User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Canvassing
Campaigning for support before an adminship nomination (Archive 31)
I am not sure if this has been brought up before, but it is possible for a user to contact other individual users to discuss whether or not he or she is worthy administrator material before actually submitting his or her formal nomination. Is such "campaigning" before formally requesting adminship 'poor form'? Denelson83 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with discussing adminship with a few friends. It is when the number of people being talked to/solicited becomes substantial when compared to the number of voters on the typical RFA that I see it as a significant problem, and this is a reason I have used for voting oppose in the past. Dragons flight 01:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It means you fail the "must have ego the size of a small universe" requirement. More seriously it depends. If they are ask a couple of people to make sure thier aplication wont get completely pwned then fine. If they are trying to mobilise potential supporters I'd be more concerned.Geni 01:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- (After two edit conflicts) I don't see a problem with asking a few users if they think you're ready for adminship, or asking someone to nominate you, so long as you have had significant contact with them in the past. It wouldn't be appropriate to ask lots of users, or to ask in a public place like the Village pump, because that would just be duplicating the RFA discussion. If you wanted to ask someone privately, by email, or in IRC, or IRL, then no one else would know about the discussion yet the effect would be the same.-gadfium 01:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Trying to derail an RFB (Archive 44)
In what I think is the most appaling thing I've ever seen at Wikipedia, Several administrators ran across unprecedented levels of campaigning from an America Online user that is trying to force voters to change their support votes on Quadell's RFB: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
This is obviously entirely inappropriate, but since I'm not voting in either direction, I just wanted bureaucrats and other admins to know about this. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I left a brief note on User talk:Cecropia. --HappyCamper 06:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Clearly the user should be warned and blocked as necessary, but I can't imagine that any amount of campaigning from an anon - especially of the lame sort which this one is doing - would really cause a veteran user to change his vote. — Dan | talk 06:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's quite true. I think we can all rest with ease knowing that the process is robust against this sort of thing. --HappyCamper 06:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- How many people are actually listening to this idiot? I hope none. This person is very low to do something like this. I ran across a few of those posts yesterday, but forgot to say anything. This person seems to be causing little damage but nontheless, he should be warned or blocked as suggested above. This is just a mean-spirited attempt to try and make a person they don't like lose. I've come across my share of jerks like this. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Publicising one's RFA (Archive 47)
It may just be me, but I'd like to see a requirement for a nominee to display, at the top of their own user and talk pages, a big brightly colored box saying: I am currently up for RfA, click here. It's good enough for an AfD, why not an RfA? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is the user's prerogative. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I thought most of the frequent RfA voters frowned upon publicizing one's own RfA. --TantalumTelluride 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- We do frown on it, frequent and infrequent voters both. A message on one's own pages is all right, though. The idea of making such a message a requirement is just weird. Ben doesn't give any real reason for his suggestion, it seems to me: "If it's good enough for an AfD" isn't a real reason, as the function and purpose of the two pages are lightyears apart. Nothing should be a requirement for no reason. Bishonen | talk 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
- The reason I suggest it is that most people do not regularly check RFA. I'm an occasional visitor here, and I regularly miss RfAs of people I know. If we want to hear the opinions of people who have had contact with nominees, we should let those people know that the nominee is up for RFA. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Another effect of making such a thing a requirement is that it guarantees no opprobrium would attach to using it. You could never say person X wants adminship more than Y because X used the tag and Y didn't. Demi T/C 08:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- You might try watching this page. :-) Dragons flight 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think the idea is a good one. A standardized template, much like AfD's, could serve as a neutral signpost for those who might have something to say either way. Heck -- even if it only draws trolls, it's educational to see a candidate's response to trollery. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting. Personally I don't like the idea of campaigning for RfA... I didn't modify my userpage or anything when I was on RfA. But a standard tag would be a good idea, perhaps. It would be a mixed blessing, it might let people who have a strong opposition to a given candidate know about the RfA as easilly as it gets them extra support votes. It's true, not everyone watches RfA regularly... this might help a bit. --W.marsh 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- That is somewhat premised on the assumption that enemies are as likely to watch and visit a user's page as their friends are. An assumption that strikes me as unlikely. Dragons flight 03:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- It is a good idea for a nominee to post his nomination on his user page. It is a bad idea to make this into a rule. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do people tend to watch the userpages of their "enemies" or something? Hehe I don't really know... I don't have anyone I consider an enemy on WP. --W.marsh 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- That is somewhat premised on the assumption that enemies are as likely to watch and visit a user's page as their friends are. An assumption that strikes me as unlikely. Dragons flight 03:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting. Personally I don't like the idea of campaigning for RfA... I didn't modify my userpage or anything when I was on RfA. But a standard tag would be a good idea, perhaps. It would be a mixed blessing, it might let people who have a strong opposition to a given candidate know about the RfA as easilly as it gets them extra support votes. It's true, not everyone watches RfA regularly... this might help a bit. --W.marsh 03:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- We do frown on it, frequent and infrequent voters both. A message on one's own pages is all right, though. The idea of making such a message a requirement is just weird. Ben doesn't give any real reason for his suggestion, it seems to me: "If it's good enough for an AfD" isn't a real reason, as the function and purpose of the two pages are lightyears apart. Nothing should be a requirement for no reason. Bishonen | talk 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
- I thought most of the frequent RfA voters frowned upon publicizing one's own RfA. --TantalumTelluride 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I checked my watchlist. Among User pages I watch, not including admins, pure vandal accounts, or sockpuppets, it runs about two-to-one in favor of people I would probably never support for admin. (Not all, I hope, enemies. I hope nobody here thinks RfA voting is about supporting friends and voting against enemies.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't? Well, there go my standards. Marskell 07:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a bad idea. It might attract a wider cross section of the community to comment on RfA's, because as pointed out above not everyone closely watches this page. A lot of users that I would both support (majority) and not support (some) in a RfA are on my watchlist; and even though I now watch this page, I would have appreciated seeing a notice on their page otherwise. Having a standard template means that its not self promotion. --Petros471 09:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. People who've had discussions with a candidate, good or bad, are likely to still have the candidate's talk page on their watchlist and they're more likely to have some insight into whether the candidate would be a suitable admin than most people. I would have done this on my RfA but I was worried that it would be seen as campaigning. If there was a rule about it then this would not have been a problem. CTOAGN (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we're going at it in the wrong way. Perhaps a simple list somewhere of the 15-ish people currently up for RfA/RfB... maybe it could even be listed on your watchlist. It would seem that way you could just scan over it every day or two and see if there were any names you recognized. --W.marsh 15:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- You mean, like my list? Dragons flight 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't know that existed... I'll remember it. Your AfD lists are great, by the way. --W.marsh 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- You mean, like my list? Dragons flight 15:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Dragon flight's list is excellent (it's been on my watchlist since it was first announced), but it targets a different audience than this proposal. People might have something interesting to say about a specific candidate; people who don't want to track RfA in general. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Negative campaigning (Archive 50)
Just this day we have a very bad example of the negative campaigning on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Khoikhoi. Somebody posted notes to the talk pages of one hundred different editors (having Turkish as their native language) asking them (in Turkish) to vote against the RfA. Not a single diff proving the Khoikhoi's alleged POV pushing was shown but 20 users voted against the RfA and certainly more were about to come. I know Khoikhoi's as a rounded-up editor who loves to mediate and solve difficult national conflicts, who would benefit greatly if given some sort of an authority. I certainly did not saw all of his 15K edits, so lets talk about an abstract situation:
We have large national communities on the English wikipedia. If somebody would send notes to a hundred users asking to vote against a candidate for the benefit of the motherland, he would probably get ~30 oppose votes (and maybe 10..20 support votes), also he would get many oppose and neutral votes from the unrelated voters, because the candidate would appear too controversial. With the system of one oppose vote equal to four support, the candidate would needed 150..200 support votes that are impossible to obtain without wide camapaigning (that is an evil by itself). Thus, one nationalist could ruin all the RfAs from the national group he dislikes without showing any diffs or demonstrating any wrongdoings. I think it is very evil. Maybe we should consider a Jury-style voting, when everybody can present their evidence and opinions, but voting itself is performed by some sort of a jury ( a fixed group of people randomly chosen from the pool of people willing to evaluate RfAs)? abakharev 04:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am disturbed by the appearance of interest groups on English Wikipedia who seem willing to carry on proxy wars for their groups in RfA. Nevertheless, there would need to be a lot of discussion and indications of community sentiment in order to change the system. -- Cecropia 06:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- So let's see. He (User:Metb82) spammed a mass of talk pages, wrote the message in Turkish presumably to obfoscate the meaning to the rest of us, and used an external link so that his posting didn't show up in "What links here". As far as I am concerned this is acting in very bad faith indeed and deserves at the very least a stern warning. --kingboyk 08:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- This should not be tolerated; would an arbitration case do any good? Conscious 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. This irks me like no other. Imagine the reaction of the "Oh so holier than thou" if someone did this to an Islamic editor.--Looper5920 09:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would be wanting to take it that far (although I understand why others might). A strong warning or if rules have been broken a short ban would be more my way of thinking. Move discussion to Admins Noticeboard? --kingboyk 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- This should not be tolerated; would an arbitration case do any good? Conscious 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- The best defense against any sort of campaign to garner votes on either side of an issue is publicity. When you expose the campaign, all the people not paying attention will look into it and make the right decision, offsetting any benefit the campaigners may have had. Remember Jason Gastrich and the AfD vote stacking of some 3 months ago. Publicity solved the problem. No need to complain about it, just announce it on WP:AN or some other appropriate forum (in this case right here), and let regular wiki editors make their rational decisions on the issue. Works every time. NoSeptember talk 12:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm aghast at the vote stacking, especially the use of non English (this is the English wikipedia last I checked, and English is our working language here) to obscure intent, and would support some sort of censure to the editor involved. But I have a question... So how did these users get found? Pernicious advocacy userboxes with categories? Project membership? No, I bet it was Babel boxes showing language, wasn't it? Guess what I am concluding here, anyone? (and take your guess somewhere else, I'm just saying...). To the suggestion that publicity will fix this, not sure I agree. Unless the closing 'crats discount this, there are potentially a LOT of votes to overcome... so many that even wide publicity might not generate enough supports (or negs in other situations) to overcome them (and some of us might not vote support after investigating, after all) ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it was a WikiProject or noticeboard. More block votes and POV gangs tend to come from those than from userboxes from what I've seen (please don't make me find examples!) :) --kingboyk 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with a sanctions-type resolution is that people will disagree on what sanctions are appropriate and which votes are legitimate and which are not. Can you say "Wheel War?" ;-) If you let a few hundred people know what is going on, and a few dozen come over and read the RfA or AfD at issue, you will get a bunch of votes from disinterested third parties that will ensure the right decision is made. A decision by the community is better than that of a single admin or bureaucrat, because admins and bureaucrats disagree all the time, as I'm sure many of you have noticed. NoSeptember talk 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the comment that the solution here is public exposure when issues like these arise. If I had known this was happening I would have voted in support of the proposed admin (in order to counter the negative vote rigging). In this case the editor withdrew their RfA but in the future if this happens I think there should be a notice of the event posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This will allow neutral admins and others to come weigh in on the issue.--Alabamaboy 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- What can be done in a constructive fashion now? First, we should inform Metb82 that his actions have been disclosed. As Khoikhoi has withdrawn his nomination, I think there's no need to take any further action now (except maybe for encouraging him to try again in a while). Should a similar situation happen again... well, let's rely on our bureaucrats to handle it properly. Conscious 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. The thought occurred to me too that it's a matter for the bureaucrats which is why I went silent on the issue. I see that no warning has been issued though; I'm not sure how it should be worded but I think he should be warned. --kingboyk 13:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I've left a note at User talk:Metb82. Conscious 15:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. The thought occurred to me too that it's a matter for the bureaucrats which is why I went silent on the issue. I see that no warning has been issued though; I'm not sure how it should be worded but I think he should be warned. --kingboyk 13:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- What can be done in a constructive fashion now? First, we should inform Metb82 that his actions have been disclosed. As Khoikhoi has withdrawn his nomination, I think there's no need to take any further action now (except maybe for encouraging him to try again in a while). Should a similar situation happen again... well, let's rely on our bureaucrats to handle it properly. Conscious 15:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the comment that the solution here is public exposure when issues like these arise. If I had known this was happening I would have voted in support of the proposed admin (in order to counter the negative vote rigging). In this case the editor withdrew their RfA but in the future if this happens I think there should be a notice of the event posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. This will allow neutral admins and others to come weigh in on the issue.--Alabamaboy 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Just came across this page by coincidence, and thought you might be interested in a smiliar case, where I am accused of violating a proposed policy, Wikipedia:Vote_Stacking by informing people about an AfD. You can see the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Vote_Stacking_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FTurkish_Kurdistan Bertilvidet 15:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Could you provide a translation of Metb82's message? Conscious 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
This may sound controversial, but I say it be made policy that English, and only English, may be used on the English Wikipedia. This should include talk pages as well, except in the cases where fresh user needs proper direction in their langauge. Other than that, it is becoming obvious that comments in other languages are being passed as a means of collusion and wrongdoing. It is only fair that users like Khoikhoi are given an equal chance. And as you reply in fury in English, remember this: what if it was your RfA? I hope instances like this never happen again. --Jay(Reply) 22:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, although Khoikhoi had a good record to be an admin, the apparent POV issues directly clouded my vote - my initial instinct was this was a good editor, however, the concerns raised about POV/user conflict caused me to stay on the safe side. In retrospect, aware of the situation, backroom vote dealings also indirectly effect outside voters, like myself. --Jay(Reply) 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If you still have doubts about Khoikhoi, please look here as a fresh example and see what i mean. If propaganda like this is allowed, sending messages to alert people shouldnt be. (Metb82 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC))
- *Sigh* What I added was neutral and can be backed up with sources. You, on the other hand, have removed paragraphs related to the Armenian Genocide, and added pictures like these to Cyprus-related articles. --Khoikhoi 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Suggested policy: Due to the very serious nature of negative votestacking, the recommended response for negative votestacking will be blocking for one week and a 1 month ban on that user voting in RfAs. To be clear: this is not intended as a punishment, but as a deterrent. JoshuaZ 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I support this idea. --Khoikhoi 04:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- *Sigh** Exactly! Just like you adding Armenian massacre to Adana page, that picture is neutral and backed up with sources too. I was just fixing a mistake in the genocide page which i could verify with strong links, but i think you erasing that picture from Cyprus page should be considered vandalism because it is a picture illustrating a paragraph of that article. (Metb82 02:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC))
: Um, what? JoshuaZ 02:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC) nm. I see.
- I cited Britannica, you simply removed the entire paragraph. The pictures that you added were not only removed by me, but by 5 other users, and you kept adding them. Do you think this picture illustrates the "Post-independence" section which you added it to repeatedly? --Khoikhoi 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- as much as adana massacre represents a city of 2 million. You know its even needless discussing with you, everyone here can see that you are not NPOV enough to be an admin. People are not stupid. (Metb82 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC))
- Quite the contrary, Metb82, quite the contrary. --Khoikhoi 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Invited votes (Archive 56)
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)
RfA publicity (Archive 59)
Currently RfA is dominated by people with no particular connections to a candidate that merely vote in a lot of RfAs. To change this, I have begun a campaign to publicize all new RfAs. Any one who wants to help should see user:ShortJason/Publicity. Please join in this effort to improve the proccess. Thanks! ShortJason 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the so-called "RfA regulars" can carry a candidate through or "bury" a RfA; there's just not enough of us (I include myself, of course). Besides, making a RfA public can very easily be mistaken as advertising, which is frowned upon. Redux 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- On the one hand, the "RfA regulars" may be more experienced in knowing what to look for-- that sounds horribly elitist to me. On the other, publicizing all RfS's would even the field and not advantage one candidate. Perhaps publicizing would increase particiation by people who never gave it a thought. I agree with Redux otherwise. Also, we seem to vary in temperament and standards enough that we balance one another out. For a nom to pass requires a strong concensus, and that gives me confidence that the process works well most of the time.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, doesn't the lack of connections eliminate bias??? Could publicizing turn RfA into a popularity contest??User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't think people who are not yet administrators tend to be "popular" enough on Wikipedia for RfA to become a popularity contest. Plus, new admins aren't elected over others but selected by the community. (Potentially, every candidate or no candidates could be promoted.) —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:54 UTC
- Hmmm, doesn't the lack of connections eliminate bias??? Could publicizing turn RfA into a popularity contest??User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- On the one hand, the "RfA regulars" may be more experienced in knowing what to look for-- that sounds horribly elitist to me. On the other, publicizing all RfS's would even the field and not advantage one candidate. Perhaps publicizing would increase particiation by people who never gave it a thought. I agree with Redux otherwise. Also, we seem to vary in temperament and standards enough that we balance one another out. For a nom to pass requires a strong concensus, and that gives me confidence that the process works well most of the time.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- People who know a candidate often find out because when they visit the talk page of the candidate there is usually a thread about the RfA there. Rest assured, people who interact with candidates will find out - one week is a good long time. Anyone who is admin material will have interacted with quite a few "regulars" too. You are trying to fix a problem that does not need fixing. NoSeptember talk 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your intentions may have been good ShortJason, but from experience, I don't think it will be a good idea. For instance, during my last RfA, some people didn't appreciate that someone else decided to notify other editors of the RfA (or "campaign") on my behalf. It's hard to say how many people opposed on those grounds, but it was very obvious that nobody liked that, even though I did not sanction the move. joturner 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is somewhat different. Alerting selected editors most certainly can introduce bias in the selection process, but notifying everyone merely allows us to get a perspective from a wider band of the Wikipedia community. (It's one of the reasons I think polls should be advertised more. Having only people intimately involved with a policy proposal discuss it can introduce systemic bias, and promotes the feel of cabalism, whether a cabal exists or not.) —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:54 UTC
- Should've read the proposal more closely. I disagree with this proposal, but could stand with, for example, a brief section listing current admin candidates on the Community Bulletin Board. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:59 UTC
- Isn't the presentation of all RfAs here enough? However, a link to the requests for adminship page from the Community Portal would be nice; this page seems to be buried very deep, only known to the most experienced editors (although that may not be a bad thing). joturner 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's buried, not any more than any other project or noticeboard is. Once one discovers this page, how can one stay away for the rest of one's WP career? How hard is it to check the RfA list once a week. That's all we ask :-). NoSeptember talk 21:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't the presentation of all RfAs here enough? However, a link to the requests for adminship page from the Community Portal would be nice; this page seems to be buried very deep, only known to the most experienced editors (although that may not be a bad thing). joturner 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Should've read the proposal more closely. I disagree with this proposal, but could stand with, for example, a brief section listing current admin candidates on the Community Bulletin Board. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:59 UTC
- I think this is somewhat different. Alerting selected editors most certainly can introduce bias in the selection process, but notifying everyone merely allows us to get a perspective from a wider band of the Wikipedia community. (It's one of the reasons I think polls should be advertised more. Having only people intimately involved with a policy proposal discuss it can introduce systemic bias, and promotes the feel of cabalism, whether a cabal exists or not.) —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 20:54 UTC
I imagine this would lead to an influx of people who have no idea of what they are doing. It is probably best to leave the system as-is, since it is more likely than not that people who are voting regularly on this page have a vested interest in the well being of the project (or are trolls, but those votes are for the most part not considered by Bureaucrats). --tomf688 (talk - email) 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- If a user ever goes looking for any kind of information on Admins and/or adminship, s/he is bound to find a link to this page, if not the page itself. It is not hidden (or buried) at all. All it takes is that the person has a minimal interest in knowing at least what are Admins: they will go to Wikipedia:Administrators and will find a link to this forum. And if the person has no interest at all in the subject... well then they wouldn't be participating here even if they knew about it. Redux 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think “publicizing RfA’s” is a bad idea. I agree with tomf688 that, “we could see an influx of people who don’t know what they are doing.” I think that those who care about adminship and understand the RfA process do monitor it and do vote as they feel the need. The system is not broken, and if it were, this would not be the solution to fix it. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Amen! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think “publicizing RfA’s” is a bad idea. I agree with tomf688 that, “we could see an influx of people who don’t know what they are doing.” I think that those who care about adminship and understand the RfA process do monitor it and do vote as they feel the need. The system is not broken, and if it were, this would not be the solution to fix it. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Here's an idea: We send out welcoming templates to new users. Maybe we should send out an intermediate template out to users who have reached about 500 edits saying basically "now that you have been here a while, here are a few community and project pages that you may want to consider visiting and participating in...", and RfA would be included in the list. So, don't send them about specific RfAs or to people who interact with specific candidates, but rather send a note to everybody who has stayed around at Wikipedia for a while. We could even have an Intermediate Welcoming committee :-). NoSeptember talk 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, The RfA page isn't buried. When they are ready, they will come. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
As I noted on User talk:ShortJason/Publicity, there are problems with this advertising idea, the main ones being that not matter how neutral the wording, it is still an "unsolicited bulk message", which will suffer from the same default dislike as spams/UBE's in email. Also, the criteria of contacting people with "significant talk-page" interaction would cause a great deal of difficulty to many candiates for Rfa, as what group of people do these candiates often contact on their talk pages? Yep, vandals. A further problem is that receiving a message like this would give the impression to many that they are required to vote, even where they might have had no major interaction with the canditate, with the problems that would cause. I do like NoSeptember's idea of "Intermediate Welcoming", but I think the current method works well as it's self-selction - those that are interested enough in how wikipedia works are the sort to find this page, and this page is designed for people who want to help wikipedia work. Regards, MartinRe 16:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Opt-in personalized alerts for RfA (Archive 59)
I think that publicity would be a good thing for RfAs but spamming isn't the way to do it. I think there would be significant support for the ability to specify a list of people you have interacted with and be automatically posted a warning if they come to RfA, though. As far as I can see, such a customized service would ultimately be a personal choice, though, and not a policy decision whose rights and wrongs need to be debated (unlike, say, deciding the boundaries for indiscriminate spamming or a publicity campaign). The proposal in full is here (it's not long!); if interested you can sign up here. If there is enough demand for it, the next step would be finding somebody prepared to write and operate an RfA alertbot. Any assistance would be welcome! TheGrappler 03:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is no policy, or rules, regarding whether or not a candidate can contact people about his or her RfA. What has been said is that this practice is discouraged because it is frowned upon, and it may cause some users to oppose the candidate, not because they are mandated by any rule, but rather because of how publicizing one's RfA is perceived in the community. I don't believe that anyone here has any intention of designing rules to either encourage or forbid the practice, since that'd be instruction creep, so it is up to the candidate to be sensitive, and well informed, enough to make his or her decision about whether or not to publicize his or her RfA. It is also worth mentioning that countless proposals for a standard template, or "RfA notice" message, have been rejected over the last two years. Redux 11:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No canvassing (Archive 75)
From what I understand, canvassing has been forbidden on Wikipedia since about May 2006. Shouldn't there be some link to any guideline or other page clarifying this? 87.78.182.246 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SPAM. And it was equally forbidden before May, for that matter. (Radiant) 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thing is... It depends on how one defines "canvassing". According to WP:SPAM#Canvassing, notifying others should be perfectly fine. The main concern is "vote-stacking". However, that doesn't mean that other wikipedians may or may not decide to vote oppose based on their own opinion of what "canvassing" entails. - jc37 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- If I were up for RfA, would it be ok for me to add a notification of my RFA to my sig (Talk | Contribs | RFA), would that count as canvassing? I don't think it should because it's not asking people to "vote James086 #1" or "James086 for admin 2006!", it's simply drawing attention to it. I'm not going for RFA, it's just an example. James086Talk | Contribs 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thing is... It depends on how one defines "canvassing". According to WP:SPAM#Canvassing, notifying others should be perfectly fine. The main concern is "vote-stacking". However, that doesn't mean that other wikipedians may or may not decide to vote oppose based on their own opinion of what "canvassing" entails. - jc37 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
WIkiproject Canvassing (Archive 75)
What precedents exist for wikiproject canvassing? Can I post on a wikiproject discussion page that I am running? TonyTheTiger 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- It would be frowned upon, I think. A notice on your user and/or user talk page is about all that's accepted, as far as I know. --W.marsh 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Canvassing and Good Points Raised (Archive 76)
I know canvassing is frowned upon, it's a pet hate of mine, but there were some very good points raised about informing users who might like to vote but don't know much about the RfA process. I'm wondering if a simplified version of the Tangobot templates couldn't be created detailing username and RfA closing date (no mention of percentages and such) purely for inclusion on Wikiprojects and userpages, that sort of thing, and bring in a stricter no canvassing policy at the same time. Any thoughts. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 20:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's accepted to include a note on your own user page, so editors who interact with you are more likely to see it. I'm not sure if we want wider advertisement of RFA. ~ trialsanderrors 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, a userpage notice is accepted, I believe so that people who interact with the user get to vote, rather than just whoever happens to watch RfAs. The problem with canvassing is that it is selective, so only the people the editor wishes to inform are informed. And I see no reason why the Wikiproject needs to know; that only leads to the absurd mentalities of "Members of a Wikiproject should stick together!" and "This Wikiproject needs to get more admins!" -Amarkov blahedits 00:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we should ever specifically state that canvassing is allowed in one way or another. I agree with what Amarkov said above about it being selective. I see that as a problem. If a user chooses to advertise, that's their prerogative; stating that it is "allowed" doesn't do anything but attempt to limit those who are deciding whether to support or oppose. And, in my mind, advertising on a WikiProject is a big no-no. -- Renesis (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- See also the thread at support #25 and {{Rfa-notice}}.--Kchase T 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- See also WP:SPAM#Canvassing. If those rules are followed (and not abused - either intentionally, or even unintentionally), then "canvassing" already is allowed. However, "votestacking" (the concern behind the concern) is not. That said, traditionally, RfA is about trust. And as I have said elsewhere, a person's determination of trust is not something that can or should be quantified. It's like asking a gambler what makes one lucky. So while canvassing may be "legal", the community has such a concern about abuse of it towards votestacking or campaigning, that they tend to frown on any notice beyond a simple notice on the nominee's user page (as noted above). (As it could be said that a part of the failing of my first attempt at RfA was due to voter's perceptions of canvassing, I think I may have a bit of experience/insight on this : ) - jc37 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speaking of, I was considering splitting off WP:CANVAS from WP:SPAM, although they might be related they're never really used in the same context. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Discussion now underway at WT:CANVAS ~ trialsanderrors 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speaking of, I was considering splitting off WP:CANVAS from WP:SPAM, although they might be related they're never really used in the same context. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- See also WP:SPAM#Canvassing. If those rules are followed (and not abused - either intentionally, or even unintentionally), then "canvassing" already is allowed. However, "votestacking" (the concern behind the concern) is not. That said, traditionally, RfA is about trust. And as I have said elsewhere, a person's determination of trust is not something that can or should be quantified. It's like asking a gambler what makes one lucky. So while canvassing may be "legal", the community has such a concern about abuse of it towards votestacking or campaigning, that they tend to frown on any notice beyond a simple notice on the nominee's user page (as noted above). (As it could be said that a part of the failing of my first attempt at RfA was due to voter's perceptions of canvassing, I think I may have a bit of experience/insight on this : ) - jc37 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the difference between spamming talk pages and advertising a nomination in wikipedia related IRC channels? —Malber (talk • contribs) 00:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)