User talk:Houseblaster/Advice for RfA candidates

This is a subpage of Houseblaster's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Getting the gang back together

@Mathglot, Folly Mox, S0091, and Joe Roe: Further to User talk:HouseBlaster/Archive 6#A quiet place away from the main action, we've got another one. It is somewhat different from WP:YFA, but I think we primarily need to make it flow properly. No pressure, of course! But an opportunity I wanted to issue an invite for. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love a mystery as much as the next gang member. Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, *now* I get it; I assumed I was on your Talk page, lacking a page link. Oops! I will take a look at it. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invite! This definitely feels like a way different beast than H:YFA, which needed a complete rewrite. This might be a bit above my paygrade, although I do follow WT:RFA— which seems mostly to consist of differing opinions. This also feels more properly like a user essay: Kudpung has 75% authorship. I'm uncertain what the benefit is of preserving his advice specifically, but seems like it might be considerate.

I feel a lot more comfortable writing for the benefit of new editors than advising experienced editors preparing to run RfA (something I will probably never do), but my first thoughts are: I feel like OCRP is no longer recommended, the pull quotes could probably be updated with newer snippets from WP:DEBRIEF, and maybe some stats from RfAs from the past three or four years? Folly Mox (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the optional RfA candidate poll: I think there's more of a consensus that recommends using it if you want to (as per the name, it's optional). There are significant voices, though, that think other methods of obtaining feedback will result in the same benefits but without its drawbacks, so they recommend doing that instead (basically asking an experienced nominator for feedback). isaacl (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits or rewrite

Is the intent to rewrite the page entirely, to rearrange the existing text, or to copy edit it? My personal inclination is to copy edit it in its current location rather than in a separate place, but then those changes wouldn't be captured on this page. Typically I'm not partial to rewriting pages entirely, because I think it inhibits developing an esprit de corps from working collaboratively towards improvement. I appreciate that sometimes that's the best option, but I'm not convinced that's the case here. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to keep the structure of the current page, but I do think it needs a more fundamental rewrite. I think it could be more welcoming, a little easier to digest, and the see also links need to be completely updated to reflect more modern practice. I get your philosophical preference for steady improvements, but the amount of bite and out-of-date information (WP:RFA2024 led to many changes). I like doing these things in a separate page because it allows for not annoying people's watchlists when multiple people make tons of edits over a fairly short period of time. It also allows for more experimenting. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I guess copy-editing the project space page wouldn't be best at this point, then. If the rewrites are happening on a section-by-section basis, maybe they can be rolled out a section at a time, to allow for feedback from a larger audience? It's possible we have different ideas about what is meant by a fundamental rewrite, so we might be in greater alignment than it sounds at first. isaacl (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HouseBlaster's analysis here. I would also add that in a rewrite, the draft might pass through various intermediate states that are not (yet) comprehensive, coherent, or internally consistent, which might be required in order to get to the goal that is envisioned, which might be distant at first. This would be a highly objectionable state in which to leave the main article, and would likely lead to (understandable, appropriate) reverts and lack of progress on improvement. A separate venue is much better and much easier for this sort of thing. The downside of a rewrite is that the whole new version might get rejected, but that's the risk you take in the interest of ultimate improvement. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you're preaching to the choir. I was just trying to understand the extent of the rewrite planned. isaacl (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits showing up on people's watchlists would be an advantage, not a disadvantage. It would probably be good to tap into all the talk page watchers of WP:RFAADVICE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(n = 89) Folly Mox (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this for a day, I just want to say that I completely disagree with forking this with the intention of un-forking it later, and that it probably violates WP:HISTMERGE. This idea that we should make major edits to something by forking it without even telling the target article's talk page really goes against the normal iterative editing process we have here on Wikipedia, and excludes the folks most interested in the page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently wrong with drafting changes on a working draft page. It's an approach commonly used on English Wikipedia when working on larger-scale modifications. I agree that it's helpful to invite everyone interested to participate, and so think a notification on the talk page of the page in question is appropriate. When the time comes to propose modification to the source page, adequate time for more feedback should be accommodated. As long as appropriate attribution is provided through one of various mechanisms, there's no issue with merging back content. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I feel like Novem Linguae is right. I am not (quite) sold, and will probably sleep on it, but I am thinking of trying to fix things in situ. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's full circle back to my original post. To clarify something, when I said "my personal inclination", I just meant I was thinking of going to the source page and making edits there, rather than working in this sandbox, so I was trying to get an idea of how much extra work that might cause. To me, both approaches can be made to work and have their own sets of tradeoffs. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of travel

I like the amount of detail the essay provides, and think putting down all the the unspoken rules in one page is one of the strenghts. The goal of the essay seems to be to deter people who are not fully prepared from running. I think we should change the tone to be more encouraging, but also talk a bit more on the fact that RfAs can really demonstrate the worst of the community and how people should make sure they have nominators or off-wiki people to let out steam if they're so unlucky.

Specifically, I'd support removing Oshwah's and Guy's advice. Guy's advice is a bit jaded, and I believe a calm demeanor in most contentious areas is only a plus during an RfA. Oshway's is too wordy and I also don't think it's that reflective of a typical admin journey. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]