User talk:Sdrqaz/Archive 1

Much appreciated, Fastily! I'll use it to the best of my ability. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lara Trump 2601:601:CE80:8640:5DE0:FEFE:7BF7:4B8A (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is archived here; parallel discussions took place at Talk:Lara Trump and at ANI.

Indeed, her resignation from the US Senate doesn't take effect until Noon EST, on 18 January 2021. But, trying to make that stick, is like spitting up against the Niagara Falls. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Very true GoodDay! Sometimes feels futile... Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I used to go through this kinda thing every 2, 4 or 6 years. This year, was the first time, I just gave up & updated or allowed other to update new governors & new lieutenant governors, at the stroke of mid-night of the inaugural day. Figured 12 or less hours, wasn't worth the stress :) GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I probably won't make the edits myself, but allowing others to do them sounds like a good idea in the long run. At the end of the day, it's a website, after all. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdrqaz, I just wanted to drop a quick thank-you for closing the RFC finally. I know it was probably quite a bit to read through; I never imagined when I filed it that I'd wind up so personally and abusively attacked just for filing a required procedure. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: No problem. It didn't seem like a particularly pleasant RfC and I was happy to be uninvolved. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

With this close you accuse "many editors" of extending criticism to the proposer. Can you name them and/or point to their edits? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter, I'd rather not list users and diffs because the RfC is now closed. However, I recognise your point that many criticisms were not explicitly directed towards the proposer. I was uncomfortable with some of the ways in which editors were dismissive, given that formal deprecation requires going through the RfC process. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism directed towards the proposer can be criticism of the proposition not of the proposer, so I don't see whom you refer to and I believe that the word "dismissive" could be applied to the act of discarding criticisms. But "implied refusal to seriously consider or discuss an objection" merely violates an essay (

WP:ACD), I won't challenge. Peter Gulutzan (talk

) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter, I hope that you haven't felt that your concerns have been ignored and if that is what you feel, I hope that your perception of the closure is not changed because of it. I am considering rewriting the summary on the basis of your objections, but the core finding of consensus is unchanged and I have found no need to do so. In a way, my comments on editor conduct in the RfC were peripheral to the actual thrust of the RfC: whether the source should be deprecated. I was taken aback by comments such as accusing editors of wanting to jerk [them]selves off to the accomplishment [...] and others who called it a waste of time when RfCs are required to deprecate sources. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Since those were remarks by JBL I think you could have taken that up with JayBeeEll rather than bring it to your closing summary. I don't find it logical for you to support RfCs because they're required to deprecated sources when the point is that there's no requirement to deprecate sources, so will object that you are "involved" if I notice repetitions of such support in future closes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DEPS also states that the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. That means that where editors believe the source to be de facto deprecated, that does not preclude going through the formal deprecation process. If you wish to take my future closures of RfCs up to a higher authority, you will be well within your rights to do so. Sdrqaz (talk

) 20:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is archived here.

The article on 116th Congress does not include the former President and President Pro Tempore. That is why Pence's information is removed. Jusfiq (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jusfiq: That comparison does not hold up because there was no change in President of the Senate or President pro tempore in that Congress. If you look at the 115th United States Congress, where the President of the Senate changed from Biden to Pence, both are listed. Please revert your own edit. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following my message at Jusfiq's talk page.

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning on eliminating "coalition" from the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress. If you look at the page for the 110th United States Congress, you'll see that it does have the Senate majority listed as a Democratic (coalition). We need to be consistent. Either we add "coalition" to the senate majority in the 117th United States Congress, or we eliminate "coalition" from the 110th United States Congress. It's important to note the Democratic caucus' majorities for both congressional sessions were predicated upon the same conditions: Democrats did not have enough seats to constitute a majority in and of themselves; their "majority" was only made possible with two Independent senators agreeing to align with their caucus. Therefore, I would argue that the majority caucuses in the 110th and 117th Congresses is and were truly multiparty coalitions. Wxstorm (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

reliable source that refers to the Democratic majority as a "coalition"? Wikipedia is built on what reliable sources say, not what we want them to say. If my understanding of political coalitions is correct, coalitions are formed for the purpose of creating a majority. Given that Sens. Lieberman, Sanders, and King have caucused with the Democrats throughout their time in the Senate, the Democratic caucus is not considered a formal coalition in the usual senses of the term. This was not an ad hoc affair like the Cameron–Clegg coalition, with a formal coalition agreement. The independent senators have been effectively subsumed into the Democratic Caucus. Moreover, it cannot be called "multiparty" as independents do not belong to another party. The Senate Democratic Caucus here includes both the senator from Maine and the senator from Vermont as being Democratic senators. Sdrqaz (talk

) 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The bone of contention here is whether the two Independent senators in the 110th and 117th Congresses were Democrats. Based on party affiliation, Joe Lieberman, Bernie Sanders, and Angus King are not members of the Democratic Party. It's well known where Bernie Sanders sits on the issues; he proudly refers to himself as a

Socialist. However, Joe Lieberman and Angus King are truly centrist figures who voted with both Democrats and Republicans (both were former Democrats who either left the party on their own or were ousted from the party). In the case of Joe Lieberman, he lost Connecticut's 2006 Democratic Senate Primary to Ned Lamont (who's the current Governor of Connecticut). After losing the Democratic Primary, Lieberman ran as an Independent, and won re-election largely from the support of Republican voters in the 2006 General Election. With that being said, I'm thinking it would not be correct to call the majority Senate caucus in either the 110th or 117th Congresses the Democratic caucus; rather simply the "Majority Caucus" since the caucus is not made up entirely of Democrats. Now, if 51 (50 with Harris as VP) Senate seats were held by actual members of the Democratic Party, I could see the majority caucus being called the "Democratic Caucus" since they would hold an outright majority in the chamber without the need for non-Democrat Senators to join their caucus to form a majority. Indeed, you're correct in there are no real good examples of "coalition" caucuses in Congress throughout our country's history. However, they have occurred several times in state legislatures, most recently in Washington State where a few moderate Democrats in the state Senate caucused with Republicans to create what was called the "Majority Coalition Caucus" from 2012 to 2017. Similar arrangements took place since 2000 in the New York Senate and in the New Mexico Senate (dubbed the "Cowboy Coalition," made up of Republicans and conservative rural Democrats creating a coalition majority caucus, leaving minority caucus consisting of more progressive urban/suburban Democrats). Just because a "coalition caucus" hasn't happened in the US Congress doesn't mean it can't happen.63.227.108.101 (talk

) 13:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough answer. I'll admit to not knowing about the situations in Washington state, New York, and New Mexico (I assume you're referring to the Mama Lucy Gang), so I've learned something new. I was, however, aware of the electoral histories of Sens. Lieberman, Sanders, and King. I was not claiming that they are registered as Democrats, but they were part of the Democratic caucus. In most reliable sources, they are described as being "independents caucusing with the Democrats" or something along those lines. I agree that a coalition down the line can happen (never say never in politics), but I fail to see how this can be accurately described as being one. Your examples of the state legislatures seem to involve politicians crossing party lines to join a coalition specifically for the purpose of forming a majority. This is not the case with the aforementioned senators. They did not leave the Democratic caucus after they were not needed. They did not have a coalition agreement, unlike the Majority Coalition Caucus. They have effectively been subsumed into the caucus: they are Democrats in all but name. I reiterate my point above: we need reliable sources that refer to the Senate majorities in the 110th and 117th Congresses as being coalitions. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was following my message at Wxstorm's talk page.

Hi, I work for Blackstone. I see you were recently active at the Blackstone article and appear to have a good sense of how to apply the NPOV policy. Can you please take a look at the discussion at

Thomas, thank you for your message. I will do so, but will take some time to catch up with the situation at hand. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no government link. one is broken and the other doesn't mention Jaffna as a twin city. I suggest you to look carefully at the citations.

@

YaSiRu11: There is a government link. While the URL was broken, it was archived here. I added the archived URL to the page. You should not remove broken links and the information they supported without checking if the link had been archived.

The council page states this: a signing ceremony to twin Kingston with Jaffna, a district in the northern province of Sri Lanka.

The Surrey Comet states: [As the] country prepares to sever its ties with the European Union, Kingston has found itself a new Asian partner in the form of the Sri Lankan city Jaffna. Kingston Council has announced it is twinning with the city in a bid to build “greater understanding and sharing knowledge” in areas of governance, healthcare and education.

I do not understand where the confusion is, as it is quite clear that it has been twinned. Even if the government link had been broken beyond repair, the newspaper source would have sufficed. Please revert your own edit.

Sdrqaz (talk

) 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is such only in the archive; no present evidence cannot be found on the website. It will be valid only if the present website claims that, but it doesn't

talk

) 15:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:DEADREF clearly states: Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible. See Wikipedia:Link rot and Help:Archiving a source. I suspect that you have quite a few contributions where you removed information simply because the link was dead and would advise you to go back and do so, so that valuable information is not lost from Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk

) 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that what I said was not clear to you. the current website for the International relation of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames doesn't recognize Jaffna as a twin city. It may or may not have ever been recognized as such. that is the reason I deleted the information. not because the page was not working.

talk

) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@

YaSiRu11: Could you provide me with a link to this international relation website? Sdrqaz (talk

) 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding these edits at Jaffna District.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmcdermott (talk • contribs) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: Discussion is archived here.

I see you recently accepted a pending change to October 12 ‎ that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Toddst1, thank you for the note and sorry for the inconvenience. I'll be sure to keep this in mind when reviewing those pages in the future. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. We appreciate your help! Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdrqaz, On the page where I can see my edit count, I noticed a category called User Group (which is empty in my case). Could you tell me what those are and how I can become a member? Best wishes Lev21 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi

extended confirmed (30 days old and 500 edits).

All in all, I wouldn't worry too much about those things. Few pages are semi-protected, and even fewer are extended-confirmed protected. After a week or so a couple of days, you should be autoconfirmed.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me! Sdrqaz (talk

) 22:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC) corrected 17:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

WP:OWN etc), but I'd prefer to potter along and work on it for now, if you don't mind.

I am, however, maybe thinking of putting it up for GA some time down the line (wishful thinking, perhaps) and would love to pick your brains and get your expertise on the matter. Sdrqaz (talk

) 01:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Heh, that's what I thought too—you can imagine my surprise when I discovered someone else had already started a draft for the topic. As I said, I'm happy to leave you to it. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Mz7! Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but I would not describe my contribution to that discussion as at all elegant! Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You're selling yourself short there, Thryduulf! You saved me having to flesh out my reasoning further and captured how arbitrary the restrictions are, given how the identical discussion held in a different venue would be prohibited just because of where it took place. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my

I'm surprised something like that's been on your mind for a while but don't worry about it, it's all good. I learned something new in the process too. I didn't feel slighted by the phrasing at the time, I understood what you meant after a back and forth talk so I didn't think badly of the intended or unintended tone behind it. --Killuminator (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's very kind and gracious, Killuminator, thank you very much. Happy editing! Sdrqaz (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my message at Killuminator's talk page, which was itself a follow-up to this message. A related conversation can be found here.

I believe that the addition of the reference was an attempt at self promotion of one of the authors of the article.By looking at the history of that article you can see that the reference was unnecessary. This is not the first time that Andreas(https://andreasplagiarism.wordpress.com/2020/12/02/andreas-theodorou-committed-plagiarism-in-his-phd-thesis/) has attempted to unnecessarily insert his name on AI articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindpit (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see,

conflict of interest noticeboard. Sdrqaz (talk

) 17:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this edit at Explainable artificial intelligence.

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Congrats on being in the top 5 most active pending changes reviewers this month. Great job. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, gratias tibi for the barnstar (and sorry for the late reply)! I didn't realise that there was something tracking it; just tried to chip away at that eternal backlog every once in a while. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to insert Scott Mann into British Government frontbench, can you help?

BlueD954 (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, BlueD954; you caught me just as I had gone on a Wikibreak. I see that the information has now been added and I'm sorry to hear of your block. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to appologize for making my prank edit on Joe Manchins page and wasting your time having to review it and revert it back. I am sure that is as annoying to you as it was unneccesary for me to do. Enjoy your day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B143:D99C:201F:102B:8CDF:E8D (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. It wasn't that annoying, just a minor inconvenience. I hope you enjoy your day too. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to these edits at Joe Manchin. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers

I think this is the best source for the article

Thanks for letting me know. I'll update it when I get the opportunity. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Scott Mann is unpaid. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appointment-of-scott-mann-mp-as-a-government-whip-22-january-2021 2401:7400:4009:6801:799B:33A0:56B4:51AD (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. – Sdrqaz (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Zeki Alasya best turkish actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZekiAlasyaMetinAkpinar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. In the future, kindly do not engage in

sockpuppetry to publicise such valuable information. Sdrqaz (talk

) 01:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Pertinent information can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stepgilara and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071. An associated edit from a similarly-named editor (Zekialasyametinakpinarrr) can be found here. The initial message was untitled, with heading retrospectively added.

Hi, I saw your post on the AWB talk page. Do you have an example of what you are looking for? What you might want to search for? I have some methods of getting around some AWB limitations. If anything comes of this discussion we can post on the AWB page. Regards, Neils51 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi

MOS:QWQ changes, like this edit at Chief Wiggum

, which involves searching for things like "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish"]]" and changing it to 'The Curse of the Flying Hellfish']]{{-"}}.

My two issues are this:

1. I cannot make AWB differentiate between apostrophes and italic/bold markup. As many QWQ changes involve changing two inverted commas into one single inverted comma and one double inverted comma ('' into '"), searching for QWQ violations would throw up a lot of perfectly-valid uses of bold and italic. Searching the rendered text wouldn't have the same problem, as Ctrl-F doesn't look for things like italics. As I said at
   WT:AWB
   , I'm using a pretty conservative program so fewer false positives are thrown up, but that also means "true" positives are falling through the cracks.
2. As AWB searches "in-source", it ignores what
   § Episodes despite that creating the same rendered text. That's due to {{#invoke:Episode list
   |sublist}} (I think, or at least one of the modules) wrapping every episode title with inverted commas.

I hope that's clear, and would be happy to clarify further (though my grasp of the jargon may not be great). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I believe this could be covered with regular expressions, even if they just indicate likely candidates. Tuning can then reduce false positives. If you can grab some examples you come across (article links would be fine) and put them in your sandbox that would help. Will have a look, catch you soon. Neils51 (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do a dry run on AWB to try and root those omissions out. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to my

Dear Sdrqaz. Thank you for your welcome message. I hope you have a good day to. Yours with Respect. Ed make wiki edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed make wiki edits (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ed! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. Happy editing, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again, I will ask and I'm glad of your kindness. I wish you happy editing as well. Yours with Respect. Ed make wiki edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed make wiki edits (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope to see you around and look forward to those questions! All the best, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate the assist at DYK. I've added sources to the nomination form. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Thanks again! 173.162.220.17 (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It was a pleasure! It's a shame than non-autoconfirmed editors can't create DYK nominations themselves, and it's a nice, thorough article you've created there. I don't think there's much to do other than to wait, to be honest. The backlog at Template talk:Did you know is pretty long – your nomination is sitting at 26 May, with quite a few even older than it. I suppose that's one of the issues with an all-volunteer community: it's highly dependent on whether editors have the time to spare. Personally, ALT6 and ALT7 seem the most exciting ones and probably have the greatest chances of being approved, though you never know. I'd suggest looking at the nomination page every couple of days, but be patient! A reviewer will eventually come, make suggestions, and give feedback. I'll keep an eye on that nomination to see if I can help when that happens (though I'm no expert at DYK). Sdrqaz (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding this Did You Know nomination.

Sorry about my commentary on "True and the Rainbow Kingdom" I know I was being honest about the show, but instead it was un-encylopedic and didn't conform to Wikipedia's standards. 😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸😸 Sorry about the laughing kitties. I definitely WAS NOT MOCKING YOU.

~meow~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.116.200 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Because

Wikipedia isn't a forum, adding your own opinions to articles isn't allowed. Is there a reason you mentioned those two editors in your post-postscript? Sdrqaz (talk

) 00:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this edit at True and the Rainbow Kingdom.

For reverting edits at Manoj Chauhan. If it keeps up, I'll log a page protection request. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I had stumbled across it in recent changes; that plan sounds good to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this reversion and this restoration at Manoj Chauhan.

Hi (I don't know your name),

I wish you had not called out a page I was using to experiment with parsing bibliographic text from books.

I am not angry :-)

But I am disappointed.

Take care,

- Mark Graham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.101.165 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Wikipedia isn't a webhost, after all. Given that the information was taken directly from the books, the data from the pages you lost is still available on Google Books and should be retrievable. Sdrqaz (talk

) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was in response to this message at Markjgraham hmb's talk page and to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 June 22.

Sdrqaz, thanks again for offering to review this request to update the article to be more like the draft I've shared here. Happy to address any concerns with the proposed update, MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, other bits of work around the encyclopedia caught up with me. I'm reviewing the edit request now. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, thanks again for your help. Do you have a moment to review this request as well? You'll see another editor has already agreed with removing the horse racing section. Thank you! MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I did see that request, but since that editor replied I thought he'd be doing the review instead of me. Because I don't want to step on any toes (unnecessarily, that is), I'll prod them a bit on the talk page. If they don't respond within the next few days, I'll do the review. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the other editor said to go ahead, I hope you're able to revisit this request. Thank you! MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! I've posted a final request for the Nate Morris article about the Politics section. You've been so helpful reviewing this draft, so I hope you're able to take a look at the last two requests. Thanks again! MS rep 4 NMorris (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Sdrqaz. RfA is an incredibly stressful experience. I don't see that you've run one under this user name, but it's not something that needs extra questions. From the point of view of someone who hasn't run one, it's hard to understand how stressful every extra question can be. It's 24/7 for an entire week, and it can go horribly wrong. Unless your question actually is necessary for you to make a decision, it's actively harmful to the process IMO. —valereee (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

assume that they're not just trolling for the sake of it. Perhaps I'm naïve: I suspect that most others would have probably reverted the above message as trolling. Just as how being an administrator isn't just about memorising all the policies, questions at RfA aren't just about policy knowledge – they're also about trying to get a feel for the candidate and their temperament and !voters have strange ways of trying to suss that out. Having been unfamiliar with many of our recent RfA candidates, I'm a little more sympathetic to those strange methods. You probably disagree with me: like I said, we probably have opposing views on adminship and RfAs. But that's fine. Sdrqaz (talk

) 20:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz, no worries on the delay, feel free to drop in and out!

I don't know why people insist on asking irrelevant questions at RfA. I suspect it's a combination of reasons. Some see that everyone can ask up to 2 and start trying to come up with questions. Some probably think it's a good way to raise their own profile. Some are just feeding their own egos/want to hear their voice. Some are asking questions that would seem nosy if simply posted on a user talk but because other people are asking questions they feel more comfortable.

I comment on irrelevant questions because I hope it will help limit the number of irrelevant questions at future RfAs. I did, FWIW, go to that editor's page first and give her a link to Wikipedia:Should you ask a question at RfA? She doubled down (a very typical response to me trying to approach on user talk first) indicating that indeed understanding someone's philosophy/ideology/views regarding Wikipedia as a whole and as it specifically regards to editing was crucial to knowing whether to support their candidacy or not. IMO that's just horsefeathers. Seriously, what could any reasonable candidate possibly say that would be a "wrong" answer and make the questioner decide against supporting?

So, yeah, I'm going to comment, because for me, I can't come up with a better way to try to show people that irrelevant questions are looked at sideways by at least some other editors. And not only are they harmful to the process, they make the questioner look clueless. Other people are rolling their eyes. It's fine that you think it's the wrong way to go, though, and I'd love to discuss what you think might be a better way. Because I don't actually enjoy being kind of a dick. I just feel like someone's got to do something about this stupid questions that in some cases cause actual harm, and this is what I came up with. You may notice that I do not typically comment on opposes, no matter how silly those are. My little niche is silly, irrelevant questions. :D —valereee (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'll speak from personal experience. My first foray into RfA was just half a year ago, over five years after my account was created. And it showed: I asked a question that you would probably consider irrelevant. Prior to that, well, I had never interacted with any of the candidates, so I didn't consider myself qualified to !vote on them. And I sometimes still have that feeling. Despite what others may consider to be the leading nature of the question (most people asking about recall want the candidate to be open to it – shown here), that's not what I was looking for. I wanted to see his thought process and how the candidate justified himself. For me, my question didn't have to do with being a good way to raise [my] own profile or just feeding [my] own egos/want[ing] to hear [my] voice. I asked, well, because I was curious what the candidate thought and why.

As for the question in the current RfA, on the surface I can put it down to just curiosity. People want to know why administrators chose their usernames (see here and here – asking questions that would seem nosy if simply posted on a user talk but because other people are asking questions they feel more comfortable). On a more cynical level, a bureaucrat once told me that !voters look for candidates that aren't too deletionist or too inclusionist, aren't too exopedianist or too metapedianist, and have certainly opposed for those reasons. I can't read the !voter's mind, but perhaps that was part of the reason why the question was asked. Maybe the !voter wanted to know if the candidate was more eventualist or immediatist or what their general philosophical views are (this RfA has a lot on such views).

As for what I think is the optimal approach, I don't have the perfect answer. My own approach (letting the candidate disregard any questions they don't want to answer) is a probably a little too laissez-faire for you, as you're a lot more invested in RfA reform than I am. If that path is unacceptable (as I assume it is), perhaps just prodding the questioner once would suffice. If the questioner gets it, great! If not, well maybe a seed has been planted for the future. Disengage. Trying to ram the point home may just cause the proverbial seed to be destroyed beyond repair and may only cause more drama. Some people take pleasure from being contrarian and that may become more likely as a result. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know some people take pleasure from being contrarian. I was hoping this editor was just clueless, as she hasn't got a ton of edits, which is why I posted to her talk. If she'd had 30K edits I might not have bothered. Curiosity is quite possibly a reason people ask questions at RfA, but curiosity is not a good enough reason to ask a question at RfA, any more than it would be during any other 24/7 high-stress period in a person's life.

Candidates disregarding questions puts the onus, along with all the risk, on the candidate. I've seen comments made about candidates ignoring a question, calling it disrespectful. Candidates already have enough on their plate. I'm trying to take some of that onus and risk off their plate, along with the stress caused by answering irrelevant questions.

I don't actually consider the question of recall irrelevant. I've recently argued we should make it the fourth question, or suggest to candidates that they include it as part of their acceptance statement, just to get it out of the way so that's one less question to deal with. I don't consider any question about understanding of policy in the areas you intend to work to be irrelevant. I don't consider any question that asks a candidate to address an actual area of concern about that candidate to be irrelevant. But unless you have a specific concern, backed up by something in their editing history, that this person's "editing philosophy" might be problematic for some reason, why do you need to put them through that exercise? Speaking from experience some candidates agonize over almost every question, spending hours thinking about them, composing answers to them, editing those answers, trying to figure out if there's a catch or gotcha in them, worrying they aren't answering fast enough but wanting to sleep on an answer to try to see if they can do better in the morning.

Some candidates don't mind answering these 'Life, the Universe and Everything' questions. I don't feel like the current candidate minded it. That doesn't make the question relevant, and it doesn't mean that some future candidate, asked the same question, might not be completely flummoxed by it and spend literally hours trying to figure out how to answer it, and for what? What possible answer could make the difference between supporting and opposing? And that's IMO the only good reason to ask a question at RfA: because if you don't get this concern answered, you can't support.

Sorry to be so long-winded. It's fine if we just have to agree to disagree. :) —valereee (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@

the community generally favours recall, I don't think it factors into their decision as much (it's quite hard to tell, given the last candidate to eschew recall was a bit of an outlier). Sdrqaz (talk

) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Conversation was regarding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BusterD 2, specifically Q5 and the ensuing discussion.

This is an archive of past discussions for the period January 2016 to July 2021. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.