Here we have a user who opposed the candidate based on AfD stats, and later adds a question that has nothing to do with AfD. What the hell is the purpose of this sort of thing? Hopefully the candidate will simply ignore it, but the question itself, absent some kind of indication that the user is reconsidering his vote, is yet another example of RfA becoming a childrens' playground. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In theory, I can see a point. Even if you have decided to oppose and nothing will change your point of view, or conversely to support no matter what the answer is, you may still identify a relevant question in the context of the discussion that others have not asked and decide it is worth asking it.

In practice, Q12 does not strike me as particularly insightful or useful. I doubt the candidate will need to read this post to know that something along the lines of "AGF applies to all but it is not a suicide pact" is the correct way to answer it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have a user who opposed the candidate based on AfD stats, and later adds a question that has nothing to do with AfD. What the hell is the purpose of this sort of thing?Joefromrandb should be careful about getting blocked indefinitely after multiple blocks and the question was not asked to Tigraan, neither did the candidate ask Tigraan for help.the user is reconsidering his vote So what?, is yet another example of RfA becoming a childrens' playground. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD stats essentially asks the question "to what extent does this admin candidate agree with the mainstream in their opinion on our inclusion criteria". This is a piece of useful information but I find it rather faithless to use such a criterion to judge a candidate, because it implies an editor with an unconventional personal opinion will be biased when they move to serve as a neutral judge in another capacity. Deryck C. 13:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]