requests For Adminship/Archive 56

Why do people find the need to oppose? It would take 76 support votes for him to hit 80%, making it near impossible for him to make it. Yet I'm quite sure someone else will oppose him before it's closed. It can do nothing but stress the user requesting adminship. Ral315 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's always been my assumption that those people are just being dicks. Although in that particular instance I do not have an enormous deal of sympathy -- that wasn't just a misguided new user. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe a number of users are not really thinking about it as "piling on" but instead as voting. I didn't really think about the 80% thing when I first partcipated, all I thought about was what vote was most appropriate based on the data available. Not enough users read this talk page to know how others might see them on this issue. Just my 2 cents. Peace, Kukini 00:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah there was a 20th, and now the page has been taken off the main RfA page (but not by a b'crat). It just jumps out at me that after an RfA is obviously doomed, it's mean to oppose more. There's no point. But that's just me. --W.marsh 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That's part of the reason I've done a few moral supports (though not to that RfA, which didn't deserve one). People keep piling on against new contributors, and I feel that even a fairly new contributor, if decent, should get about a 50-50 Support-Oppose ratio. Oh well. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 13 May 2006 @ 01:15 UTC
We had a very interesting exchange about this here not too long ago, where we discussed that, in the spirit of WP:DICK, WP:BITE and WP:SENSE, we should refrain from adding oppose votes to RfAs that are already clearly doomed. It's the topic "Moral Support", now at the top of this page. Redux 03:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what has been said: I assume that people are just voting, not actually trying to be a dick. I'd say the vast majority of people who are voting oppose (if not all of them) are just voting, not actively trying to be dicks. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not; I wouldn't expect that people would that mean-spirited, but we should somehow make people aware that an excessive number of opposes can be rude. Not a rule, but a guideline of some sort. Or something. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Saturday, 13 May 2006 @ 21:01 UTC

Certainly one might argue that it is in a sense more honest, if one truly feels that a particular candidate should not become an admin, to go right ahead and say so rather than, say, watchlisting the nomination page with the intent to vote oppose if it should look like the nomination might pass after all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There are talk pages. Go to the user's talk page and suggest him there to end his own nomination. As Redux said, there was a long discussion about how good or bad the moral support votes were. With people understanding the spirit of WP:SENSE, the moral support would just disappear as people would stop voting after a 0-7. People should learn that, if the candidate has no chance, he should go to the user's talk page to try to convince him to step down. Or, at least, vote neutral and turn into oppose if the candidate decides to go ahead anyways. -- ReyBrujo 23:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't really stop other people from piling on. Mob behavior is human nature... The only solutions I see to this problem is persuading the candidate to withdraw, or having an admin or bureaucrat removing ridiculous RfA... like those with 0-10. Olorin28 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Some people add good-faith "oppose" votes to failing nominations because they are concerned that the nomination may turn around and they don't want to have to monitor the nom to see whether or not enough "support" voters show up for them to actually have to weigh in with an "oppose." Some people also wish to make their opposition clear for reasons unrelated to the vote itself. For example, they may be concerned that an archived RFA might, when looked at some months later, appear to show a closer vote than was actually the case had everyone with an opinion voted. Or, they may be concerned about a perception by others that they vote "support" too often. AGF. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No one, I think, is assuming ill faith. However, I think this discussion pertains more to RfAs that are clearly not going to succeed - those with a 1-7 tally, for example. Very close RfAs such as Amgine's I would not consider "pile-ons". —Cuiviénen^T|C, Sunday, 14 May 2006 @ 03:06 UTC
Absolutely. If a RfA's tally shows a concensus of, for instance, 97% against the candidate, then it's already rather clear how the community feels about that candidate, and there's no need to pile on oppositon. Redux 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put a little ditty together that I hope RfA regulars will enjoy: The RfA Candidate's Song. --Bucketsofg✐ 03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That is brilliant, even better than the other version of that song over on Meta! --maru (talk) contribs 03:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I would have to oppose that candidate for singing off-pitch. :-) Seriously, though, witty song! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Impressive, but are you performing at Wikimania? I'd pay admission for that. :) I was just wondering the other day if we had some wikipedian songs, and of course, we have several. - Taxman ^Talk 03:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You think we can get Jimbo to sing along too? Maybe the Board of Trustees and the members of the ArbCom as well! And in the background, the Bureaucrats!! Redux 05:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? A Bureaucrats quartet! --maru (talk) contribs 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! bd2412 T 03:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Some wierdos (you know who you are ;-) ) put a wikisong in my namespace too: User:Kim_Bruning/Lion. Kim Bruning 11:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

;-)  ! Bucketsofg✐ 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Now you can hear it, too. I've added a sound file of um, me, singing it at The RfA Candidate's Song. (Be merciful, it's a tough song to sing.) Bucketsofg✐ 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

*violent standing ovations* But I somewhat miss the chorus ;-) --Stephan Schulz 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You all get to do the chorus when I finally come up for my RfA.  ;-) Bucketsofg✐ 14:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... [ponders and then holds up sign reading '9.5'] :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[frowns at Flcelloguy & holds up a sign reading "10"] ;-) --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[looks at Srikeit, scratches his head, and then flips the '9' part of the sign to make it a '6'. Looks at the '6.5', frowns again, and changes it back to '9.5'. Sits down, and realizes that this comment is going nowhere... holds up a '10.1' :-)] Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[Holds up a sign reading '3'] ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of these jokes would look better without the smiley at the end. Tintin (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. (Sometimes they're necessary to indicate that the comment should be taken in humour; comments can easily be misinterpreted.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we can put the whole discussion between html code: <;> . ;0 Bucketsofg✐ 16:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to announce here (or where if not here) invited votes on a RfA? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If it concerns a specific RfA, it may be best placed in its talk page. If it's just a note about a specific vote, it can be placed right under it, again, in the specific RfA. If it's a general discussion about inviting people to vote on RfAs (or if it would interest the RfA forum generally, even if the event is unfolding in a particular RfA), then post it here. Redux 23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that votes after the deadline are still valid expressions of community sentiment up to the point a bcrat closes the nomination. To me at least, it's also fine to comment and point them out (though I don't see a big neeed for it) as long as you add a # before the comment so it doesn't mess up the numbering. So if you see any comments to this effect, just make sure to add the #. We could also decide as a community whether we want to avoid these types of comments too. Thanks all. - Taxman ^Talk 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the comments to be inserted, since there've been at least 1 (failed) RfA where post-deadline votes tipped the balance somewhat. (Peeks into WP:RFAF). Kimchi.sg 16:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)