User talk:ShortJason/Publicity

Initial thoughts

It's just generally considered bad form to advertise RfAs on people's talk pages. It can gain a lot of opposition, especially if the candidate does this. Even though you admit that you are not affiliated with the candidate, your advertising may still reflect badly on the candidate. I recommend that you immediately stop this program. It would be a good idea for you to, before continuing this, post a notice on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship and ask people what they think about this. Thanks for the effort though, zappa.jak e (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. One should never advertise a RfA on anything apart from one's userpage. Computerjoe 's talk 08:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Zappa.jake. See my comment on the RfA talk page; it can reflect badly on the candidate. joturn e r 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I don't know what to say. Although I agree with you and admire for you for taking such a bold stance, I'm not sure this is the right way to go about doing it. Then again, how else what you do it? Unfortunately, WP is somewhat of a democracy, and even if it was a tyranny, you and me wouldn't be important. --Osbus 21:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that the idea is a good idea. Many times, some people who would vote do not see the RfA, so they don't. If there is an unbiased person telling them this just through the knowledge that he/she talks to them, that is a good way to get the word out. I do not think this should be discontinued! → J @red 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShortJason, I think this is a great idea, and I applaud your effort. There is no policy against notifying users who would likely be interested in an ongoing discussion; just because the traditions of RfA frown on it, and some editors may get offended, don't give up. If this happens for everyone, then it will affect everyone equally, and there is very little that could be done to stop you.--ragesoss 01:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the idea, but how exactly are you going to find and contact every user the RfA candidate has interacted with? --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 08:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course that's impossible, but I will follow the steps in the identification section. If you have any more ideas, please list them here. ShortJason 11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

RfA suffers badly from a small, uninformed group making decisions on people they've never actually interacted with (this is by design - it's not a criticism on the current RfA participants). Anything to bring more outsiders in, and people who actually know something of the nominee in question is extremely welcome. Stevage 11:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. I've been myself thinking that having interacted with the candidate before should be a guideline for voting. Most people voting there just do so based on comments of previous voters, which, of course, is a pathetic indicator of the eligibility of the candidate. deeptrivia (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, of course, that it's lame just to vote the same way as other people. One of the great things about wikipedia, though, is that all past interactions are still around for examination. I don't have to know any of the participants are in a discussion - I can still read it in detail, and comment in the RfA on the basis of it. A really good way of doing service to an RfA is to highlight a bit of past behaviour. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

I think there are several problems with advertising an Rfa like this. For one thing, no 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. I would also regard it as impolite to advertise someone's rfa without checking with them first. The RfA guide asks not to post bulk "thanks for voting" messages, so I would regard as "please vote" in a similar line. Other problems are the sheer number of people that would have to be contacted, and talk page spamming, no matter how benign the intent, is not a good idea. 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. Raising the awareness of Rfa is good, but advertising individual Rfa's is not the way to do so, imo, especially as it would result in over 200 talk page edits a day, based on rough estimates. In any case, rfa seems to work okay as it is, so unless there are admins succeeding/failing when they shouldn't, then my first thought would be "if it's not broken, don't fix it!" . Regards, MartinRe 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with MartinRe's comments. I'm also skeptical about this but would highly suggest you follow his suggestion about checking the content of talk-page communication before you encourage someone to vote in an RfA. Obviously, the candidate wouldn't appreciate you contacting vandals that would oppose. What's more, please don't contact people whose messages were about the vote they already posted on the candidate's RfA. Such indiscriminate messaging is clearly spam. --Kchase02 (T) 18:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, even this (checking talk pages) leads into trouble. Say you compile a list, and check talk pages before posting messages, you are notifying a subsection of users, and would give the appearance of solicting votes. (e.g. talk page was vandalism warning, don't notify, they'll oppose). The problem is that indiscriminate messaging is spam, but discriminate messaging runs the risk of bias based on how you discriminate. Interested editors have many ways to find out about an Rfa, either by seeing a note on the canditates talk page, watching WP:RFA, or if you're interested in one editor, add their rfa page to your watchlist, so you'll see it on your watchlist when it's created. Regards, MartinRe 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you already introduced subjectivity into the criteria for identification: for #1, what qualifies as significant interaction? For #2, what qualifies as a major article? And #4 is a (albeit necessary) catchall that doesn't specify what criteria you would use. You correctly realize that this leads to an uncomfortable dilemma: spam or discriminate somehow in messaging? I think the latter course is the correct one. My objection belied the fact that your idea has promise. I'd suggest proposing this as an essay and getting more input on it before you continue. I'm sure a note at the RfA discussion page wouldn't hurt either. Collaboratively, it might be possible to craft a system of notification that satisfies the community's concerns.

OK, so I saw that you've already dropped a msg at RfA talk. Cool. --Kchase02 (T) 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Due to the large volume of objections and the fact that my school term is almost over, meaning that I am very busy, I have decided to temporarily stop my publicity campaign, and review input. I have no intention of stopping this campaign, but I am willing to respond to suggestions for modifications. I will be gone from tomorrow to July 16, but input and discussion are still welcome during that time. Finally, feel free to branch off derivative proposals onto my user page as user:ShortJason/Publicity2 (3,4,etc.). Thanks. ShortJason 20:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to seriously consider whether "I have no intention of stopping this campaign" is a suitable response to "the large volume of objections", especially as you note that you have only spent a brief time at Rfa. Regards, MartinRe 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I found an RfA that's a good example of why this might not be necessary. In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anglius, Kelly Martin opposed (with good reason, imo), within 20 minutes of the nomination. I'd suggest studying talk pages versus RfA votes to determine if people who have interacted with a candidate really need to be notified of the RfA. --Kchase02 (T) 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to continue this, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming and try to follow the guideline (you seem to be doing a pretty good job of doing that already). --Kchase02 (T) 01:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, for the sake of Wikilove, make it opt-in: a proposal

Ideally it should be opt-in for the receiver (or "spamee") and not for the nominee (if a nominee didn't want me to hear they were running for RfA, I'd be suspicious!). And it would be even better if the spamee, who may now be better regarded as the "user of a service" was able to customise this service to decide who they would be interested in hearing about. So, here's my proposal:

Anybody who wants to signs up the service starts a user subpage, /RfA alert list
They add Category:Wikipedian RfA alert lists to the subpage.
Anybody who they would be interested in hearing about, by linking to a subpage of the potential nominee (for instance, User:Jimbo Wales/RfA alert link, which could be done with a template instead: {{RfA alert|Jimbo Wales}})
For each new RfA, a bot (which would have to run daily or so to check for new RfAs) looks at the "What links here" for that nominee's RfA alert link: if Jimbo was running for adminship, the bot would check Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Jimbo Wales/RfA alert link. Note that it doesn't matter whether that page actually contains any content, or even exists at all!
Using the list of interested users this creates, the bot then adds a notice to those service users' talk pages.

Advantages:

Opt-in only - no unwanted spamming!
Automated - less effort required
Personalized - users see who they want to see
Nominee can't hide!
But the would-be nominee can also sound out interested parties about their chances of passing RfA.
Less no-hope self-nominations - would-be admins may also be able to tell from the lack of interest that it's too early for RfA.

As German Wikipedians may have spotted, this is based heavily on the de:Wikipedia:Vertrauensnetz "Web of Trust" system. To see a mock-up how this might all look, see User:TheGrappler/RfA alert list (user's customised alert list) and Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Jimbo Wales/RfA alert link (just in case Jimbo runs for admin, who'd be interested?). Bots, however, are out of my territory - to get this up and running we'd need (1) a bunch of users who would find this useful (sign up below!), and (2) somebody prepared to get a bot up and running. TheGrappler 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea better, but I still think you all ought to compare talk pages to past RfAs to see how necessary this really is. If your results are favorable, I'd sign up. --Kchase02 (T) 05:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a related debate at the Signpost. The bottom line is, I tend not to check RfA (out of laziness or whatever, but mainly because I have never encountered the vast majority of nominees) and therefore may miss the RfAs of users I trust, or sometimes distrust. The system could also be extended for RfArbs and RfCs (which seems the natural extension and would also be useful). It's basically a proposed, non-compulsory service: if there's demand, we'll try to get it offered. It's not forcing anyone to do anything, and may not be necessary, but if people will find it useful (and I believe some other than myself will) then why not go for it? TheGrappler 05:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's a bit silly to specify the "potential nominees". How the hell would I know whose RfA's I would be interested in voting on? I vastly prefer the idea that someone comes to me and says "hey, you had a run in with this guy 3 months ago, have any opinion on his RfA?". But in any case, I really doubt there's anyone around to *run* this service, so it's all a bit moot. Stevage 06:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting proposition, but I'm not sure about the logistics. Spamming on Wikipedia is not exactly welcomed, and as Stevage says, it's difficult to make a complete list of all the people whose RfAs you would be interested to know about. That having been said, I'd be happy to work with you to make the bot if this gets community acceptance and an adequate number of interested people. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an even simpler idea: create a template that simply lists every user who is currently up for RfA, with a link to their candidature. Let people dump that template on their user pages so they can see if they give a fig about any of the current nominees. Stevage 09:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already is: you can add {{User:Dragons_flight/RFA_summary}} to your userpage. See User:Dragons flight/RFA summary. The problem is, 95%+ of RfAs (and a similar proportion of RfCs, though perhaps only 80% or so of RfArbs) mean nothing to me so it means I am usually just wasting my effort in checking through any such list. How would I know who I'd be interested in? Well, at least as well as somebody checking through users' history would be, I imagine. There are possibly 50 or so non-admins I have come across with any kind of regularity and I could usefully comment on at RfA. It's not that hard work to make such a list: as a rough draft, add anyone who has posted on your talk page, then add any users you bump into later and feel you could usefully comment on ("I've seen some very good work keeping controversial articles NPOV", "excellent vandal fighter", "works well in maintenance, deserves the mop", "a bit too trigger-happy in using revert during edit wars" or whatever, rather than generic support/oppose). Perhaps some people would prefer a team of ShortJason to manually check through the history of nominees, but that should really be an opt-in service too. This service is ideal for those of us who specifically aren't interested in RfA in general with the exception of a couple of individuals we know enough to usefully comment about. The Dragons flight summary is great for those who are really into the RfA process. For some of us, it's just not that high a priority to include in our user pages.TheGrappler 11:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who would sign-up for personalised RfA alerts

TheGrappler 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (first to sign up, of course!)[reply]
~~Kchase02 (T) 05:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)~~ I'll read it at WP:RFA[reply]
Stephen B Streater 06:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Osbus 14:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gurch 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Waggers 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC) , Think it is a good idea, lets do it, whats the harm if it is opt-in.[reply]
Richard 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FrancisTyers · 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: Use of watchlist

Is there a way to add non-existant pages to your watchlist? If so, it would be simpler just to provide a semi-automated way of adding the potential candidates RfA page to your watch list and in the even that it's created, you'll be informed. Using an already existing system is better than creating a new one. It just relies on the watchlist code accepting non-existant pages (by manually modifying the URL or something). --Tango 11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can watch uncreated pages. Just click on the red link, and click watch. I have done it to a few articles I wanted to watch for creation, and it works. --liquidGhoul 11:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nice idea as an alternative proposal. Great thinking - it ought to be documented somewhere. Some people may want to keep their watchlist short, or not check their watchlist all that often, and for them an opt-in messaging system might be better. TheGrappler 11:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make your watchlist long - you wouldn't see anything unless it was created, and once it is you can unwatch once you've voted if you want to. I don't think a messaging system is worth it just for people that don't want to check their watchlist. How many such people are there? I can't see how you can realisticly do much on wikipedia (beyond simply article edits that don't require discussion) without using your watchlist. --Tango 14:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot that fits that description though, e.g. categorization, stubcatting, stub-making, looking at featured article candidates, adding an image, and most importantly, actually using WP as a resource rather than actually editing it (casual editors who read WP while logged in will still get the message). I also sometimes just log on to Wikipedia to check for new messages without wanting to get bogged down with all the changes in my watchlist (I should have been more specific: I didn't mean my watchlist would be long to view, just when it came to editing the complete list. It's also true that my watchlist can be very long for other reasons, however, which is one reason I might not use it all the time). Like I said, it's just a proposal for a service that I and some others might find more useful than the watchlist method. If you don't want it, don't sign up for it, but for some users it is advantageous.

As for the watchlist method, it's a little more complicated than adding [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/{{Nominee's username}}}]] to your watchlist, you need to make sure they didn't unsuccessfully run for admin before; if so, and their next attempt will be number "n",then the link is [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/{{{Nominee's username}}}_{{{n}}}]] instead. Just a minor quibble but I think should be included with any documentation. Certainly both the "watchlist" method and the "Dragon" method should be fully documented on a page somewhere (possibly Wikipedia:Requests for adminships alerts). I think, if there is demand for it, the "please spam me" method would be a useful complement. And if there is any demand for ShortJason's human-oriented publicity drive, a sign-up list to opt in to those messages would be good too. I've seen far too many people complain about a lack of publicity for RfAs (which is in part a necessary design feature of RfAs) to drop the idea altogether. ShortJason was trying to remedy what he and other users perceived as a real problem. The brainstorming on this page and the extra publicity this has given to the "Dragon" list are good things.TheGrappler 15:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea

As someone who never votes in RfA (although I would vote if I knew about a nomination of someone I have worked with), why not advertise in the WikiProjects in which someone is active. This of course does not mean they have their name of the participants list, but have also contributed on the WikiProjects talk page, or contributed to the project in some other way. This will stop mass "spamming" as only a few notices will be put out. --liquidGhoul 09:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just watch WP:RFA

Advertising one's RFA is not allowed, and this is a proposal to automate that. Anyone who wants to follow RFAs can add WP:RFA to their watch list, or even just type the six characters. I suggest it gets marked as rejected. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point - this isn't a proposal for a policy or guideline, so it can't be rejected. It's not about advertising because it isn't being run by the nominee - it is a service being offered to users who might potentially be interested in particular nominees but have no general interest at all with the RfA bandwagon and therefore who don't check RfA often. (Plenty of time, the nominees might not want certain people they have come across before to know about the nomination, so it is hardly advertising!) I'm not going to comment on a candidate I have never come across before; I have never come across the vast majority of candidates. Therefore RfA is a waste of time for me. I have no interest at all in following 99% of RfAs. Except... for the very rare occasions when somebody who I am interested in is nominated (either because I think they are good admin material, or because I think they are not currently good admin material and I would oppose.) However, usually I completely miss these nominations because I am not bothered to check a page that normally has no interest for me. My own stupid fault? Well, kinda... but it's also the fault of a system that is by its nature secretive. If I want to know about somebody's potential upcoming RfA, why shouldn't I? I don't check my watchlist often. I often spend ages not editing WP at all, just using it like a regular user (effectively taking a wikibreak from the "inside workings" of the site). However, I tend to do so logged in, so it means that I'd get a message in my talk page. And if it's about an RfA that I would be qualified to vote in (i.e. I can talk from personal experience about that nominee, their edits and my interactions with them, not mindlessly applying some stupid test to someone I'd never even heard of before) and I'd said I'd like warning about (because that candidate deserves it, or because I have seen first hand evidence suggesting the candidate isn't ready) what on earth is wrong with that? Is it bad from my point of view? No, it's a useful service. Is it bad from RfA's point of view? No, it just means there is more constructive and informed comment. Is it bad from the candidate's point of view? Depends on whether I have seen them being good or being bad! What's the problem? Why deny me this service? Who benefits? Who gains? Would it make RfAs a more meaningful and informed debate? TheGrappler 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think I'd mis-understood you - I thought you were proposing that the nominee would send out a notice to people - are you suggesting that for every RfA candidate you'd go back through their talk history and contact eveyone they've significantly talked to? If so, as a matter of interest, how long does it take you per candidate? If you haven't tried it yet, then I recommend Pilotguy's current RfA as a good test case. Would this be an opt-in or opt-out process for the recipients? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. User:ShortJason's original intention seems to have been almost precisely that. The idea was that people who had actually "met" the candidate could get a chance to comment. This could be pretty exhausting and also could clearly come across as spamming. The "opt-in" proposal cuts down a little on the work, the opt-in with a user-selected "watchlist" of potential RfAs you'd like to have a look at is the least time-consuming of the lot (just a bit of botwork). TheGrappler 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]