User talk:silviaASH

AELECT questions

Are you sure it's necessary to ask that question to all the candidates, even ones with no experience with or interest in CfD? Open-ended questions about opinions take a lot of time for people to answer (more than it might seem on the surface), and I'm not sure I really see the connection to the candidates' qualifications for adminship. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it's not going to decide on its own whether or not I support a given candidate (I intend on reading the full discussions before making up my mind, as I've done with previous elections), but it does feel relevant to me. I like seeing administrators who are at least passingly familiar with areas of Wikipedia that they don't regularly participate in, and who are honest about where their interests lie. If the candidates have no experience with or opinion about CfD, I would rather like to hear an honest answer to that effect rather than seeing someone try to pretend they know about CfD just to appeal to me. I think it's reasonable enough.

If someone doesn't, or doesn't want to, answer the question, I have no intention of holding that against them. In the absence of any comments on it I'm generally just going to assume that it didn't interest them (or that they were busy and missed it).

If I've behaved improperly in how I went about asking my question, I apologize and will endeavor to think more carefully about my questions to AELECT candidates in the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not so much that I think it's improper, but the social pressures of requesting adminship are such that it's not really fair to expect candidates to skip the question or say "no comment"—they're almost always going to take the low-risk option of spending a while (in my experience, maybe an hour or two) putting together a well-composed response to any question they're asked. You have a right to ask them to do that if you want to (I've argued multiple times this week that monitors shouldn't strike a question, and I don't think they should strike yours either), but I think people should really consider whether the benefits outweigh the costs. See WP:RFQA. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems like this election isn't too crazy on the mass questions, but in conversations with prospective candidates, the untargeted questions have come up as a reason why people are hesitant to run. Like EW said, answering one question can be a lot of work, especially if candidates would like their nominators to double check. It's better to aim a question like that too candidates who have shown some interests in categories :). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 15:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

As someone who ran an RfA on the back of my work at CFD, I came here to say the same thing. With respect, I think this question should not have been asked. The point of EfA is to determine whether someone should be made an admin. Any question which does not speak to one's suitability for adminship is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Should you ask a question at RfA? § What makes a good question has some great advice: Questions at RfA should be relevant: they should help you or others decide whether to support or oppose a candidate. If your question doesn't address some valid concern that a candidate would not be a good admin, it is an irrelevant question. If you don't need that question answered in order to support or oppose, it's irrelevant. Questions are quite costly, in editor time (answering and then other editors reviewing the answers) they consume and in the stress they generate for candidates. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 17:25, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, all I can say to that is I asked the question in good faith because I thought it would be interesting and enlightening (at least to me) to see what each of the candidates had to say about it, and it wasn't my intention to create stress or procedural strain of any sort. I again apologize if I acted improperly. If the monitors would prefer to redact my question, or any candidates would prefer to ignore it, then that is their prerogative, and I will not hold it against anyone. I will be more considerate before asking questions in future AELECT discussions. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:35, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't doubt your good faith, and I apologize for not making that clear. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 17:39, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't speak for the candidates, obviously, but I will say that as a voter in the elections, I personally enjoy seeing these questions and their responses. I like seeing differences between the candidates manifest in interesting ways when each of them answer the same question very differently. It helps to clearly illustrate the differences in their editing philosophies when their differing opinions on the same topic are laid out. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Deadlock-screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Deadlock-screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:BluPetal

Hello, SilviaASH. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "BluPetal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)