Wikipedia talk:Should you ask a question at RfA?

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

What makes a good question/bad question

I think these two questions are just opposite sides of the same coin, and the two sections both describe a good question, just using slightly different wording. I suggest combining the two sections. isaacl (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a soapbox

I disagree that a good reason for asking a question is to give the candidate a forum to respond to others. We need to make the RfA environment one where candidates feel comfortable in responding, be it directly to a commenter or in the general comments section, without having to rely on whether or not someone poses a question where they can piggy-back a response. Personally I don't think this type of open-ended question should be encouraged. A targeted question related to specific area, as has been described in the rest of the essay, can of course meet the general criteria of a relevant question. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacl, when candidates respond to opposers they often cause more opposes. —valereee (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem for the candidate to handle: they need to make their own opportunity and frame their responses appropriately. Regardless of where their response is made, appearing defensive and argumentative can be an issue. isaacl (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Opposes can make or break an RFA. It needs to be a good response, the bar is high. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on expected responses

Although it's good advice to avoid expecting exact responses, it falls a bit outside the scope of whether or not you should ask a question of a candidate. One example isn't a big deal but I don't think it is a good idea to broaden the scope to "what makes a good rationale for supporting or opposing a candidate?" isaacl (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacl, I'm sorry, I'm not following? —valereee (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea for this essay to include the advice to avoid expecting exact responses. I think it should keep its focus on whether or not you should ask a question of a candidate. isaacl (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

I see that the "!vote" term has been re-introduced. I had originally removed it as per my reasoning at User:Isaacl/Community § Comments on "!vote" as unnecessary jargon: I don't feel it adds any additional expressiveness, and non-programmers are likely to infer the exact opposite meaning. I appreciate that some think specialized argot is part of what forms a community. If this page is targeted at newcomers, though, I suggest avoiding jargon that is unintuitive for non-programmers and doesn't provide any greater concision. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took it back out, I think you're correct —valereee (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: have you changed your mind? I still suggest avoiding that particular jargon here. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol...what's probably happening is that I reread after some period, think, "well, that's weird...it's not a vote" and add the ! without remembering this has been discussed. :D If you see it creep back in at some point, feel free to just revert. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. (Your change was more than adding a !, so perhaps it was just a reflexive reaction to use the jargon.) isaacl (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The silly questions

Valereee, I've added a link as a 'see also' to the essay The questions they ask at RfA which I have recently extracted from another work and made into a stand-alone essay. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you see a user trying to be clever, don't hesitate to paste a link to your essay on their talk page - unless of course it's an admin or an established user who really should know better. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When it's someone who ought to know better, I just roll my eyes and move on. I usually point someone here because they're very new or they're looking to me like maybe they're hoping to be discovered. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]