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]

Maybe 6 isn't that number, but I'm not the only one that thought the line of questions seemed "antagonizing" and a "hindrance". This is a bit of a side, but why do you think a single editor "cannot hijack" an RFA? To illustrate my point I'll use an extreme: an editor posted thousands of questions and wrote walls replies everywhere. Certainly that could be construed as an attempt to disrupt the process. Even a sysop could fully protect an RFA (it would undoubtedly be undone) but both would be examples of where a single editor adversely affected the process despite being only one among many. Obviously this case isn't nearly as extreme, but the rationale as to why in this case that wasn't even a possibility is based on the assumption that it is impossible for a single editor to do so. Opposed to based upon the consequences of how their actions have affected the process so far. Mkdw ^talk 21:00, 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]
The questions are pointy to say the least, and I'm suspicious about the intent, given that Q18 was already more or less answered in reply to Q9. But we should think twice, and then a couple of hundred times more, before removing questions and thus seeming to try to control the course of events. Pointy, yes, but not so bad as to disrupt the course of the discussion, and the candidate is of a calibre to be able to handle this. To be frank, the questions are at least somewhat on topic -- more so than "What do you believe is the greatest injustice in the world today?" is, and the question about Wikipedia's greatest problems would be more relevant to a candidate policy maker, rather than to a candidate janitor. I don't recall Gryllida appearing at an RFA before. I'd have thought a polite note of advice on their talk page would be enough, and then leave well alone. --Stfg (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like my questions fine, but they are rare, and were to tell us something about an editor that most people knew nothing about at all. Frankly, I praised the way he handled it as it told me a great deal about him, not just his opinion, but that he has passion without being overbearing. Asking softball questions that you can go look up on the policy page would tell you nothing. Back to the issue, asking too many pointed questions after you have already made it clear you oppose, that is just pointy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, seems I've already blown the option of a quite note on their talk off the table. :P Mlpearc (open channel) 21:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware and remember, I've never interacted with Gryllida before either, before this RfA. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stfg: I was wondering the same thing, regarding Gryllida appearing at an RFA before. Please see this closed RfA, including four of the questions. - tucoxn\^talk 23:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]