Questions for RfA Candidates is a set of questions targeted for users running for a Request for Adminship. The series of questions are posted below. To indicate that you agree with the set of questions and that they should be asked to RfA candidates, sign your name under the signature section to encourage candidates to answer tougher questions. To indicate that you are a candidate that has answered the questions on you respective RfA page, please sign under the completed section

• 1 How have your skills throughout Wikipedia allowed you to intervene or mediate and Edit Conflict or War?

• 2 Do you have any history of instigating edit conflicts, and if so, do we have a reason to trust that you have the skills to mitigate and help to reduce editing conflicts?

• 3 Scenario: A major article is undergoing a massive edit war with several factions and users to each faction urging for a separate solution and direction. As an Admin walk through how you would handle the situation

• 1 Why would Admin tools be of use to your needs?

• 2 Will Admin tools help in the editing of Wikipedia, or will your usage of Admin tools simply be for self gain?

• 3 Scenario: Give your own scenario where you having Admin tools would be greatly advantageous for Wikipedia.

• 1 Describe the credibility of the person who nominated you for Admin (Note: If self nominated ignore)

• 2 Describe your own credibility when you nominated yourself (Note: If someone else nominated you ignore)

• 3 Scenario: Do you see yourself or the one that nominated you ever regretting the decision to nominate if you become an Admin?

If you have read over the above questions and feel that candidates for Adminship should answer the question to prove their abilities, sign your name below to indicate to candidates that people supprot these questions.

1. -Bigvinu (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• These questions seem to assume bad faith, and there is too many to be posing to a candidate at one time. I'd suggest coming up with a single coherent question that speaks to the candidates ability to wield the admin tools and use proper judgment in doing so. –xenocidic (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• No, these question's don't look helpful, and please stop asking the yes/no question in RfAs as to whether people will answer them. If you want to ask a real question, then ask one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• as above--Atomican ^{[ T | C | WC+ ]} 08:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Terrible idea. Al Tally ^talk 08:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Describe your own credibility when you nominated yourself"? What useful answers are you expecting to that? Agree with Xenocidic - you'll get more out of one well-thought-out question than nine like these. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Per above. Your questions are undoubtedly, intended to elicit a certain type of answer. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 13:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Per Xenocidic. These questions don't look helpful, and I don't think editors who are up for adminship should answer them. America69 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• These questions aren't adding any value to the RFA. Edit Questions 1, 2 and 3 are effectivly asking the same thing as the standard RFA Q3: Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? . A well thought out answer to the RFA Q3 will almost certainly negate the ones above. Similarly, your Admin questions 1, 2 and 3 duplicate RFA Q1: What admin work do you intend to take part in? As for the final three questions - WP:CRYSTAL is loosly based on the premise that you can't predict the future, and here you are asking the candidate to do just that (yes, I know I'm shoe-horning a deletion guideline into an RFA discussion, but I'm being bold). So what value do the answers to the last three give? I would say the same as the first 6: none. I appreciate the sentiments behind all the questions, but none of the questions offer any value to the RFA process, and as such would be wasting the candidate's time. Far better would be to see if the answers they give to the standard questions miss out on vital elements, and ask a tailor-made question to address the gap. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with StephenBuxton. In addition, I would note that Admin question 2 has one obvious answer -- I doubt that any candidate for administrator would say that "my usage of Admin tools simply be for self gain." Edit question 3 and Admin question 3 are too vague; if you want to know how a potential admin would deal with a particular situation, it would be much better to create a fictional situation with specific details, along the lines of User:Xenocidic/RFAQ or the AGF Challenge, rather than what these questions have. As to Nomination questions 1 and 2, if I had been asked those questions when I nominated myself, all I would have said was "My credibility is good." (Or if someone else had nominated me, "My nominator's credibility is good.") Then again, anybody could say that whether or not their credibility or their nominator's credibility was good. And for Nomination question 3, I can see a situation where I would regret having nominated myself -- for example, if I made a justified block of a malicious editor who then proceeded to post personal information about me and libel me on other web sites -- but that wouldn't be a reason for the community to have wanted to deny me adminship if my decision to block the person was correct. The simplest answer to Nomination question 3 would just be "No." Finally, on Edit question 1, I think you have a typo: "intervene or mediate and Edit Conflict or War" should probably be "intervene or mediate an Edit Conflict or War". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• More tedious obstacles in the path of good admin candidates. Axl (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are a candidate for Adminship that has read over and answered all of the above questions , sign your name and provide a link to your RfA page so that users may read your answers.