Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 07:18:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
ToadetteEdit	RfA	Closed per WP:NOTNOW	30 Apr 2024	0	0	0	0
Sdkb	RfA	Successful	16 Feb 2024	265	2	0	99
The Night Watch	RfA	Successful	11 Feb 2024	215	63	13	77

What to do with RfAs that were never transcluded

I've scrolled through WP:HOPEFUL and have already found two RfAs that were never properly transcluded (and posted over ten years ago), but I'd like to ask what should be done to these kinds of RfAs: should they be deleted? Marked as historical? Protected? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 02:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't "need" to do anything. If they're abandoned, they're abandoned. If they're still (somehow) a work-in-progress, then more power to them. They're not doing any harm sitting there unused. Just leave them be. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Primefac, untranscluded RfA drafts aren't harmful or confusing and can reasonably be left alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm#Responding to opposes. Aza24 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Optional question heading

Somewhat in response to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_257#Lots_of_questions, might it be a decent idea to rename "Additional question from <username>" to "Optional question from <username>" in {{Rfa-question}}? Mostly just as a slight nudge to make not answering optional questions more acceptable, and/or less helpful questions to be asked less? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If you decline to answer a question in an RFA or RFB you will probably get opposes, OK maybe not in the last day or two of the seven days. I'm not sure that the number of questions is a real problem as opposed to a side effect of the small number of RFAs. If we can persuade more people to run, those who who are finding their feet at RFA and still at the stage of asking questions that aren't rooted in research on the candidate will be spread across more RFAs. It would be good if we could find ways to reduce the number of unresearched questions, but I don't see this nudge as doing that. Maybe a requirement that all questions include a diff showing the bit of the candidate's contributions that you are querying? ϢereSpielChequers 16:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The clear positive thing I can say about when we did the grouped nomination at RfA in September 2020 is that those candidates, on the whole, received fewer questions than when candidates run one at a time. So some of it does appear to be a function of community attention. I would have no objection to PR's suggested renaming. It might not immediately change any of the culture but over time, as more new editors enter the arena, it might. And I don't see it doing harm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with changing the header too. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It was proven at least ten years ago that an unhealthy number of questions are clearly inappropriate, borderline nonsense, or even trolling and the phenomenon has not relaxed. IMO a candidate has every right to ignore such questions, but the community will continue to treat RfA as some kind of bizarre playground. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

yeah. I agree with all the comments above. 1: no matter if we call it optional or additional, if somebody wants to ask a question then they will ask the Q anyhow. The question/candidate being well researched wont be affected by the heading. 2: number of questions is not an issue. Well suited/appropriate questions vs inappropriate vs trolling is the main issue. No matter what we call it, we cant stop the incoming questions. 3: currently, nobody bats an eye if the candidate ignored out of order/inappropriate cases. In most of the RfA's some other editor comments that the candidate should ignore the inappropriate questions. 4: currently, if a candidate doesnt answer an appropriate Q, then some editors go in neutral section with "waiting for candidates's response to Q #xyz" If it goes unanswered for a while, they switch to oppose. 5: I also agree with Barkeep: It might not immediately change any of the culture but over time, as more new editors enter the arena, it might. It might also reduce the opposes based on ignored valid questions, with thinking like "bleh. Its just an optional Q" But it will also affect the ability to gauge the candidate. Getting answers to appropriate questions in an RfA is absolutely necessary to gauge the candidate. I think we should keep it the way it is. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

My fear is that twenty or so of the questions in a typical RFA are little more than a distraction, my worry is that some of the participants at RFA are relying pretty much entirely on the contents of the RFA and not actually checking the candidate's contributions themselves. ϢereSpielChequers 15:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In my recent RFA, I had the experience of answering 27 questions. And it felt like a lot of commenters didn't even read the questions - I feel like I answered the same sort of questions about the NPP kerfuffle about 3 times. But when it comes down to it, I think all but the two sock questions (26 and 27), and question 20 read like soapboxing to me, especially after reading the commenter's neutral statement. RFA was an unpleasant experience for me, and if I'd known exactly what to expect beforehand, I would not have run. I'm also aware of another editor who was considering RFA and I think is extremely well qualified but was at least partially scared off by the amount of questions in my RFA. It's almost like it's a problematic situation either way - most RFA questions are useful, IMO, but the sheer volume makes it a dreadful place for many candidates. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)