Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiSpeak/Decoding RfA: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
lets table-fy this bad boy....
Line 1: Line 1:
===Oppose section===
Use this [[WP:SARCASM|useful guide]] to help you decode what is really meant when someone votes during your RfA:
{| class="wikitable"
|+Use this [[WP:SARCASM|highly useful and civil]] [[WP:RFA|RfA]] decoder to know what is really meant in the Oppose Section:
|-
! Oppose reason given:
! What it really means:


|-
===Oppose===
#"'''Oppose''', no evidence of working collaboratively"
| no evidence of working collaboratively
#:means: "'''Oppose''', you haven't made enough friends yet to pass RfA"
| you haven't made enough friends yet to pass RfA
#"'''Oppose''', not enough mainspace edits"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', you're 12"
#"'''Oppose''', too many userboxes"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', you're 12"
#:also may mean '''Oppose''', I like opposing, but couldn't find a damn thing wrong with your contribs"
#"'''Oppose''', I can't read your signature"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', you're 12"
#"'''Oppose''', too high a ratio of user talk to mainspace edits"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', you're 12"
#"'''Oppose''', you're 12"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', my talkpage is looking a bit empty and a couple of hundred kilobytes of misspelled abuse is just what I need to liven it up"
#:also may mean: Good thing people don't know I'm 12 too, but if I oppose now they'll think I'm older"
#"'''Oppose''', you've only been here 4 months, come back in three months and I'll support"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', I've never heard of you. In the next three months, I'm sure you'll screw something up, and I'll use those diffs to oppose next time"
#"'''Oppose''', per [[WP:NOTNOW]]"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', per [[WP:NOTEVER]]"
#"'''Oppose''', too many automated edits"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', you're a bot, and your Special:Contributions terrify me"
#"'''Oppose''', you use poor rationales in XfDs"
#:means "'''Oppose''', you voted once to delete an article 8 months ago that I voted to keep."
#"'''Oppose''', I think you're a great user, but <insert gibberish here>"
#:means "'''Oppose''', I don't like you" Or,
#:means "'''Oppose''', I don't like your nominator and wish to spite him"
#"'''Oppose''', per lack of maturity"
#:means "'''Oppose''', you opposed my RfA earlier"
#"'''Oppose''', I don't trust you with the block button"
#:means: "'''Oppose''', I don't trust you with the block button"
#"'''Oppose''', too many concerns"
#:means: '''Oppose''', one of my friends already opposed and gave diffs. I didn't read the diffs, or look at your contribs"
#"'''Oppose''', per answer to question 27B, part 1, follow up 3c"
#:means: '''Oppose''', whew! I wasn't finding anything in your contribs, but you typed "their" when you clearly meant "there", and so I can only conclude that because of your poor grasp of English and grammar, you will be a poor admin, cuz you know, admins have to communicate clearly"
#"'''Oppose''' per civility issues"
#:means: '''Oppose''' "You opposed my RfA earlier"
#:means: '''Oppose''', you nommed my jibberish, unreferenced, non-notable in-universe, fictional character article for deletion. And it was DELETED!!!"
#:also may mean: "You called me a dick when I was being a dick"
#"'''Moral Support''' (in the oppose section)
#:means: "'''Oppose''' for way too many reasons to actually take the time to list. Besides, by the time I would finish typing out my reasons with diffs, I would end up edit-conflicting with the 'crat that [[WP:SNOW|snowed]] you under"
#"'''Oppose''', low edit summary usage."
#:means: '''Oppose''', I had to actually load up all those diffs to try and find misbehavior because you didn't use swear words in your edit summary. And I found nothing.
#"'''Oppose''', concerns from previous RfA(s) have not been addressed."
#:means: '''Oppose''', you ''have'' addressed past concerns, but since I liked opposing you so much back then, I'm opposing again. Oh, and you have too many userboxes.
#"'''Oppose''', too quick to be involved in drama."
#:means: '''Oppose''', I think you may have found my sockpuppets. Or,
#:means: '''Oppose''', you are too good to be easily fooled. Or,
#:means: '''Oppose''', you have a conscience. Or,
#:means: '''Oppose''', too quick to be involved in drama.
#"'''Oppose''', hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools."
#:means: '''Oppose''', too slow to be involved in drama.
#:also may mean: '''Oppose''', I looked through your contributions for a reason to oppose you, and I did not find one, but I want to oppose anyway.
#"'''Oppose''', I want the crats to decide on this one."
#:means: '''Oppose''', I don't understand how RFA works, but I like creating drama and opposing.
#"'''Oppose''', many editors I respect have opposed."
#:means: '''Oppose''', my friends have spoken, and they don't like you.
#"'''Oppose''' per lack of answer to my optional question."
#:means: '''Oppose''' by not answering my question, you make me feel less important.
#"'''Oppose''' per above"
#:means: '''Oppose''' lots of other people have already opposed, so I'll jump on the bandwagon and oppose too. I wouldn't want to be the only supporter, it'll tank my own RfA later"
#:also may mean: "'''Oppose''' you pissed me off sometime in the past, and since I don't want to say that out of fear of getting flamed (again) by you, and since I don't quite remember what it was that you did, and because I'm entirely too lazy to go digging through diffs, I'll cover my ass with this"
<!-- Please keep the "per above" one last, for greater comedic effect. -->


|-
===Neutral===
| not enough mainspace edits
#"'''Neutral''', per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by a non-admin)
| you're 12
#:means: "Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my own RfA next week."
#"'''Neutral''', per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by an admin)
#:means: "Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my RfB next week."
#"'''Neutral''', pending clarification of my concerns."
#:means: "I am the Big Daddy, and if you do what I want to I may give you my support."
#"'''Neutral''', I am undecided at present, and will need to review the statistics more fully.
#:means: "I haven't looked at your contribs, and am only here to inflate my Interiot Wikipediaspace count and will not be back again - unless to enhance the count a little more." Or,
#:means: "I shall be voting twice... NOTICE ME! NOTICE '''ME'''!" Or,
#:means: "What a boring RfA!"


|-
===Support===
| too many userboxes
#"'''Support''' Great editor!"
| you're 12
#:means: "'''Support''' You are 12 and so am I"

#"'''Support''' Meets <font color="002bb8">my criteria</font>"
|-
#:means: "'''Support''' You have 12,000 edits so you must be good – it's not my fault if I didn't notice that 90% of them were vandalism"
| I can't read your signature
#"'''Support''' ''blah blah blah'' prima facie ''blah blah blah''"
| you're 12
#:means: "'''Support''' I had an argument with Kurt about something, and I've noticed he's opposing you"

#"'''Support''' per nom"
|-
#:means: "I hope the nominator sees this and nominates me next"
| you're 12
#"'''Support''' per all those above"
| '''''I'm''''' 12, but don't want to get opposed at my rfa later
#:means: "The cabal has spoken"

#"'''Support''', zOMG! LOLCATROFLCOPTER!! You're not an admin? I thot u wuz wun already!!1!!eleven!1!!"
|-
#:means: "I have a few "[[WP:3O|favors]]" to ask of you once this RfA is over"
| you've only been here 4 months, come back in three months and I'll support
#"'''Support''' per clean talkpage/block log/contribs/"
| I've never heard of you. In the next three months, I'm sure you'll screw something up, and I'll use those diffs to oppose next time
#:means: "I didn't look at your talkpage/block log/contribs, my friends are already supporting"

#"'''Support''' A very kind, friendly and helpful editor"
|-
#:means: "'''Support''' I am a 13 year old boy and I think the photograph of ([http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h10/tendertrap/Prism.jpg allegedly]) yourself on your userpage looks hot"
| per [[WP:NOTNOW]]
#"'''Support''' Has clear understanding of deletion policies and application."
| per [[WP:NOTEVER]]
#:means: "'''Support''' Deletes articles based on any reason given; deletionist, just like me."

#"'''Support''' Has clarified (per previous Neutral) and I am satisfied the candidate will make an excellent admin."
|-
#:means: "'''Support... I AM THE BIG DADDY!!!'''"
| you use poor rationales in XfDs
#'''Support''', you're 12.
| you voted once to delete an article 8 months ago that I voted to keep
#:means: I'm a wannabe drama magnet.

#"'''Support,''' no reason to oppose."
|-
#:means: "Adminship is so straightforward that anyone able to go 1500 diffs without evidencing grossly sociopathic behavior will do just fine."
| I think you're a great user, but <insert gibberish here>
#"'''Support''', many editors I respect have support."
| I don't like you (also: I don't like your nominator and wish to spite him)
#:means: '''Support''', my friends have spoken, and they like you.

#"'''Support''' per the excellent work you have done on numerous articles, the clear understanding of Wikipedia policies you have demonstrated via your substantial contributions in multiple areas, particularly showing a knowledge of the deleting policy and blocking policy"
|-
#:means: unknown; this has yet to happen.
| per lack of maturity
#:also means: "I read that one "Decoding RfA" page and have decided to suck up to its writers by copying and pasting the reason they clearly approve of despite the fact that I haven't actually bothered to check any of the candidate's contributions."
| you opposed my RfA earlier
<!-- Please keep that one last. -->

|-
| I don't trust you with the block button
| I don't trust you with the block button

|-
| too many concerns
| one of my friends already opposed and gave diffs. I didn't read the diffs, or look at your contribs, but hell, they gave diffs

|-
| per answer to question 27B, part 1, follow up 3c, above.
| whew! I wasn't finding anything in your contribs, but you typed "their" when you clearly meant "there", and so I can only conclude that because of your poor grasp of English and grammar, you will be a poor admin, cuz you know, admins have to communicate clearly

|-
| per civility issues
| You opposed my RfA earlier (also: you nommed my jibberish, unreferenced, non-notable in-universe, fictional character article for deletion) (also: You called me a dick when I was being a dick)

|-
| '''Moral Support''' (in the oppose section)
| for way too many reasons to actually take the time to list. Besides, by the time I would finish typing out my reasons with diffs, I would end up edit-conflicting with the 'crat that snowed you under

|-
| low edit summary usage
| I had to actually load up all those diffs to try and find misbehavior because you didn't use swear words in your edit summary. And I found nothing.

|-
| concerns from previous RfA(s) have not been addressed
| you have addressed past concerns, but since I liked opposing you so much back then, I'm opposing again. Oh, and you have too many userboxes

|-
| too quick to be involved in drama
| four possibilities here: 1) I think you may have found my sockpuppets, 2)you are too good to be easily fooled 3)you have a conscience 4)too quick to be involved in drama

|-
| hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools
| too slow to be involved in drama. (also:

|-
| I want the crats to decide on this one
| I don't understand how RFA works

|-
| many editors I respect have opposed
| my friends have spoken, and they don't like you.

|-
| per lack of answer to my optional question
| by not answering my question, you make me feel less important.

|-
| per above
| lots of other people have already opposed, so I'll jump on the bandwagon and oppose too. I wouldn't want to be the only supporter, it'll tank my own RfA later

|-
| per above (may also mean:)
| you pissed me off sometime in the past, and since I don't want to say that out of fear of getting flamed (again) by you, and since I don't quite remember what it was that you did, and because I'm entirely too lazy to go digging through diffs, I'll cover my ass with this
|}

===Support Section===
{| class="wikitable"
|+Use ''this'' highly useful and civil decoder for the Support Section
|-
! Support reason given:
! What it really means:

|-
| Great editor!
| You are 12 and so am I

|-
| Meets <font color="002bb8">my criteria</font>
| You have 12,000 edits so you must be good – it's not my fault if I didn't notice that 90% of them were vandalism

|-
| ''blah blah blah'' prima facie ''blah blah blah''
| I had an argument with Kurt about something, and I've noticed he's opposing you

|-
| per nom
| I hope the nominator sees this and nominates me next

|-
| per all those above
| The cabal has spoken

|-
| zOMG! LOLCATROFLCOPTER!! You're not an admin? I thot u wuz wun already!!1!!eleven!1!!
| I have a few "[[WP:BLOCK|favors]]" to ask of you once this RfA is over

|-
| per clean talkpage/block log/contribs/
| I didn't look at your talkpage/block log/contribs/, my friends are already supporting

|-
| A very kind, friendly and helpful editor
| I am a 13 year old boy and I think the photograph of ([http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h10/tendertrap/Prism.jpg allegedly]) yourself on your userpage looks hot

|-
| Has clear understanding of deletion policies and application
| Deletes articles based on any reason given; deletionist, just like me

|-
| many editors I respect have support
| my friends have spoken, and they like you

|-
| per the excellent work you have done on numerous articles, the clear understanding of Wikipedia policies you have demonstrated via your substantial contributions in multiple areas, particularly showing a knowledge of the deleting policy and blocking policy
| unknown; this has yet to happen

|-
| (It is surmised that it might mean):
| I read that one "Decoding RfA" page and have decided to suck up to its writers by copying and pasting the reason they clearly approve of despite the fact that I haven't actually bothered to check any of the candidate's contributions
|}

===Neutral section===

{| class="wikitable"
|+And of course, some Wikipedians just simply can't make up there minds about anything...
|-
! Neutral reason given:
! What it really means:

|-
| per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by a ''non-admin'')
| Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my own RfA next week

|-
| per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by an ''admin'')
| Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my RfB next week. Also added by admins when the candidate supported ''your'' RfA previously, but there are already a lot of opposers

|}

Revision as of 21:56, 12 August 2008

Oppose section

Use this highly useful and civil RfA decoder to know what is really meant in the Oppose Section:
Oppose reason given: What it really means:
no evidence of working collaboratively you haven't made enough friends yet to pass RfA
not enough mainspace edits you're 12
too many userboxes you're 12
I can't read your signature you're 12
you're 12 I'm 12, but don't want to get opposed at my rfa later
you've only been here 4 months, come back in three months and I'll support I've never heard of you. In the next three months, I'm sure you'll screw something up, and I'll use those diffs to oppose next time
per WP:NOTNOW per WP:NOTEVER
you use poor rationales in XfDs you voted once to delete an article 8 months ago that I voted to keep
I think you're a great user, but <insert gibberish here> I don't like you (also: I don't like your nominator and wish to spite him)
per lack of maturity you opposed my RfA earlier
I don't trust you with the block button I don't trust you with the block button
too many concerns one of my friends already opposed and gave diffs. I didn't read the diffs, or look at your contribs, but hell, they gave diffs
per answer to question 27B, part 1, follow up 3c, above. whew! I wasn't finding anything in your contribs, but you typed "their" when you clearly meant "there", and so I can only conclude that because of your poor grasp of English and grammar, you will be a poor admin, cuz you know, admins have to communicate clearly
per civility issues You opposed my RfA earlier (also: you nommed my jibberish, unreferenced, non-notable in-universe, fictional character article for deletion) (also: You called me a dick when I was being a dick)
Moral Support (in the oppose section) for way too many reasons to actually take the time to list. Besides, by the time I would finish typing out my reasons with diffs, I would end up edit-conflicting with the 'crat that snowed you under
low edit summary usage I had to actually load up all those diffs to try and find misbehavior because you didn't use swear words in your edit summary. And I found nothing.
concerns from previous RfA(s) have not been addressed you have addressed past concerns, but since I liked opposing you so much back then, I'm opposing again. Oh, and you have too many userboxes
too quick to be involved in drama four possibilities here: 1) I think you may have found my sockpuppets, 2)you are too good to be easily fooled 3)you have a conscience 4)too quick to be involved in drama
hasn't demonstrated a need for the tools too slow to be involved in drama. (also:
I want the crats to decide on this one I don't understand how RFA works
many editors I respect have opposed my friends have spoken, and they don't like you.
per lack of answer to my optional question by not answering my question, you make me feel less important.
per above lots of other people have already opposed, so I'll jump on the bandwagon and oppose too. I wouldn't want to be the only supporter, it'll tank my own RfA later
per above (may also mean:) you pissed me off sometime in the past, and since I don't want to say that out of fear of getting flamed (again) by you, and since I don't quite remember what it was that you did, and because I'm entirely too lazy to go digging through diffs, I'll cover my ass with this

Support Section

Use this highly useful and civil decoder for the Support Section
Support reason given: What it really means:
Great editor! You are 12 and so am I
Meets my criteria You have 12,000 edits so you must be good – it's not my fault if I didn't notice that 90% of them were vandalism
blah blah blah prima facie blah blah blah I had an argument with Kurt about something, and I've noticed he's opposing you
per nom I hope the nominator sees this and nominates me next
per all those above The cabal has spoken
zOMG! LOLCATROFLCOPTER!! You're not an admin? I thot u wuz wun already!!1!!eleven!1!! I have a few "favors" to ask of you once this RfA is over
per clean talkpage/block log/contribs/ I didn't look at your talkpage/block log/contribs/, my friends are already supporting
A very kind, friendly and helpful editor I am a 13 year old boy and I think the photograph of (allegedly) yourself on your userpage looks hot
Has clear understanding of deletion policies and application Deletes articles based on any reason given; deletionist, just like me
many editors I respect have support my friends have spoken, and they like you
per the excellent work you have done on numerous articles, the clear understanding of Wikipedia policies you have demonstrated via your substantial contributions in multiple areas, particularly showing a knowledge of the deleting policy and blocking policy unknown; this has yet to happen
(It is surmised that it might mean): I read that one "Decoding RfA" page and have decided to suck up to its writers by copying and pasting the reason they clearly approve of despite the fact that I haven't actually bothered to check any of the candidate's contributions

Neutral section

And of course, some Wikipedians just simply can't make up there minds about anything...
Neutral reason given: What it really means:
per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by a non-admin) Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my own RfA next week
per <any possible string of words can be added here>" (added by an admin) Not enough of my friends have voted yet for me to decide and I don't want to screw up my RfB next week. Also added by admins when the candidate supported your RfA previously, but there are already a lot of opposers
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiSpeak/Decoding_RfA&oldid=231543019"