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about confusion, I'm talking about correctness, and the tacked-on feel of RFB. I think Requests for access is a better name because it includes RFB, and, just because RFBs are rare, doesn't mean they are lesser in importance or priority. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't really seem to be a point to a rename.  Requests for adminship is culturally ingrained anyway. John Reaves 09:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Then it was decided that it wasn't an appropriate name. Being "culturally ingrained" doesn't  lend any correctness to a name. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have that strong of an opinion either way, it just seems like a waste of time. John Reaves 09:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The renaming of Votes for deletion to Articles for deletion had a very good reason. I don't see a good enough reason to rename RFA. Garion96 (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must remember that renaming isn't exactly a great matter. It consists of clicking a  button and typing a modification. The shortcut wouldn't even need to be changed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (outdent) I think they way it is set up works fine (ie RfB, which rather rare, and RfA (common) sharing a page). It's not broken, IMHO, so why fiddle with it? btw, WP:RFB redirects to the rfb part of the page. Maxim(talk) 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - RfBs are so rare that I don't think the title needs to be changed. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and bureaucratship or some similar title that describes exactly what the page is. It's not immediately what the proposed "access" refers to, and it may connote the wrong idea about users needing access. Regardless, I think an encyclopedia should be clear and precise with its titles, even for project pages. There's not much harm in it staying put, but no harm in moving it either. –Pomte 22:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to discuss RfB's, go to Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship ;) NoSeptember 23:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, it's fairly standard for the "RfA" area to handle 'crat requests as well; check out b:Wikibooks:Requests for adminship, q:Wikiquote:Administrators, v:Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship, m:Meta:Requests for adminship, and commons:Commons:Administrators. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they're like that because it's like this here. Adminship does not include bureaucratship, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. –Pomte 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be a crappy argument, but PRECADENTEXISTS isn't. ;) Besides, I'm not actually saying we should keep them together because of the other wikis, I'm just pointing out that several other wikis have seen fit to leave them combined. That's not to say all of them have, however; for example, there's wikt:Wiktionary:Bureaucrats, which is separate from wikt:Wiktionary:Administrators. You can find a very good sampling at m:Meta:Index/Requests and proposals. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not precedent if the entire discussion, if any, consists of "Look, en.wp and other projects name it this way, so let's follow suit and never talk about it again." Now, I don't know if that's true, but as we spend so much time on this page, we might as well get it right. Then observe whether any new projects use the conjunction. –Pomte 08:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeesh, all I was doing was highlighting how other projects do it. I'm not trying to stifle discussion, I'm just bringing some additional information to the table. Lighten up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know. All I was doing was rejecting that observation in case anyone takes it as strengthening their stance. –Pomte 22:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A need for rename 

message: Why aren't RfBs at the top of the RfB page? I notice a lot of people said that they didn't notice EVula's current RfB at first. As RfBs are so rare, and are considerably more important than RfAs I think it would make more sense for the rare RfBs to be at the top of the page to increase visibility, as most people don't scroll to the bottom. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the TOC before scrolling down. NoSeptember 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it'd be more valuable to add RfBs to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report than it would be to shift them around on WP:RFA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I don't really see the point of reorganization, but I would like to see RfBs on BN. J-ſtanContribsUser page 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfBs at the top of the page 

message: A few 'joke' opposes have popped up in support of editors recently in the RfA process. I personally don't find them horrible, though sometimes it is a bit hard to tell whether someone is kidding or not, and it seems to confuse some editors. I think a bit of consensus on the issue wouldn't be too bad, so that there isn't constant sidetracking going on in RFAs with person B asking person A if they're serious or not.
Also, forgive me if this has been discussed before; I searched the past few archives and didn't find anything, but I could've missed something. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_112#Joke_supports.2Fopposes It's in the most recent archive.  Metros (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be serious, I searched for "joke"... damn. Nevermind this, then. Master of Puppets Care to share? 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was curious about the same thing actually... Jmlk17 08:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake/joke opposes; burn them with fire? 

message: I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements about the use of the page for RfA announcements, and the application of Wikipedia:Canvassing to it. All input is welcomed - posting a note here as it involves the RfA process. Please direct all comments to that page, to avoid splitting the discussion. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 11:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't you think a section heading that assumed good faith would be more appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvass fest 

message: I'd like a competent person to review this.  I removed this RFA from the project page.  It seemed incomplete and was unsigned.  It was transcluded by an opposing third party, which seemed out of place. I will leave a message about this on the user's talk page. Thank you, Darkspots (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did was fine: the nomination had not been accepted, and someone who was not the candidate had added it to the RfA main page. You've removed the RfA, and informed both users about the situation. No problems have been caused here. Acalamari 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the user informed me that he did not intend to go forth with the RFA. I apologize for any inconveniences. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all right. No need to apologize. :) Acalamari 21:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with .  Cirt (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be useful to class that as a failed nomination? It might cause confusion next time that user has an RFA? Rt. 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All noms must be accepted, so removal was correct. As it was not accepted, it is not a failure as it never should have been on the page in the first place. — Rlevse • Talk •  13:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What I don't understand is that it was self created. It wasn't like someone else created the RfA page and said "so, wanna be an admin?" as he created it himself. The only thing he didn't do was subst it. Now, I'm not going into whether it should have been removed or whether he should be an admin, but I find it peculiar that a self-nom wouldn't actually list their nom. Seems... very strange. --lincalinca 13:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He could have created it just to see what it would be like (an RfA sandbox, if you will). What's of more interest to me is how anyone found it; there doesn't appear to be any listing of it anywhere that doesn't relate to its premature transclusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two users have a history. .  I knew neither user until this. Darkspots (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juliancolton]] 

message: I think it would be appropriate to put "If this RfA already has 10 questions or more, please consider posing future questions to the candidate's talk page." or something more strongly worded in the RfA structure. What are your opinions about this idea? Avruchtalk 23:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions are rather a good test of someone in action. If they can't deal with them (20 or however many), they're likely to have severe problems as an admin, dealing with a whole lot more difficult stuff than a few questions. Tyrenius (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think doing so is advisable. It also sounds like instruction creep per WP:CREEP to me. Language of having them have discussion on the user's talk page also doesn't seem like a great idea, what exactly would that achieve? SorryGuy  Talk  00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if someone really has an interest in the answer to the question (and it hasn't already been answered or mooted in other questions) then the user talk page is the next most appropriate place. I don't know if its really an instruction, as much as it is advice (like "General comments below" or "Please keep discussion civil") relating to etiquette. Avruchtalk 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: But then we'll have people rushing to get their questions in to be one of the first ten questions.  We'll also get bickering about "why is that question in one of the 10 questions? It's so unnecessary and my question would be better suited for it."  I don't see this plan as feasible.  Metros (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I see your point. Or question-stacking by nominators, also a potential issue. Avruchtalk 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Irritating and unneeded? Really? I've always found asking for explanation and clarification to be exactly the opposite. In that spirit, perhaps Majorly you can explain why they are irritating and unneeded.  Pedro :  Chat   00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have a point, good. If they are a bunch of theoretical "what if" situations, then they really have no value. RfA is not an exam. Prodego talk 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, as per my numerous inputs above. But "irritating and unneeded" seems rather dismissive and (un-blued) pointy to me. Pedro :  Chat   00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are actually relevant to the candidate, and the questioner genuinely cares, then fine. But all too often they are being posted as standard without thought, and the person asking doesn't even bother voting sometimes. Majorly (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So when you said "generally" it was your generalisation not every one elses. At the risk of Malleus jumping on me again, your repeated jabs at my comments are becoming tiresome Majorly. Pedro :  Chat   00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I'll have to stop repeatedly jabbing your comments then. Majorly (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that your accusation of me "jumping on you" is uncivil. ;) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on whether the jumping was consensual ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I was about to say something along the same lines. The same old questions come up time and again. Any candidate could just refer back to an answer in am earlier RfA that was applauded by the community and cut and paste that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Majorly, banning them outright, even if it could garner consensus, which I doubt, would only really in opposes worded in such a way that they seem like questions to the canidate that the canidate would feel as though they must answer. And, the theoretical "what if" questions are useful. If something in the contributions suggests that user may not understand WP:BLP, then a question about a situation about it is likely a better test of their understanding that asking them to summarize the ideas of BLP. SorryGuy  Talk  00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for concerns in reuse of questions, I wouldn't worry too much. Look at Mr. Z-man, for example. I believe he has said that he never reuses questions, and yet his questions always seem relevant, at least in my eyes. SorryGuy  Talk  00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you would at least agree that the repetitive "What's the difference between a ban and a block?" is getting a little tedious? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tedious to me? Maybe. But so long as candidates are unable to answer it correctly, which occurred as recently as yesterday, I believe it can still be useful. SorryGuy  Talk  00:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is tedious, and it's there to trip people up unnecessarily. Those questions are asked whether the candidate has a problem with BLP stuff or not. It's just making the whole RFA process worse than it is. Majorly (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And candidates are now being coached to just give the expected answer, regardless of whether they understand the policy or not. Which happened as recently as yesterday. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (unindent) It doesn't seem like a large portion, or even a significant portion, of the current candidates are coming from the prospective candidate pool in admin coaching. I don't think eliminating the questions is a good idea, and some of the more canned questions are canned because they are consistently illuminating. Avruchtalk 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that it illuminates is the candidate's lack of foresight in not looking through a few recent RfAs to find the "correct" answer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd further add that a limit to the questions would increase the already irritating trend for discussion to wind up spread across the "oppose" section instead of up at the top where it's meant to be. See Elonka's last RFA for a good example of where multiple questions have been useful in illustrating the pros, cons & potential problems/strong points for a potential candidate, BTW. —  iridescent 02:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not put such limits. Questions can be answered and ignored, if you want the votes of people who think questions are important then you should answer them. 20 questions in a week is not a large workload for a one-time event. 1 != 2 18:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Clever. ;) Rt. 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, frivolous questions is usually dealt by ignoring it (WP:DFTT, etc.), but the refusal to answer the question will simultaneously garner oppose votes. While answering said question may appease the RfA voter, it may be harmful when done outside the confines of WP:RFA. Therein lies the contradiction. —Kurykh 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the sort of conundrum a candidate for adminship needs to be able to resolve - involving a test of judgement, sensitivity to the community, knowledge of policies and how to interpret and apply them in tricky situations. Tyrenius (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was describing the disconnect between the RfA world and the rest of Wikipedia. What RfA demands, the rest of Wikipedia does not, and sometimes condemns. —Kurykh 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to your first post, I don't think a candidate would be opposed for ignoring a frivolous or trollish question; I have faith in the good sense of RfA voters, who are, after all, established members of the Wikipedia community. Anyone has the right to ask a question (even a frivolous one); the candidate has the right to ignore it, and the community will judge them on that basis. In response to the second post, I don't think there's a "disconnect" between RfA and the rest of Wikipedia. The vast majority of those who participate in RfAs are established members of the community, and don't leave their good sense at the door when they comment on an RfA. RfA is a tough process - tougher, for the candidate, than any other aspect of editing - because it needs to be; at present, administrators are so difficult to remove, once promoted, that we need to be careful about who becomes one. (If, of course, we made admin recall compulsory, as I've been advocating for a long time, then adminship could genuinely be no big deal.) WaltonOne 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and of course, if admin recall is compulsory, then Wikipedia will be nothing but a drama production studio and RfA would be nothing but a popularity contest. But that's another argument for another time. —Kurykh 07:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose limiting future RfAs to 10Qs, or inserting language advising the limit

message: OK, we seem to have reached a consensus as follows:
*A vote may be stricken by any member of the community if there is evidence that it was made by a banned user or a sockpuppet of a banned user.
*In any other circumstances, members of the community should not strike votes. In exceptional circumstances, where there is clear evidence that a vote was made in bad faith, a bureaucrat may decide to discount it. 
*If an editor believes a vote was made in bad faith, they can post evidence to that effect underneath the vote, for the consideration of the bureaucrats. 
So evidently I was wrong about the correct procedure on this issue, but this discussion has clarified it, and I'll get it right in future. WaltonOne 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion