31:
359:
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.
336:, 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. --
985:
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
1001:
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
142:
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
358:
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
169:
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.
345:
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.
306:
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
246:
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.
159:
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.
256:
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.
114:
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.
1002:
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. -
373:
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
130:
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.
507:
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. -
328:
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
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
520:
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!!
237:, 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.
626:
439:
47:
17:
1012:
I prefer the comments to be inserted, since there've been at least 1 (failed) RfA where post-deadline votes tipped the balance somewhat.
548:
472:
421:
the candidate, then it's already rather clear how the community feels about that candidate, and there's no need to pile on oppositon.
910:
Sorry. (Sometimes they're necessary to indicate that the comment should be taken in humour; comments can easily be misinterpreted.)
198:
829:
134:
484:
Hmm, I guess I would have to oppose that candidate for singing off-pitch. :-) Seriously, though, witty song! Thanks!
824:
364:
38:
937:
674:
635:
605:
448:
317:
225:
We had a very interesting exchange about this here not too long ago, where we discussed that, in the spirit of
1028:
1006:
990:
979:
948:
924:
877:
837:
789:
751:
716:
685:
659:
646:
616:
591:
571:
551:
524:
511:
498:
475:
459:
425:
386:
367:
350:
340:
322:
266:
251:
241:
164:
152:
137:
124:
742:
545:
469:
131:
192:
976:
584:
360:
942:
916:
873:
781:
708:
679:
640:
610:
490:
453:
391:
381:
271:
261:
184:
174:
1021:
834:
821:
656:
312:
179:
147:
161:
542:
538:
466:
374:
110:
There's a nom out there that's at 0/19/0. Why do people find the need to oppose? It would take
588:
566:
120:
932:
911:
869:
776:
703:
669:
630:
600:
485:
443:
333:
234:
1015:
230:
226:
347:
337:
747:
739:
465:
That is brilliant, even better than the other version of that song over on Meta! --
248:
1003:
557:
508:
144:
116:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
987:
521:
422:
238:
583:
Some wierdos (you know who you are ;-) ) put a wikisong in my namespace too:
975:
Do I need to announce here (or where if not here) invited votes on a RfA? --
625:
Now you can hear it, too. I've added a sound file of um, me, singing it at
280:
208:
417:
Absolutely. If a RfA's tally shows a concensus of, for instance, 97%
438:
I've put a little ditty together that I hope RfA regulars will enjoy:
868:
Some of these jokes would look better without the smiley at the end.
404:
400:
284:
212:
929:
Maybe we can put the whole discussion between html code: <;: -->
986:
the event is unfolding in a particular RfA), then post it here.
655:*violent standing ovations* But I somewhat miss the chorus ;-) --
407:
287:
215:
411:
291:
219:
25:
143:
others might see them on this issue. Just my 2 cents. Peace,
311:
it should look like the nomination might pass after all. —
664:
You all get to do the chorus when I finally come up for
1025:
537:
Hmmm... Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? A
629:. (Be merciful, it's a tough song to sing.)
332:were. With people understanding the spirit of
8:
106:Why do people find the need to pile on?
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship
7:
377:'s I would not consider "pile-ons".
24:
29:
1:
1045:
1029:16:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
1007:16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
991:23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
980:21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
949:16:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
925:15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
878:03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
838:22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
790:22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
752:16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
717:14:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
686:14:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
660:13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
647:13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
627:The RfA Candidate's Song
617:13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
592:11:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
572:03:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
552:05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
525:05:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
512:03:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
499:03:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
476:03:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
460:03:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
440:The RfA Candidate's Song
426:23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
368:02:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
351:02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
341:23:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
323:23:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
252:08:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
242:03:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
165:00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
153:00:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
138:23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
125:23:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
997:Votes after "deadline"
819:</Soviet judge: -->
818:<Soviet judge: -->
585:User:Kim_Bruning/Lion
42:of past discussions.
539:Bureaucrats quartet
330:moral support votes
434:For your enjoyment
132:Christopher Parham
923:
788:
715:
497:
321:
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1036:
977:HolyRomanEmperor
920:
914:
832:
827:
785:
779:
745:
712:
706:
564:
494:
488:
414:
397:
394:
389:
384:
315:
294:
277:
274:
269:
264:
222:
205:
204:
201:
195:
187:
182:
177:
150:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1034:
1033:
999:
973:
918:
830:
825:
783:
743:
710:
558:
492:
436:
398:
392:
387:
382:
378:
278:
272:
267:
262:
258:
206:
199:
193:
190:
185:
180:
175:
171:
148:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1042:
1040:
1032:
1031:
998:
995:
994:
993:
972:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
657:Stephan Schulz
650:
649:
622:
621:
620:
619:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
530:
529:
528:
527:
515:
514:
504:
503:
502:
501:
479:
478:
435:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
356:
355:
354:
353:
313:Ilmari Karonen
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
157:
156:
155:
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1041:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1017:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
996:
992:
989:
984:
983:
982:
981:
978:
971:Invited votes
970:
950:
947:
945:
941:
940:
936:
935:
928:
927:
926:
921:
913:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
879:
875:
871:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
839:
836:
833:
828:
823:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
791:
786:
778:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
753:
750:
749:
746:
741:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
718:
713:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
687:
684:
682:
678:
677:
673:
672:
667:
663:
662:
661:
658:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
645:
643:
639:
638:
634:
633:
628:
624:
623:
618:
615:
613:
609:
608:
604:
603:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
590:
586:
573:
570:
569:
565:
563:
562:
555:
554:
553:
550:
547:
544:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
526:
523:
519:
518:
517:
516:
513:
510:
506:
505:
500:
495:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
456:
452:
451:
447:
446:
441:
433:
427:
424:
420:
416:
415:
413:
409:
406:
402:
396:
395:
390:
385:
376:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
362:
361:The Uninvited
352:
349:
344:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
324:
319:
314:
310:
293:
289:
286:
282:
276:
275:
270:
265:
255:
254:
253:
250:
245:
244:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
221:
217:
214:
210:
202:
196:
189:
188:
183:
178:
168:
167:
166:
163:
158:
154:
151:
146:
141:
140:
139:
136:
133:
129:
128:
127:
126:
122:
118:
113:
105:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1014:(Peeks into
1013:
1000:
974:
943:
938:
933:
738:
702:Hmm... :-)
680:
675:
670:
665:
641:
636:
631:
611:
606:
601:
582:
567:
560:
559:
454:
449:
444:
437:
418:
380:
357:
329:
308:
305:
260:
249:Lord Deskana
173:
111:
109:
78:
43:
37:
930:</;: -->
668:RfA. ;-)
589:Kim Bruning
556:Brilliant!
36:This is an
912:Flcelloguy
822:Kirill Lok
777:Flcelloguy
704:Flcelloguy
486:Flcelloguy
98:Archive 60
90:Archive 58
85:Archive 57
79:Archive 56
73:Archive 55
68:Archive 54
60:Archive 50
599:;-) !
549:contribs
473:contribs
410:@ 03:06
348:Olorin28
338:ReyBrujo
334:WP:SENSE
290:@ 21:01
281:Saturday
235:WP:SENSE
218:@ 01:15
209:Saturday
200:contribs
1016:WP:RFAF
931:. ;0
419:against
231:WP:BITE
227:WP:DICK
162:W.marsh
39:archive
1022:Kimchi
1004:Taxman
870:Tintin
737:;-) --
561:bd2412
546:(talk)
509:Taxman
470:(talk)
442:. --
405:14 May
401:Sunday
375:Amgine
285:13 May
213:13 May
135:(talk)
117:Ral315
988:Redux
919:note?
784:note?
711:note?
522:Redux
493:note?
423:Redux
383:Cuivi
363:Co.,
263:Cuivi
239:Redux
176:Cuivi
16:<
934:Buck
874:talk
820:;-)
740:Srik
671:Buck
632:Buck
602:Buck
543:maru
541:! --
467:maru
445:Buck
408:2006
365:Inc.
318:talk
288:2006
233:and
216:2006
194:talk
145:Kuki
121:talk
944:ofg
939:ets
681:ofg
676:ets
642:ofg
637:ets
612:ofg
607:ets
455:ofg
450:ets
412:UTC
393:nen
292:UTC
273:nen
220:UTC
186:nen
1026:sg
1020:.
917:A
876:)
835:in
782:A
748:it
709:A
666:my
587:.
491:A
403:,
399:,
309:if
283:,
279:,
247:--
229:,
211:,
207:,
160:--
149:ni
123:)
112:76
94:→
64:←
1024:.
1018:)
946:✐
922:)
915:(
872:(
831:h
826:s
787:)
780:(
744:e
714:)
707:(
683:✐
644:✐
614:✐
568:T
496:)
489:(
457:✐
388:é
379:—
320:)
316:(
268:é
259:—
203:)
197:•
191:(
181:é
172:—
119:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.