Wikipedia talk:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements

RfA announcements

Hi all! In order to prevent an edit war, it's probably best to "take it to the talk page", so to speak. It seems that announcing RfA's on WikiProjects of which one is a part is vote canvassing and an overt attempt to skew consensus. If one is interested in the current RfA's one can easily head over to WP:RFA, WP:BN, or a thousand of different other pages that do not exclude and elevate specific RfA's. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a longstanding solution to the problem of how to inform without canvassing. It is widely supported. Hesperian 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How can informing people who will likely want to support a candidate not equivalent to canvassing, hehe? It is obviously an attempt to garner support for MichaelBillington, and apparently several other previous RfA candidates active on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. This is a prime example of what isn't appropriate with regards to consensus-building on Wikipedia gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidently it's not "obvious" to anyone but you. This announcement box has been running since 11 November 2005, and until now no-one has ever seen it as other than a legitimate and good-faith tool for informing the Australian community of matters to which they may wish to attend.

I watch this board. I almost never vote in AfDs, because I prefer not to vote unless I have an informed opinion. When I do vote, I am as likely to oppose as support. I usually don't need this board to tell me about candidates that have my support, so on balance this board helps me to oppose candidates rather than support them.

Did it ever occur to you that the people best qualified to decide whether a person should be an administrator are the people who have worked closely with the candidate over a period of time? If we banned all such announcements, the only people who would vote in RfAs would be drive-by 2¢-ers who know nothing whatsoever about the candidate so instead vote on such irrelevant metrics as edit summary usage, number of featured articles, etc.

Hesperian 03:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly reasonable to assume that only those who are active on this notice board have seen this announcement page, so it's not, by any means, "widely supported" and to state that it is, is rather misleading. In any case, asking people to participate in an RfA which they are, of course, more than likely to support, is inappropriate and to assert otherwise seems a bit silly gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I dispute your assertion that this venue is partisan. Do you think it is partisan because people are more likely to vote for a candidate who shares their nationality; or because people are more likely to vote for a candidate with whom they have worked closely over a period of time. The first option is both ridiculous and repugnant; the second is unproblematic. Hesperian 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When engaged in a discussion, it's best not to pigeonhole others' opinions. Social graces and the lack thereof aside, I believe that any attempt to vote-stack and skew process is harmful to Wikipedia and this practise certainly falls in that category gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that any attempt to vote-stack and skew process is harmful to Wikipedia. But this practice certainly does not fall into that category. Hesperian 03:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the point on which we differ. What do you suggest is a good venue for seeking an external opinion? We could use WP:AN, which is a potentially good place, as our disagreement is based, in part, on administration. We could also use the village pump to seek external viewpoints on the larger issue of what is and isn't canvassing. There's also the option of a more-formal RFC, which sometimes has negative connotations, but in our case it might just serve for another venue to continue our relatively amicable proceedings with fresh sets of eyes. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

<-- I have seen one or two RfAs fail that were posted on this section, partly as a consequence of being posted here as the oppose votes came from respected members of the Australian Wikipedian community who clearly didn't feel the person was ready, having had the chance to observe their behaviour here. Any means by which a reliable estimate of the person's ability to perform as an admin should be commended, in my view. Orderinchaos 10:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This has started again with the removal of two requests for admin from this announcement page. I disagree. Has consensus chnaged or should the removal be reverted. --Bduke (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean a consensus between you Australian editors? It's quite funny when I look back on the numerous RfA's for Australian contributors that I've seen, and you get people commenting that you've never seen before - hence why this is canvassed support, they wouldn't be getting it if you didn't post here. If people want to go and comment on candidates, they can watchlist the RfA pages - they don't have to be told when people are up. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just from a personal viewpoint, I like to be made aware of the RFA's that potentially most affect projects that I'm working on i.e.predominantly WP:PLANTS and WP:AUSTRALIA. --Melburnian (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just go to the main RfA page and check every now and again to see who's up? You should decide to comment on RfA's off your own back, not because someone told you to go there. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I for one regularly look at RfA and I only comment if I already know something about the candidate. However sometimes I am too busy to go there and I welcome seeing names appear here. As others have said, sometimes those of us who know the editors well do not always support, but we comment out of knowledge. --Bduke (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From an outside perspective, I see this as complete canvassing, especially in light of support coming directly from this message from Australian Wikipedians. I'm not sure why you can't see that as an outside influence of the direct process of RfA, this noticeboard message is having a direct effect on RfA's for candidates that fall under the scope of this particular project. What I'm seeing is people unfamiliar with the RfA process commenting from these notes, and this leads to inexperienced people (with respect to RfA and adminship) deciding whether or not people should get the tools (When I say inexperienced, I mean that some people may not understand the adminship process well enough to offer a valued evaluation of the candidates capabilities). Ryan Postlethwaite 11:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Being reasonable here... have we seen any Aussie admins who are doing their job terribly? Ryan's concern seems to be largely that inappropriate people are being promoted, so I would like to see some evidence of this. I'm ambivalent about using the announcements board for RfAs - don't see how it's different from FACs or GACs, inappropriate articles could be promoted there too - but I'm curious about the underlying meaning of Ryan's point above.

A relatively small number of people watch this board, compared to the number of people who frequent RfA. I do no believe this number is capable of skewing consensus... and I do not believe that our bureaucrats are so short-sighted that they would not see through blatant canvassing. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No no no, I'm not suggesting for one minute that there's been some naughty Australian users promoted recently. The concern is, with an inflated number of supports, other people just support for the hell of it. If there was a contentious RfA, and supports came from people who saw this note, we could have people passing directly because of it. My major concern here is simple, you have people commenting on these RfA's who would not do so without these alerts, and that always has the potential to sway consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Apologies for misreading you :) Well, if you honestly believe that there's unfairness due to canvassing through this venue - I truly don't, but I guess I'm biased - then I guess it must be dealt with as canvassing always is, on a case-by-case basis, firmly. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A voter uninformed about the RfA process is not worse than a voter uninformed about the candidate. The former (and the latter, incidentally) being able to influence an RfA is a problem with the RfA process itself. It should be trivial to pick out people who have no idea why they are voting support; every support should be justified with a valid reason, and you can always hound them to explain in the way opposes get hounded. Not everyone can be expected to check WP:RfA often enough to catch every name that goes through it. You're denying this because of a side consequence that is not a fault with the announcement board itself. –Pomte 13:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this notice board is very similar to the discussion page of a WikiProject. I have often posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics if one of its participants is nominated at RfA, because I think that people familiar with a candidate can make a very worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Others apparently agree, because I'm not the only who does this, and I don't remember ever hearing protests. In fact, Wikipedia:Canvassing explicitly allows this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's common and accepted by many that to make a simple and neutral announcement about something the is being voted/!voted on is okay. EX: "User:Xyz is up for RFA" would be okay but not "User:Xyz is up for RFA, let's support her". — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't see a problem if the message is neutral, which is being done here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I get the impression that RfA votes are only considered in good faith if a voter happens to stumble upon the RfA page, with no prior knowledge of the event. This is a strange philosophy. I've never seen a process where potential participants could not be made aware of the process itself. If RfA is no secret, I don't see why it cannot be talked about. I wouldn't even mind if user's dropped notes on talk pages saying, 'dood, here's a link to my RfA.' In our current state, if the user who receives the message decided to stop by and support, then the system is gamed. If the same user had no prior knowledge, but still supports, it's a good vote. I'm not sure that people who simply watchlist the RfA page are any more qualified to vote than an editor who is invited. the_undertow ^talk 09:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think as long as the note is neutral, it shouldn't matter. Even dropping lines on your bud's talk pages. It's not as if they are the only ones who will see it. The more one spams their link, the more attention—both good and bad—that it will get. And the more attention, the more scrutiny. RfA is essentially an election, albeit an unlimited number of open spots. What elections exist for public positions that don't advertise freely to the public? To speak specifically of the advertising on project noticeboards, those are the people that have worked with the candidate the most. They are the ones best qualified to comment, more so in fact than those who frequent RfA. So not only do I not think it's a problem, I think it should be encouraged. Lara❤Love 00:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this practice. It's not clear to me why Ryan believes that people who watch this noticeboard would be predisposed to support or oppose. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Are people seriously proposing that decisions on who becomes an administrator should be left to a clique who frequent WP:RfA and seeking a wider view from people who may have (shock, horror) actually worked with the editor is a bad thing? That !votes from people who have, if they are lucky, spent five minutes perusing an edit history and checking that edit summaries are used carry more weight than !votes from people who have a history of interaction with the nominee? That decisions such as these should only be made by editors who happen to stumble upon the discussion?

I think that WP:CANVASS in general is a much abused guideline often used to stifle discussion and to dissuade knowledgeable people from taking part in relevant discussions. The guideline specifically says, "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." Listed as part of the "Friendly notices" section of the guideline is specific approval of "Notifying a related WikiProject on a WikiProject talk page"; AWNB is the WikiProject talk space for WP:AUS.

Those seeking to class the actions on AWNB as canvassing should be able to show that the practise, rather than merely informing editors likely to provide relevant comment to the discussion, is designed to influence the outcome in one direction and is disruptive. Has there been any RfA discussion where !votes from participants at AWNB have been the difference between success and failure of a nomination? Has the promoted administrator consistently acted in a manner contrary to acceptable norms with the tools? If not, where is the problem? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC) (disclosure: my recent RfA was listed on this page - see here).

I always wonder why AGF is thrown away so readily. Have we reached the point where we look for "trolls under every bridge and reds under every bed" then dont find any so assume that they must be there anyway. I know lets drown the witch if they survive we'll burn them for being a witch if they dont sorry we were wrong. Gnangarra 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your comments, consensus is fairly clear that this is fine (albeit that I don't personally agree!) so I don't think there's much point discussing it further - at least the issue is sorted once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)