Oddly, the stats box on the main RfA page and here are both showing three opposes- and one neutral; there isn't (and doesn't seem to have been) a 'neutral' !vote so far... any ideas why this would be? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally this was the case about 20' before R333 !voted 'neutral'... :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember this happening at my RfA. It appears the bot-automated numbering is confusing comments in the "general comments" section as one neutral !vote when there haven't been any neutral !votes. This appeared to fix the issue. Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent- thanks very much Mz7- more arcanery to remember then! Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, that is pretty much what was happening. The bot counts #s with text in front of it, if I recall correctly, so a blank # in the Neutral section followed by general comments will count as one neutral. Not that it truly matters. Comment out the # to fix things. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are single questions in this RFA that, between the two of them, ask the candidate to review 22 possible username violations. Is this permitted by the 2 questions rule or is it gaming the rule to turn one question into 9 or 10 questions? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree - the username questions that have appeared recently seem to violate the spirit of the rule, and are at best, just busywork. My advice is to treat them as the optional questions that they are. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joshualouie711 and Bigpoliticsfan: How about paring your lists down to some reasonable number? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies; I was not aware of Bigpoliticsfan's similar question when I was posting mine--my mistake. I'll strike my list. --Joshualouie711^talk 20:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) These kinds of username questions were briefly discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 245#Mostly general question about the 2-question limit back in December. My impression is that most agreed with BU Rob13 when he wrote, Yeah, common sense works well enough. If it's all related, it's one question. If it's disparate things just mashed together to get around the limit, it's not. I think the concern there was less about the number of questions, but the relevance of the question (i.e. is it appropriate to ask candidates questions about administrative areas which they have indicated no intention of working in?). Here, GoldenRing indicated a desire to work at UAA in Q1; on the other hand, the questions' lengths may fall under the kind of unnecessary busywork that the question limit was intended to reduce. I agree that they could be shortened a bit. Mz7 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mz7: Applying my "common sense" test, I would say more than 10 usernames asked by a single editor as "one question" is actually two questions, purely based on the length of time that takes to answer. Here, Bigpoliticsfan has used their two questions in my book. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beeblebrox: @DoRD: and others - didn't spot this until it was long past, but I'm content to answer questions as they come (even the arithmetic questions from the IP, if someone else hadn't got there first - while the IP was probably not trying to be helpful, if it was someone else on the block then I'd probably want to see how the candidate handled it). My view is that I nominated myself for RfA and I should be prepared to put the time in to answer the questions the community wants answered. Other candidates might take a different view but that's how I see it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, but the arithmetic anon has been disrupting RfA and other venues for some time now, so that's why I reverted them on sight. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, and I'm not complaining. GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)rReply[reply]

No offense, but the appropriate response is to revert on sight, and actually, while I appreciate the gesture of AGF, if a candidate took the time to respond it would likely make me question their anti-vandalism experience. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, but there aren't really any dumb questions. Also, I would particularly enjoy (even though the candidate in question almost certainly does) if all candidates knew arithmetic. Anyways, I think that this example is really up to the candidates discretion—it is their RfA, of course. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 11:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]