Wikipedia talk:RfA cheatsheet

I think this page is a horrible idea. Was there some discussion about creating it, or did you just decide to be bold? -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a bold decision, as a reaction to the insipid optional questions that kept creeping up at RfA.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 06:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you explain how it is horrible? It's designed to put a stop to pointless "optional" questions, and that can only be a good thing. Additionally, I don't need permission to create it.  Majorly  (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, in my opinion, it's little different than admin coaching. That said, more blue links for reference would be nice : ) - jc37 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. While I don't like the idea of answers being fed to candidates through coaching in some instances or through this essay, I think as long as coaching exists in this form then I think this essay also has a right to be here. But I also think that this could do some good in stopping some unnecessary questions that have been popping up lately as long as it is made known.  Orfen   T • C 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cooldown blocks
The statement about the cool-down block question is slightly erroneous. Actually, the purpose of the question is to give Kurt a reason to oppose when it isn't a self-nomination. Users should still say "no", though. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Returning productively under another account" after an indefinite block??
Regarding a block, the page currently says: It normally does not last long, and an indef-blocked user can return productively under another account if they choose.  I must be misunderstanding something here, because that sounds like sockpuppetry. What am I missing? Richwales (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This question has long since passed, but in case someone else comes here with the same question, the relevant policy is WP:NEWSTART. Mkdw talk 17:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)