Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions

From VfD:

I thought it would be nice to create this template for the questionnaire usually given on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. However, about 30 seconds after I created it, it occurred to me that the nominee wouldn't be able to answer the questionnaire without editing the template! Whoops! [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 15:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I didn't even know there was such a quiz. Regardless, this template still seems useful if you use subst:. Rossami 18:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I think delete is the right call. A template used only on one page doesn't seem useful, even with subst:, since it can just as easily be copy'n'pasted. -- Netoholic 04:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • er... this is exactly what subst: is good for -- helping you avoid copy'n'pasting, particularly if you can't remember where you put that block of text to paste. Keep and subst:. +sj+ 16:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • um... but its used one one page only. The block of text would be on that page as well. At the very least, it should me moved to a sub-page of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (maybe Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quiz, where subst: could still be used to insert it. It just isn't "Template:" worthy because of its limited usefulness outside of one page. -- Netoholic 22:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• subst. Niteowlneils 18:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as a subpage of RfA, not as a template. Do not call it a quiz. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions might be better. Angela. 06:55, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

end moved dicussion

I've added a fourth question in line with my personal admin promotion criterion on User:Jguk/admin criterion. It just saves me asking it in the comment section every time, jguk 14:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question makes it sound as if it's a requirement for adminship, and the questions overall were previously cut back to counteract this kind of question creep where everybody packs in their own personal "interview question". Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", and RfA is not a job interview. If you want to know whether someone has satisfied a pet criterion, contribution histories are readily available. One of the great things about this process is that everyone can investigate people as much as they want without troubling others, including the candidate. --Michael Snow 04:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I share Michael's concerns above, but I would take it a step further and advocate the elimination of the Rfa questionnaire completely. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:44, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Subheads

I reverted Func's 05:23, 21 Jun 2005 addition of using subheads on this template based on Cecropia's similar revert on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eequor (2nd). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ordering & Headings

If we are going to keep these generic questions, then I have a couple of proposals:

Put the questions above the opinions

In my head, people giving an opinion on RfA ought to be able to read up what kind of person they're commenting on prior to seeing the comments of others. This will discourage sheep voting and help to reduce the nature of the popularity contest that RfA has become. It seems madness to me to suppport/oppose someone you haven't read all the details about.

Use proper headings

We ought to use proper page headings for the support, oppose, neutral and comments sections, as well as for the questions for the candidate section. This will make the page far easier to navigate using the table of contents.

Feedback on these ideas would be appreciated. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 10:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)