Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/StringTheory11

Does anyone else feel that Gryllida has exceeded the limit for questions? I felt bad asking TWO, but some of these almost or completely make no sense as the grammar is so poor. Had I not just changed to support, I probably would have reverted the last four myself as excessive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. Not sure how the questions fit with the lines of concerns brought forward either. PaleAqua (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In light of his six comments in opposition, it seems pretty clear that Gryllida is using an excessive number of questions to campaign against String Theory's candidacy. Should we really permit any one editor to attempt to hijack an RfA by asking an excessive number of questions? Should we at least make such questions optional? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As I understand it in general answering additional questions is optional, though comments might take that into account. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions, "Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic." ( As an aside: I had actually thought about asking a question teasing out the difference between voting on an AfD and closing one, but decided against it, especially given the mentoring proposal. ) PaleAqua (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I just wait for a bold admin who hasn't voted to revert under the generic WP:DE. It seems clear that the editor won't change their vote, it seems antagonizing, as is trying to parse the grammar. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Perhaps a polite note on Gryllida's talk page suggesting s/he withdraw their unanswered questions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea what Gryllida is on about. His/her participation has become a hindrance to productive discussion I'm afraid. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen this discussion when I wrote this. For a lot of participants, they may not know that answering the questions is optional, and unanswered questions have the appearance of avoidance. I mirror my original comment in stating the questions should be struck as this is exactly why so many people are reluctant to undergo RFA and it seems to borderline on harassment. Mkdw ^talk 04:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline harassment? To me, the questions seem fair and relevant. As an active admin deleting articles and blocking editors, you have to face many questions, so this might be a good training. I can't find any antagonism or ill feeling towards the candidate when I read Q16-Q19. The questions and possible answers may contribute to better understanding of candidate's competence. Gryllida won't change their vote ... so what? Gryllida is just one of many voices here and cannot "hijack" this RfA - I believe that other participants have their own brains in their heads and can decide without a supervision service. I would let the candidate decide whether and how to react. But if the consensus is to remove the questions, I disagree. It would be a bad signal about the openness of the discussion. It is not obvious trolling. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize harassment may be a bit of a strong word and I agree that the questions in themselves are not problematic. We're not talking about the content of the questions but the sheer quantity by an editor that has already said, "Oppose by everything starting with the nomination message and down to the answers to the questions provided". I'm sure we could all think of one hundred questions each that would "contribute to better understanding of the candidate's competence". We could also spend a year reviewing their contributions. We don't because the process must stand within reason. This is for the benefit of the community and candidate. There is an unreasonable number of questions a editor can ask. Whether it's 4 or 6 or 20, there is a number that will be reached where the majority of the community will say this is excessive and unreasonable. A point where the any benefit from the answers are not equal to what we should expect candidates to answer and say "this is too much". If the community generally believes something to be unreasonable, then I do not see the need for inaction, especially when candidates are already under a considerable amount of stress. Likewise I think the community would be able to determine when the point of openness of a discussion is endangered, and when something becomes unreasonably excessive. Mkdw ^talk 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, if it were my RFA, I would politely ignore some or all of them. Good faith isn't a suicide pact. I'm not sure how important and enlightened you must think you are to ask six questions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]