Wikipedia talk:Advice for RfA candidates/Archive 1

Archive 1

High user edits

Having high user talk page edits might be a product of warning vandals. --Σ _☭^★ 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Having high user talk edits can be due to a large number of reasons:

• Answering requests for help originally posted on help desks or noticeboards
• All kinds of user warnings - not just vandalism
• Talkback templates
• Ambassador program mentoring
• Admin coaching

- to name but a few. Serious !voters at RfA will check these out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Sven Manguard

I am humbled that you linked to User:Sven Manguard/Failed RfA Advice. I know I mentioned it in my page, but if there is one thing I'd like to see you include in your guide, it's that candidates really should read as much of Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list as possible before they run.

The ideal candidate is someone who you'd expect to be current on policy, irregardless of that they are currently running, but having the refresher course preempts future problems. Admins that get promoted on the strength of their article writing and anti-vandalism work might run into trouble if situation forces forces them to act quickly over an issue in a less traveled area. It does happen. I also think, although this might not be a good thing to advertise, that reading up on all of that right before running improves the quality of the answers RfA candidates give to questions, reducing the risk that a good candidate will tank because they answered a question poorly.

That's really all I've got at the moment. I'd have worded a few things differently had I been writing this, but it's mostly minor stuff.

I hope this catches on and I hope this leads to a bit more quality and a lot less heartbreak. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hey Kudpung. First thoughts, a very good page, lots of accurate information there, which would be useful to a prospective candidate (I think it would be even more useful in Wikipedia space, but I'm sure that can happen in time). I do have a couple of thoughts though.

• Overall - the page is quite a wall of text and may well be subject to TLDR. The bullet's help, but it could do with more of a break up.
• I'd suggest splitting the differences between a user nomination and a self-nom out to a seperate section, with a bit more explaination about how you go about getting yourself nominated (ie, keep going until someone thinks you're ready)... At the moment the page implies (to me) that you might as well self nom.
• In the diversity section, you may want to mention that candidates who don't have a history in WP space often have difficulties...
• The maturity section doesn't (unfortunately) reflect popular opinion. I absolutely agree with what you are saying, but in general, it appears that concerns with age are significant.
• Mentioning that signatures be usable, and should clearly link through to a talk page might be a good idea.
• The Barnstars issue is a new one on me. I've not seen it at any RfA but yours and I think Townlake was actually focussing on your tone and reply rather than where your barnstars were situated. I'd drop it all together, or perhaps rephrase to point out that you shouldn't try to edit history, deleting/archiving bad comments and leaving good ones, which I think is a more general issue.

That's all I have for now, though I wonder if you want Porchcrop's essay on there before he's finished it (he's still fiddling with it AFAIK). Worm^TT · (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven, Worm, thanks enormously for your feedback. I've taken the various points on board and will be addressing then over the next day or two. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of TLDR, if a candidate isn't willing to read through a large quantity of text, especially when it is relivant to a matter they are involved in, perhaps they are not such a good candiate for the mop. I placed my nutshell template on my essay with just that in mind. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven, I absolutely agree with you. BUT that doesn't help weed out the bad candidates now does it ;) I like your nutshell though, I'd suggest something similar, being quite upfront. "If you can't be bothered to read this, you shouldn't be an admin. No nutshell allowed". Worm^TT · (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

(Copied over)

It looks good. ceranthor 18:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dropping by to say the same. Fantastic, comprehensive guide for anyone considering an RfA. I'll leave some actually-constructive feedback on the talk page a bit later, but just wanted to say excellent job overall. Swarm ^X 01:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

General comments, plus a related suggestion

First, it is an excellent start. I see a lot of good advice int he essay - if I have a number of comments, it's because I see a lot of value in adding to my list of recommendations, but there are a few area of possible improvement.

Your sentence:

If you are thinking of wanting to be an admin someday, you will need to prepare yourself well and begin thinking about it at least six months before making your application.

starts out awkwardly. I don't have the ideal improvement, but consider something like:

If you would like to be an admin someday, you should begin preparations at least six months before making your application.

Next sentence:

You should review as many old successful and unsuccessful RfAs as possible.

Being a little too anal, and a little too literal at times, but no apologies because that applies to many Wikipedians, it is possible to read every RfA. That isn't really good advice. however, I'm excited about this, as I see a potentially valuable side project. Short term, consider revising the language to point out that reading old RfAs is extremely valuable, and any candidate will find it worthwhile to read a dozen or so of each type.

The potential side project: I think it would be extremely useful for us(either us, the community, or us, you and I) to identify a canon. Pick out 20-30 RfAs to illustrate key points.

• One or two candidates with several thousand edits, but who failed convincingly because of too little experience.
• A candidate did generally good work, but fell down in one area.
• a candidate who failed once, but clearly addressed the issues and passed easily a second time.

The selected list would have a few extremes, one or two to illustrate SNOW, and NOTNOW, plus one or two passing easily, but most would be at the margin, and would serve to illustrate the approximate location of the hurdle. We should be cautious about using examples of candidates who have not yet passed, and are still active, but there are plenty to choose from.

OK, back to the essay.

While some candidates whose first RfA failed, they will often pass a second run with flying colours ...

Awkward wording, sorry no suggestion immediately forthcoming.

If after reading this you feel you are not yet ready to be an admin, you may wish to consider joining the Admin coaching scheme - do bear in mind however, that it will still not be a shortcut to adminship.

I understand your point, but literally stated, why would anyone try this if it didn't help? I know your point is that this isn't a magic bullet, but there must be a better way to express it. Leaning ont he path metaphor, I'm thinking something along the line of, there's no shortcut, but an admin coach can at least keep you on the path.

Length of membership: Simply being a Wikipedian for a long time does not count for much. The criteria are based on what the candidate has actually done in that time.[1]

I agree. It is tempting to want to add something like "In contrast, being a Wikipedian for too short a time is usually an issue. It is extremely rare to become an Admin with less than n months of experience. Individuals who might have the right temperament from day one still have to demonstrate a knowledge of a fairly extensive list of policies and norms." (needs wordsmithing, even if you like it)

Content: Edits to article space that are mainly minor additions or clean ups will generally be discounted

Here's a case where something is literally correct, but could be misinterpreted. "Discounted" literally means that the value of this type of edit will be viewed as less than others, but sometimes the term "discounted" is used to imply no value whatsoever. It would be nice to find a way to say that any edit, even minor copy edits, are valuable, but reviewers will want to see that you have added substantive content in a number of cases. It is possible to become an admin with only minor edits, but it is much, much harder.

3. Most RfA are not a fair process.

I think this is a little too strong. What about something like "The community is working to make the process as fair as possible, but there are no guarantees. Some candidates with tens of thousands of edits fail as a result of concern about a very small handful.

Rebuttals are dangerous (1).

Rebuttals are dangerous:

I assume you want to bold the first, and change the second to Rebuttals are dangerous (2):--SPhilbrickT 14:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable input Sphil. I have addressed the rebuttals typo you pointed out, and all but one of the points you made: I have indeed considered making a list of recommended examples RfA to review, but I feel this is largely unnecessary for three reasons: 1. It would add even more to this advice page. 2. I feel it is didactically more useful for candidates to review enough of both kinds of RfA and draw their own conclusions - if they are unable to extrapolate what's right and what's wrong with some RfAs, then they will not be ready for the bit. 3. If they follow the links in the footnotes they will in fact be sent to a representative selection of examples. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On Canvassing

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi 2 might be something to link to. Just a thought. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Effect?

This page has been viewed 281 times since it was moved to project space in August. The tool does not count pre-move hits. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comparible to (but higher than) WP:REQUESTNOM, which has meant I've received half a dozen request to nominate. Since I'm only one of a list, I'd be daring and triple that (I am top of the list, and therefore most likely to get the nom request)... which is 18 requests. If they were all good, we'd have 18 new admins - which would be a massive increase. As it happens - I'm not sure there has been a nomination due to REQUESTNOM yet... but that's off topic. I think that is a good level of interest for both these essays in the current climate. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice for RfA candidates

As of 03 August 2012, the page has been viewed 2,457 times since it was moved to WP space on 12 August 2011. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

In general, I agree with most of the information in the essay, with the caveat that the essay is mostly opinion. There are a couple of points that I don't agree with.

From "Are you ready?", "Timing": "Choose a 7-day period that is not interrupted by public holidays in most countries, and perhaps avoid busy exam periods when many college students and professors may not have time to be online much." Why should the candidate do this? No matter what time period is chosen, there will always be some editors who are unable to comment. As long as the candidate himself has the time available, the time doesn't really matter. Ironically, public holidays may make it easier for some candidates and editors to comment.

From "During your RFA", point 1: "The more experienced participants will often hold off their comments until later in the process." Is this really true? What evidence is this based on? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You can find out by either reviewing the past 200 or so failed and successful RfAs, or checking the voter stats in the tables at WP:RFA2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence to support the statements in the essay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the point is that you are trying to make. If you have read the essay because you are considering running for adminship, don't hesitate to ask me or anyone listed at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination to review your work - if you wish, I may even nominate you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with Axl here on timing. The candidate should consider how their timing may be perceived (and has brought people down in the past when their timing seemed ((or was presented as)) self-serving) but ultimately the main advice should be for the candidate to stand when they have the time to "defend their thesis". That was my thought whenever I read this essay first too, and for a long time here: run when you have time. Nothing is so lame as an RFA candidate saying "I have a life y'know" in the midst of the only wiki-process they can actually control the timing of. :) Franamax (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My "point" is that I disagree with both of those statements in the essay. (I am not intending to run for adminship.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - including essays in Wikipedia space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I could just change the text myself. However given that this is an opinion piece, it is just a conflict of my opinion against that of the original author. Perhaps the author has some other evidence that I haven't seen? Hopefully the author will notice my comment here on the talk page, and all participants could reach a consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The author bases his opinions on the vast amount of research and statistics, and their extrapolations, published in the various pages of this project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's just vague hand-waving. You make no attempt to address my very specific points. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No it's not - I was largely responsible for getting those stats taken from the database. If you're really interested you'll go there and examine the stats for yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Which statictics show that a candidate should "choose a 7-day period that is not interrupted by public holidays in most countries"? Which statictics show that "the more experienced participants will often hold off their comments until later in the process"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm disengaging here because I now fail to see the point of the discussion. Please either do your own research, or use the links provided, or AGF on the essay. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you run your RFA over Christmas then sadly you will get opposes for that, the essay is right to warn people of this (I don't dispute that such opposes are unhelpful to the RFA process - but advice should warn people of such foibles) ϢereSpielChequers 17:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice regarding thanking participants

After my RfA I was considering thanking those who participated directly, though I considered that this might be potentially off-putting in multiple ways, both to those thanked and to those (not necessarily intentionally) not thanked. I asked for advice on this after reading this essay and not seeing anything on the subject, and was advised that it was probably best not to go out of my way to thank anyone directly. Fair enough. They also referred me back to this essay though, which to my mind begs the question of whether it should tackle the matter directly.

So the question I'd like to raise is whether there's any sort of consensus on whether thanking participants post-RfA is at all to be encouraged, and whether this essay should tackle this issue. While it's obvious to me why thanking participants before an RfA has closed would be highly inadvisable, it may be worth adding a blurb about that as well (though I would understand if the feeling was that that should be so obvious as to be unnecessary).

TL;DR:

1. Should the essay explicitly advise against thanking participants in an RfA while it's in progress?
2. Should the essay include advice regarding thanking participants after an RfA has closed?
3. If the essay should include advice about thanking participants, what should the advice be?

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this. DonIago (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• During my RfA in February 2013, I got raked over the coals for thanking support voters during the RfA, with several oppose voters suggesting that it was a form of canvassing. After the RfA, I raised the question whether such advice should be clarified here or elsewhere, and there was no consensus to do so. In fact, several discussion participants strongly resisted the idea, stating that it was unnecessary. If there is a new consensus to add such advice regarding thank-yous while the RfA is still open, I would support that.

As for thanking RFA discussion participants after the TfA has closed, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact, I think it's a matter of common courtesy and good manners. I would strongly oppose any new advice that counsels against thanking participants after the close. Showing gratitude is a good thing, and interacting with participants after the close -- many of whom the candidate may not have known prior to the RfA -- can and should be seen as a positive for everyone. Let's not make the RfA environment any more artificial and isolated from normal human interaction than it already is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Contacting users during an RfA coiuold be regarded as poor form. What successful (or unsuccessful) candidates do after their RfA is a matter for their own judgement. It not something that is appropriate for this RfA advice page, which although I wrote it, is already long enough.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above and see no point in cluttering the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the subject, but the idea that it is possible to 'clutter' a 3600-word essay that includes advice about where in your userspace to store your barnstars is a bit of a stretch. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia, keeping barnstars in the wrong place nearly tanked one user's RfA! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ha, well, if that's the standard, there's a whole lot of, erm, idiosyncratic oppose rationales due to be added here... :) To be honest, I think a lot of this page perpetuates Dirtlawyer's observation - RfA norms are arbitrary and "isolated from normal human interaction" - but I suppose many members of the target audience are those whose normal methods of human interaction are exactly the problem.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure having a section about post-RFA actions would be relevant at WP:RFAADVICE. The essay was designed to advise potential candidates on things to better position them for a successful RFA. Once it's over, unless thanking people would be grounds to desysop them, then I think at that point it's a personal choice and beyond the scope of RFAADVICE. I don't see a problem about having a part that talks about how thanking during an RFA might be construed by some members of the community. I do worry though that sometimes putting things like this in prominent essays only reinforces and legitimizes the practice of shaming people for doing it. Sometimes the initial intention is simply only to be advise a candidate but it becomes something cited by participants who say, "it's here in the essay so you shouldn't do it". Mkdw^talk 16:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason why thanking people, after the RFA was complete should cause any problem, I have seen it done many times. I also agree that it isn't really a relevant subject for this page. Thanking participants during an RfA might be more of an issue. If a candidate does do it, I would think that all participants, support, oppose, or neutral, should be addressed. But it is probably better to wait until the discussion has closed. Then it can't be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome. Thant might be mentioned here, I suppose. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• What Kudpung said. Like Wehwalt, I see no need to clutter the page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• I don't believe this page should cover this topic, as it is a personal decision that different people may approach and interpret differently. There is no need for every potential action to be covered by a guideline; editors are free to exercise their own discretion in most matters. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• No need to document this sort of thing. WP:BURO Leaky Caldron 17:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• No objection to something along the lines of "thanking voters is optional, but if you do it don't start until after the RFA finishes" ϢereSpielChequers 17:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Perfect: concise and to the point in 15 words. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I like WSC's approach: tell the candidates where the landmines are buried (don't start until afterwards) and tell everyone else that it's strictly optional. I would expand it slightly: "thanking some or all voters is optional". Candidates should be free to choose whom they express gratitude towards. A candidate could reasonably choose to thank old friends, supporters, or people with particularly insightful comments, and should never feel compelled either to publicly thank people whose comments were hurtful, baseless, or trollish or to forego thanking some people because they didn't want to thank everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion is now in two places. I'd suggest moving it to a single venue. Samsara 21:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Optional RfA candidate poll

I'd like to link to the optional opinion poll somewhere in the text. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have no objection in principle but if it does go up, it needs to be clear that this is a new, de facto experimental thing as of October 2015. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maturity/Age bullet point needs updating

I added and reverted a mention of a recent RFA that failed and which had many "age is the only stated reason" opposes.

While its not clear that this editor would have been promoted if he had been 18 or if his age had been unknown at the time, it is quite clear that a significant number of editors consider either being that age or being "not a legal adult" enough to summarily oppose and that this will likely make the difference in a very close RFA.

I think at bullet-point needs updating to reflect this. What say you? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Caveat & time to read the essay

Hi Pedro. I don't agree with your and David's changes, but as I'm outnumbered, and because this is Wikipedia, I'll put up and shut up. You're probably right though, perhaps I shouldn't have written the page in the first place and we should delete the whole thing. As the creator, I actually don't mind putting it up at MfD myself. You kinda got me wishing I'd never moved it to WP space. If it was still my user draft I could have deleted it myself under U1. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change

I propose changing the line "Successful candidates will almost always have edited Wikipedia for at least several months" to "Successful candidates will almost always have edited Wikipedia for at least several years" as this seems to be nearer the norm - any thoughts? -- samtar ^whisper 08:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. A perceived 'norm' is not the criterion. Contrary to what the community believes, those of us who are concerned with RfA matters feel the criteria are about right without giving WP:BEANS to the voters by setting them any higher. We have plenty of successful candidates who had only been around fr a year or so, It's more important to know what they did in that time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, okay Kudpung - more than happy to concede this, seeing as you are the go-to guy around here.  :) -- samtar ^whisper 11:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wrote the essay, but I don't own it. I'm always open to suggestions but its been stable now for a very long time and become one of the most visited advice pages on Wikipedia. I don't really see how it can be perfected much more. I look at this way: it's the kind of advice I would have liked to be able to read when it was suggested to me that I should run for adminship. Of course, it's also subtley designed to put off those who have nothing but becoming an admin in their heads! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No no, I agree - no point needlessly 'rocking the boat' for a change which doesn't really improve or decrement the overall essay (which is a fine one at that may I add!) -- samtar ^whisper 11:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also think this is unnecessary. I passed RfA very recently (and surprisingly in the uncontroversial range) with only 1.25 years of experience and between 8,000–9,000 edits. Not sure what made me so exceptional, but the point is that it's still possible to pass without years and years of experience. Biblioworm 18:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My best guess (I am doing this from memory, which is hazy) is that you met most editors' "bare minimum criteria" to show that you have overall good judgment and specific good judgement in enough "admin areas" that people aren't concerned about your inexperience, AND - and this is important - and you haven't done anything (or haven't done enough) to tick people off (yet).

I don't remember if this applied to your RfA or not, but there seems to be an unwritten rule-of-thumb that editors who want to be admins someday should generally avoid making edits that are remotely controversial especially in controversial topics, except 1) they need to make enough edits in controversial topics that people don't think they are deliberately avoiding those areas and 2) when challenged, they demonstrate that they are here to participate in a community project, not to "get their own way" on the issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Link to "Really simple guide"?

Please see this discussion about how to use the new "Really simple guide" page. There are already three boxes and another bold warning at the top of "Advice for RfA candidates". Would readers prefer to: leave the page alone; add another box linking to "Really simple guide"; or substitute such a box for some of the existing material?: Noyster (talk), 09:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hat collecting

I've recently noticed an uptick in editors taking advantage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. I think this is great but it has also brought a new dynamic. Some of them have clearly not read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Others have but are clearly not ready for RFA. Instead they're using ORCP as a first touch point toward their long term goal of becoming an admin. I wonder if it's worth mentioning in RFAADVICE that expressing an interest at the front end of your editing career, or prematurely applying to ORCP when you're clearly not ready for RFA can be viewed negatively as hat collecting? I recognize a lot can happen between their first ORCP and the time they apply, but it seems to me that it'd be worthwhile advice to the few who do read RFAADVICE that OCRP eagerness is sometimes a bad thing when done too early. I'm also hoping that it might discourage some of these premature ORCP filing. I don't think it'll have a tremendous impact but even the reduction of a few and the ability for reviewers to point out it shows up at RFAADVICE might be educational. Mkdw^talk 23:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, if editors aren't reading the instructions under "Potential candidates" on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll, or the first three paragraphs of the page, then I don't think adding some information regarding the poll on this page is going to have any effect. I don't see much utility in trying to lay out every single way someone can appear to be overly-focused on obtaining administrative privileges; there are just too many different possibilities. As editors progress in their experiences in the community, they should learn to develop sufficient self-awareness regarding the impression they are making. On a side note, although there may be an uptick in candidate polls compared with last month, it's still a decline from June. However I wouldn't read a lot into it; there are bound to be peaks and valleys. isaacl (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My apoint above was that while a good portion do not read RFAADVICE, some are and having something in there about hat collecting in general would be worthwhile. Side note, I'm not talking about a monthly increase but rather in the scope of OCRP's relatively short history. Mkdw^talk 18:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The hat collecting essay is linked to a couple of times; I'm not optimistic that adding a sentence or two will make any difference, but sure, please feel free to propose some prose. OK, to me a broadening of scope doesn't correspond to an uptick, which implies a numerical increase. In any case, though, editors have long used the poll to solicit reviews. isaacl (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

!voters means something?

Hi, I removed the first instance of !voters I saw in the essay, but then I search the page for all the instances of !voters and I saw that there were 14 others. Is this some kind of mark that means something about the word "voters", or is it just an error? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC) P.S. I am going to remove all the !voters. If I did this in error, please revert it, I won't mind.

@Icebob99: I won't revert you (another editor may though) - in this context, !voters is a throw back to Wikipedia:Not a vote. The exclamation mark is commonly used as a negator, so !vote means not vote -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thanks for the clarification. I'm still pretty new, so that's a good thing to know. Icebob99 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think the use of programming jargon is overly precious. It's an in-joke to those in the know, but confusing to those who aren't. I think it would be better to just use terms like comment, commenter, and so forth. (I know, the real connotation is "this isn't supposed to be a vote, but nudge nudge, many people will treat it as one", but I just don't think it's worth it to keep this specialized argot.) isaacl (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. If an editor sees something they don't understand they need to LURK MOAR. I find it the height of arrogance for new users, most of whom are not here, to expect a voice in the community. Essays and guidelines should be somewhat parochial as they speak for the community and the term !vote has special nuance here. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with expecting editors to spend some time learning the ropes. However the "!vote" terminology is particularly opaque: only programmers understand the negation terminology; most other people will think of it in the exact opposite manner as an intensifier, as per the usual meaning of an exclamation point. It's hardly ever linked in RfA discussions, so there's no indication that it means anything other than vote, particularly since most people use it to mean "I'm paying lip service to the idea that this is not a vote, but everyone knows the number of people supporting a given position is counted at the end", so the sentence still makes semantic sense when it is replaced with "vote". Furthermore, using it doesn't help facilitate discussion. It's not significantly shorter than saying "my opinion" or "comment" when used in the literal sense of a not-vote. If used in the wink-wink sense, it can generally be dispensed with. There's enough discussion generated by the actual issues; a meta-discussion on the contradictions of English Wikipedia's consensus-forming process isn't required. isaacl (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely that we should remove/fix this jargon. A lot would be improved around here in terms of new editor retention if we stopped requiring editors understand every detail of our guidelines and policies before they're allowed to 'have a voice in the community'. This example is particularly unnecessary. Sam Walton (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of what's been said here, but for the sake of completeness, how do we feel about "!vote" or "!vote"? Samsara 23:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Taking this article as an example: every use of "!vote/voter" is using it to mean participation in a request of administrative privileges. No additional expressiveness is being gained by calling this "!vote" instead of "participate/participant". isaacl (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This thread is a challenge, because Chris' post made my eyes roll so hard I think I saw my own brain, but the idea that this particular bit of jargon makes any appreciable difference in editor retention is vanishing unlikely. (The best place to start the dejargonizing campaign is probably AfD.) Luckily, nobody really reads this page anyway (I'm picking on my own article there; this essay has about the same readership as the deeply obscure Gemmata obscuriglobus) and even if they did, they're basically getting one guy's opinions from four years ago. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opinionated on any potential effect on editor retention; my views on neologisms is based on general principles for stronger writing. I appreciate that people will do whatever they wish, and so inevitably jargon will continue to be used in discussions. However within guidance pages themselves, if a particular term isn't helping to convey relevant information more concisely, then not using a gratuitously-invented term reduces the cognitive demand on the reader. isaacl (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that this particular piece of jargon on this page was going to have any affect on editor retention; Chris' statement was very general and I found it to be entirely the wrong way to deal with new users or users who don't understand something. Sam Walton (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Just realised this has erupted into a debate, and whilst I couldn't really care less either way, an expression about molehills and mountains comes to mind.. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a writing style issue. Although they all can seem trivial, it's not unusual for such things to be discussed in a project aiming to communicate information clearly and concisely. isaacl (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What I meant above is that this is a low-traffic essay describing one person's opinion based primarily on four-year-old information. Optimizing the writing specifically to be accessible to newer editors seems like a low-yield investment, though a link does no harm. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia mainspace articles and meta pages have even less in common than apples and oranges. With its 4,981 hits for fewer than 450 RfA have taken place in the last four years this essay gets an overwhelmingly representative number of views from its highly targeted and very niche back-office readers among Wikipedia's adminship curious.

For an article on a bacteria there are hundreds of thousands of biologists out there, while The comparison with the mainspace article Gemmata obscuriglobus is an eyeball-rolling attempt to denigrate efforts to provide some urgently required information to help RfA candidates of the right calibre on the one hand, and to dissuade the time wasters on the other.

Back on topic, Chris troutman of course hits the nail very squarely on the head. However, as regards the actual original nit-picking object of this thread, as the one guy with the opinion, I don’t give a hoot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The writing style issue isn't limited to this page only. I acknowledge though that in the end, it's really hard to get people to agree to stop doing something if they like doing it. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are inferring, Isaacl, but Opabinia's comparison above was certainly misplaced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong indentation; I was responding to Opabinia regalis, saying that my comments were not only with respect to this page. But I understand that as long as people like writing "!vote", they'll keep doing so, regardless of what comments anyone makes. isaacl (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Do they? Well, well, how awful. I guess that will break the Wiki! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a part of the tragedy of the commons phenomenon that keeps the RfA process the way it is: it's easier for each individual person to just scatter their comments all across everyone else's opinions as they can get in and out quickly. But it creates a huge, multi-branching discussion that is enormously difficult to follow and head towards a consensus conclusion, to the overall detriment of the process. isaacl (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Isaacl, I think even more so 3 years later that Opabinia's comparison above was about apples and oranges. For some more up to date values, AFAICS this RfA advice page had nearly 4,000 views in 2019, which is quite high considering that it is a very niche, back-office topic and that there were in fact only 31 attempts at RfA in 2019 according to Wikipedia:RFA by month maintained by WereSpielChequers. Back on topic (again), Chris troutman was spot on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Optional candidate poll

Regarding this edit: just to name two factors, small sample size issues and the varying standards of different commenters in each poll make it very difficult to draw any statistical conclusions. Thus I disagree with including the statement that the poll results "are known to be conservative relative to actual chances of RfA success". isaacl (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with excluding the phrase about the poll being a conservative estimate but the results table does seem to indicate it's true. Including the phrase, I think, perhaps is meant to diminish the opinion of the poll aggregate, which is a poor idea. It is an improvement to say the poll is no longer new or experimental. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the two factors I mentioned, which make the gathered stats unreliable, there's no real way to evaluate if the poll is accurately projecting the probability of someone passing a request for adminship privileges. I suggest simply rewording the sentence to If after reading the advice above you are still unsure, consider obtaining feedback by initiating a poll. The poll page already provides caveats, and candidates should be aware of the need to carefully consider the source and context of any received comments. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair points, I've trimmed those sentences back. Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think post-Anarchyte, the ORCP became significantly more conservative than it was previously. I'd say it's now marginally more conservative than real chances, as editors avoid giving higher than a 7-8/10 unless you're a true stand-out candidate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• IMO it is essential that candidates have read and followed all the other advice before embarking on the poll. If then at the poll something come to light that they didn't expect, then they really have themselves to blame, although I know TonyBallioni has a somewhat different opinion on this. I have therefore slightly revised the mention of the poll, but apart from that, Isaacl's comment above is still accurate over 3 years later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

61%

Is this supposed to act as a ref to a case where 61% support !votes resulted in a successful rfa? I actually amounts to 70.7%. Suraj T 10:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, by linking to an RFA that actually passed with about 61% support. Graham87 07:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)