User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Moral support

"Moral support"

I'm not so sure I approve of "Moral Support"s. I know if the candidate is getting billions of oppose votes it can be a stressful time for them... but I feel "Moral Support" is somewhat unneccesary. Perhaps someone could explain their reasoning behind voting "moral support" so I can better understand this? Thank you. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering that myself. The reasons given for a "moral support" are almost universally reasons against them being an admin, so it's really an oppose. It's rather insulting to the candidate, as it says "you're foolish enough to think putting my oppose under support means I think you'd somehow make a better admin". --Tango 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moral support votes should go in the neutral section. Not that the RfA is ever going to come to the point where a Bureaucrat has to look into the votes, but by putting it in the neutral section you are clearly saying to the bureaucrat and the other voters that you do not intend to affect the outcome, but want to leave a nice message to the candidate. NoSeptember ^talk 19:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, they seem almost condescending. If you're not going to approve a candidate, don't support him or her. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth to that. But I think people are trying to do it to be nice. It may not be working, and maybe it's a practice to be discouraged, but that's what it looks like to me anyway. and I thought that neutrals do affect the outcome by increasing the total number of votes? not that this one matters, it's a WP:SNOW already ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, neutrals are not counted... I can understand that people are trying to be nice, but "Moral Support. You're not ready yet" is like "Oppose, you'll be a great admin" in some ways, I think... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's people trying to be nice, but yeh should be discouraged for the possibly condescending reason, and also that you really should only say you support if you support them becoming admin. If you want to be nice just don't join in the pile-on in the oppose section and/or drop a friendly note with some advice on the candidates talk page/in the comments section. Neutral votes generally don't affect the outcome, unless it is very close and the closing 'crat checks for neutrals that look like weak supports or opposes. If they were counted for percentage purposes they would effectively be an oppose (which they are not). Petros471 20:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has voted "Oppose, you'll be a great admin ..." but never "moral support", let me explain to you why I have voted "oppose" in such way. In each RfA I have responded, I clearly stated (and so has many other voters) "Oppose, you'll be a great admin in the future." This means that the candidate has the potential to be an excellent RfA candidate, but is not ready at this moment. I have never voted "moral support" because I will not say "yes" when I mean "no". In fact, I see that a "moral support" is the opposite of a "kind oppose"; a "moral support" says yes when you mean no; a "kind oppose" says no when you mean no. I hope this clears things up about the intentions of those of us who vote "kind oppose"; we want to tell our true feelings, yet we are mindful of the future, not just the present. (^'-')^ Covington 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Moral support indeed doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's less troubling than the development to which it is usually responding: absurd numbers of people voting oppose. Put it this way: if your vote will be the 25th oppose, and there are less than ten supports, stop and read meta:Don't_be_a_dick before editing the page. Any point you have to make can be better expressed as a comment, or on the nominee's talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be discouraged. From a newbie point of view, moral support is a pat in the back saying "Continue this way and someday...", while an oppose vote is a kick in the belly shouting "Try 'gain when yer bigger, buddy!". Remember WP:BITE. It is not about the truth, but about how to say it. -- ReyBrujo 22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It could also be seen as, "You are so not going to be an admin that we need to make you feel good because you aren't able to handle it." That's why Christopher Parham's advice is the best one: if it's going to be a pile-on, don't even edit the page. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it's obvious to a user with ten opposes and no supports that they stand no chance. I have a hard time imagine it being taken as an additional insult; certainly, I wouldn't be insulted if it was me. I've only done one or two, and I agree that too many "moral supports" in a single RfA is silly. Once there are more than three, I would recommend that someone not add one. —Cuivi é nen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 00:38 UTC

So that a votation may end 3-30? Instead of suggesting to stop moral support votes, we may consider Christopher Parham's advice and stop voting negatively if the candidate has little chances of becoming an administrator, as courtesy. Use common sense, don't bite newcomers, don't be a dick, etc, etc, etc. A votation ending 3-10 is the same as one ending 3-45 regarding the final result: rejection. But is it necessary to stomp a newbie that much? I would not vote negatively unless I have a reason to vote. Although I agree users with very low edit count or little time in Wikipedia aren't suitable (yet) for adminship, I would not vote negatively; I let that for others. And if I give a moral support, it is because I consider a 30%-70% result a bordeline, but anything worse for a newbie, a plain lack of respect.

Unless you have over 15,000 edits and get a moral support vote, I don't think anyone would get offended by them. -- ReyBrujo 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'll respond here, since I've dumped about 20 of these out since January... Most of the time I'll give this for someone in a boat such as (0/10/0), just to add a support vote and prevent a shutout. That said, the Moral Support pileon at Foxearth's RfA has been interesting. I voted at (1/7/0), with the one support being the nominator; since then, 6 more have been added on. Now, 7 moral supports is overkill, just like 4 nominators. However, I think a couple is okay, and I've always viewed it from the point of view ReyBrujo brings. Most of my moral supports are for editors I don't know (I only vote on RfA's of editors I've seen around) who are either getting piled on or who I see have no chance of passing (like 200 edits or something)... that said, maybe I should add the "suggest withdrawl" after each and every one? We'll see. I plan on continuing strings of moral supports when opposition gets out of hand. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that a Support vote means that you support the candidate's adminship. I have a feeling that were Support/Oppose called Accept Request/Decline Request originally, then we wouldn't have any of this "moral support" business... I do actually feel really strongly that it should be discouraged. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Accept/Decline will most definitely get me to stop, because a large number x opposes is quite awful to see. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally dislike "moral support" votes, as it makes my job more difficult; I have a standard of 4-1 opposition before I will close an RfA early (which is what needs to be done with a nomination that is failing so badly as to need moral support), and "moral support" makes it difficult to achive that standard. I have finally settled on the position that "moral support" votes are not support votes at all (if forced to say "Yes, I believe this individual should be promoted" (the definition of a support vote), I do not believe any of the "moral supporters" would do so), and I ignore them when making a decision to close early. I'd prefer users to trust the bureaucrat staff to close out these nominations in a timely manner, and to avoid making the decision to close early more difficult for the bureaucrat who draws the unpleasant task of doing so, nor for the unfortunate user who has to watch people expressing thier pity. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a more practical method of showing moral support to a candidate would be to leave a message on their talk page instead of the RfA. That way, he or she is more likely to read it (in case they pass it over once noticing that their RfA is doomed), they're not misleading to the candidates/closing admins/other users, the "morally supportive" user could still cast the appropriate vote, and they could pave the way to later discussion and suggestions on how the nominee could improve. Speaking personally, if I were in a failing RfA, I would prefer someone voted according to how they predicted my capabilities as a future admin, and then came to my talk page to drop a few suggestions that I could work with if they thought I needed some work. More productive, still supportive, less misleading. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I only vote Moral Support when I believe that the candidate would be a good admin (i.e. fits my personal criteria), but he already gathered so many oppose votes that he has snowball's chance to get promoted. I don't see any problem with people supporting obviously failing candidates, because it doesn't affect the result in any way. Grue 07:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just vote "support" then? --Tango 13:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about moral support, but I will vote support when people are piling on 50 oppose votes to some guy who I think meant well in nominating himself for admin. I just don't get the need to keep making oppose votes way after it's clear the RfA will never pass... --W.marsh 13:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well on reading Essjay's comment I might stop the practice, but I think we need something to change to help out people who unknowingly nominate themselves when they have no chance. It must be a pretty discouraging experience to have 20 people tell you your faults in rapid succession. --W.marsh 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to remove the RfA, and leave a comment on their talk page. Someone did this to me (helpfully!) but strangely, changed their mind and added it back again! "Moral supports" corrupt the system - support votes are indications that you want the person to be an admin. They should not be used for any other purpose. Stevage 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know how much trouble I'm going to get when I vote moral oppose one of these days... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally find moral supports to be very condescending, though I don't fault anyone who does it to spare someone's feelings. I will vote oppose on RfAs only if it's not a pileon vote, but of course, not everyone does that. To address concerns about RfA candidates' feelings (which I don't think should be a priority anyway, since anyone submitting to the RfA process should be prepared to be criticised anyway), I think a general rule of thumb would suffice, just something we can fit in the back of our minds as common sense without setting any actual rules.

"Avoid voting oppose in an RfA if (# of oppose votes) - (# of support votes) > 10 and (# of total votes) > 20."

Note, this is not a hard-and-fast rule, and therefore doesn't count as the dreaded m:instruction creep. Or, to avoid actual numbers, a better rule of thumb is

"Avoid voting oppose in an RfA if there are a large number of oppose votes and a small number of support votes."

I'm not trying to add rules, just trying to think about what to do for common sense. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean total votes more than 20. I would suggest using a %age for the first condition, since that's what actually matters for the final decision. If %age support is less than 10%, say. All of this can't be more than a personal rule of thumb. Anything even vaguely official would have to say "close the RfA early if..." rather than "don't vote if...", since discourgaging people from voting should be avoided in anything that even looks official. --Tango 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(woops, corrected) I don't know if I want a definite number. To be honest, I'd be much more comfortable with the second version, and even then, this would be a general rule of thumb, guideline, or "common sense" thing that I wouldn't want to have in policy. Oh, and "avoid voting" is less set in stone than "don't vote if", IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose we could use a guideline, but it would be more to remind people of what RfA really is. Support only if you believe that the user should be promoted. Oppose if you really believe that the user shouldn't be promoted. And, which I found rather interesting, to avoid unnecessary pileons, in the spirit of WP:SENSE, WP:BITE and WP:DICK, consider abstaining if you would oppose but the RfA has already reached a point where there are no realistic hopes for a pass. Personally, I find it unnecessary to add adjectives to a "vote" (as in "super support", or "strong oppose"); we can praise or critique the candidate in the rationale, which is what a RfA participation should be: rationale + signature. It makes no difference if the oppose is "strong" or "weak" in terms of having the adjective in bold up there. If we were to follow that, then instead of writing "moral support", a user would write a rationale explaining that (s)he is supporting even though (s)he doesn't believes that the user should be promoted, because (s)he thinks that the candidate should get at least one support in his/her RfA. The closing Bureaucrat would have no difficulties in considering the merit of such a "vote". If the reason given to support is valid, however, such as: "moral support because I believe the user should be promoted but I can see that it's not going to happen in this RfA, but I'll support anyway", then it would likewise be clear that the "vote" is valid and should stand in determining consensus for promotion. Redux 21:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Strong and Weak votes are good. They are closer to what RfA should be - about gather concensus. It shouldn't just be a matter of counting votes. When the vote is within the 5% range of Buro's descretion, I would hope they use the adjectives before votes to help them decide - if most of one side is weak and most of the other side is strong, it's easy to see which should win. (Of course, care is needed when interpretting Strong votes, as they could just be an attempt to make your opinion more important than other people's rather than a genuinely strong support). --Tango 10:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's why I said participation in a RfA should [ideally] consist of rationale + signature. The validity or the weigh carried by a user's support/opposition should be determined by his/her argumentation, not by writing the words "support" or "oppose", with or without adjectives. And then, for the same reasons why it is unnecessary to pile on opposition in a RfA that is already certain to fail, and why we should avoid the "moral support", it seems to me also unnecessary to write in bold "strong oppose": one can write a rationale that conveys the problems perceived with the candidate, in a polite, nonconfrontational manner, and that should be evidence enough to indicate that the opposition is based on serious reasons. This would also help ending the confusion regarding the "vote or not vote" [non-]issue. Redux 15:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Moral support for failed RFA candidates (Archive 68)

There is a proposal over at WP:ESPERANZA to provide moral support to failed RFA candidates. See Wikipedia:Esperanza/Proposals#Moral support program. The key idea is to encourage RFA candidates in feeling that, regardless of the harshness of the criticisms leveled at them during the RFA process, they are worthy Wikipedians who might yet become worthy of adminship and succeed in a future RFA. Your input on the value of starting up such a program is welcome and solicited.

One issue that I see is how such a program should be operated. Should it be run from Esperanza or should it just be made part of the RFA process? I think it would be useful if the person who closed a failed RFA would notify the moral support program so that we could assign someone to review the RFA and provide encouragement and constructive criticism on how to address issues raised in the RFA.

For an example of how this could work, see my comments to User:Qrc2006 at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#admin about his recently failed RFA. Now, admittedly, one would expect candidates to read the comments on their own RFA and research any issues that they don't understand. How could one hope to be an admin if they aren't willing to do this basic homework? On the other hand, if they had done this homework BEFORE applying for adminship, they would have been more likely to have had a successful RFA. One goal of my lengthy response to Qrc2006 was to forestall another doomed RFA in the near future. He actually asked if tomorrow was too soon! --Richard 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Moral support is patronising to say the least. When I see an unsuitable and opposed candidate who is otherwise a decent editor, I leave a positive note in the comments or neutral section, or sometimes on their talk page. Whoops, I thought you meant moral support for failing candidates, rather than failed candidates, that is a good thing! Martin 18:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If operated properly, this could be worthwhile. If it's designed mainly to educate newbie candidates who may not understand the RfA process, it may work well. However, care needs to be taken to not interfere with the RfA process. For example, I strongly disagree that the closer of an RfA should need to inform anyone. It should be the responsibility of whomever is providing this "moral support" to watch over RfA and choose their targets. Also, this moral support should not take the form of actual "moral support" !votes in the RfA. SuperMachine 18:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just to make sure it is crystal clear, this is not in any way intended to interfere with the RFA process by "stacking the vote". This is entirely about lifting the spirits of someone who may not have realized the issues that other editors have with their Wikipedia experience, editing skills or interaction on Talk Pages. It would only kick-in AFTER the RFA had been closed.

--Richard 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard brings up some good points. There obviously has to be a line established between providing assistance to the candidate and vote-stacking. I think the program is a great idea and don't feel that moral support is at all patronising during the RfA process, by the way hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, this sounds completely pointless. It's the equivilent of tampering with historical documents, if you wish to say encouraging words or emontional support place on their talk page where it belongs. Once RfAs are closed, they are closed. Open an editor review, give them a flower, but don't edit pages that are closed for pure historical purposes. It's tainting something when it occured, we don't rewrite history books to show some kind of an opinion, we write about what we know about to the best of our extent. This seems excessive and a tad unneccessary. Yank sox 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with part of what you say, Yanksox, but I think Hoopydink is right too. What is wrong with moral support during and after a RfA? I found my recent one fairly stressful; I hadn't anticipated the effect of not wanting to appear to spam or solicit votes meaning I felt I couldn't as freely chat to people on their talk pages (as is my habit!) during the process. If it had failed, which it nearly did, I am sure I would have appreciated some support. The talk page of the RfA, as well as one's own talk page, seem like appropriate places for this. Spot on that nobody should edit the actual RfA itself on this basis though. --Guinnog 21:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Either you or I have the scope of the project confused, Yanksox. I'm not aware that anyone will be editing a closed RfA (which is silly, I agree). I assume that a lot of this moral support, which is simply an extension of admin coaching, will be done on the candidate's talk page and/or some Esperanza page hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I just believe the RfA talk page should stay on the topic of the RfA. If you want to guide them and support them, do that on Esperenza or their talk. I'm not objecting to this at all, I just think RfA pages should be left alone. Yank sox 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA are divided in three parts: before, during and after. Until recently, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship took care of the "during" part. Then Wikipedia:Editor review opened, taking care of the "before". I believe it is suitable to have someone/something taking care of the "after", especially if the RFA failed. However, the same way Editor review isn't part of the RFA main process itself, I suggest keeping it separately. In fact, if possible the people in charge of the Moral support should not participate in RFA discussions, to prevent the candidate feeling he is being patronized. That is my opinion, though. -- ReyBrujo 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good point Rey. Yanksox, what is your objection to offering moral support on the RfA talk page, after the RfA has closed? I amn't taking a strong view on this, just curious about why you think this would be a bad thing. --Guinnog 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

@ Yanksox: Hes not talking RFA talk page either I dont think. His response to QRC was on the village pump where that uiser asked about his failed RFA. I think its a good idea, sorta like retrospective admin coaching. Good luck with it ;-) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the messages would be posted on the user's talk page... I may be misreading the proposal, but that's what I deduced. I can see Yanksox's point about the RFA remaining strictly for the RFA. And anyway, I personally wouldn't look at the RFA talk page for nice messages if I had failed and was feeling disappointed. Srose (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflice) Eh, it could be my crossnamespace paranoia, but I just don't think it's something that's would be on topic, and not entirely approate for the RfA. Moral Support votes are iffy okay with me, but after it's closed just seems weird placing it on the talk. Seems drastically misplaced. Yank sox 21:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Srose that the RfA talk page is probably an odd place to look for support after an unsuccessful request. I'm sure we'll be able to construct the program so it's done away from RfA itself (unless, of course, participants want to voice their opinions while the RfA is live). The proposal was just recently presented and I'm sure that it will work itself out before it becomes an actual program hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 21:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This should absolutely not be part of the RfA process here. This page is for one purpose only: evaluating candidates for adminship. Anyone may or may not set up some project or have it part of existing projects with similar goals, but it has no place here. —Centrx→talk • 21:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was my suggestion, and I don't want it to distract from what seems basically a good idea. --Guinnog 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to add to What Wikipedia is not "Wikipedia is not Esperanza"? --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to discover any redeeming quality in empty, institutional, boilerplate "goodwill". This suggestion seems needlessly patronising, and in my view its potential to annoy failed candidates greatly outweighs its ability to comfort them. — Dan | talk 23:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, whenever I try to help someone or comfort someone, they're very grateful, and they tend to stay here. (Well, in one case, someone got angry and thought I was agreeing with the person that was disagreeing with them, but we're talking majority.) Esperanza and its programs are very valuable to Wikipedia: it helps to retain members and keep a level of contentment, if you will, between editors. I agree that perhaps we shouldn't go overboard with this, but I think further discussion should take place at the proposal's page (see the beginning of this thread). Srose (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Retaining users isn't necessarily the goal here. As with the userbox fiasco, if we end up attracting and retaining the wrong kind of user then the project may suffer. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and that many mutual support groups exist on the internet, but while we must make every attempt to retain good editors, Wikipedia is probably not one of those places that should have mutual support groups, coffee clubs and whatnot. Those people would be much happier elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Decent people shouldn't live here. They'd be happier somewhere else."? Seriously, though, I don't see the point of bringing this here, as Esperanza is well within its purview to talk to candidates who do not pass RFA, without ever getting any "official sanction". Just do it on their talk page... -- nae'blis 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

People do provide moral support for each other. If an RfA fails, supporters of the user will often express their feelings on their talk pages, try to cheer them up, say things like, "I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. Better luck next time." If we had some set thing, then it would take away from the personal factors involved in this. Michael 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you're right that this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, but if we scare off all of the newcomers with "Oppose, too new" and "Oppose; is this a joke?", eventually there aren't going to be very many editors at all. Still, this is not the venue for this discussion. Srose (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of being nice to people, and of not biting the new users. I am opposed to giving "official sanction" for Esperanza to do anything, and in particular I am opposed to formally integrating sometihng like this into the RfA process or using RfA pages for the purpose. I'm also personally opposed to an official program for comforting people, which seems like the worst kind of instruction creep to me. But of course Experanza members, like everyone else, are free to do whatever they like on users' talk pages, or on Esperanza subpages if they prefer. -- SCZenz 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ESP doesnt really DO anything, though...it seems. I don't see much Wiki-love radiating out from ESP...a lot of other things but not much Wiki love. I was thinking of sending Carnildo a "fair use cookie" had his Rfa been allowed to justly fail, but somehow I doubt that's what ESP has in mind;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza is not an official branch of Wikipedia, and has no more authority to do or not do anything. If they want to do something on their own initiative, fine, but let's not incorporate it into policy or guidelines. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Moral Supports (Archive 77)

I've seen many people put "moral support", on an editor's RFA if it's not doing well, to make them feel better. People like me may think it shouldn't be counted, since the user isn't supporting the editor becoming an admin, but supporting the editor in his boldness and that it will be okay, and not overreact and leave or something. Therefore, though it's minor, moral supports shouldn't be included in the support/oppose/neutral count. Also, though I don't know if people will agree with this, but so the closing b'crat can see the real supports more clearly (if there are a lot), maybe the moral ones should get their own subsection. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That would defeat the point of a moral support. And have you ever seen a case where someone with moral supports had a chance of passing? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your thoughts are understandable, but I can only think of one time when the moral supports even started making a difference, and even then it was still a clear failure (can't remember the name of the RfA). There really is no need to introduce additional work since if an RfA gets moral support votes, then it's doomed to failure by the very fact that it's getting the moral support votes in the first place. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think they should be counted. What is the point otherwise? They should definitely not be put in their own section, as they have never affected the outcome of an RFA, we don't need more than three default sections, and I think it would more of a bad sign (and disheartening to the candidate) to see a "Moral Support" section pop up in the middle of an RFA than to see oppose votes. -- Renesis (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(3xEdit Conflict) Moral supports are usually only present in blizzard RfA's, so this would just be total instruction creep.

Wow, I have the shortest comment and I still get conflicted... --tjstrf talk 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

An RfA needs a minimum of 70 to 75% support to pass. No one casts a "moral support" if the RfA is even close to having a majority. Therefore while TechWiz's point is debatable in theory I don't think it has any practical repercussions one way or the other. And I fear that not counting "moral support" votes would lend to endless debate about whether hesitant support votes, weak support votes, votes with qualifications, etc., should be counted. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that when I have voted "Moral support" it was because I wanted my vote to count, because although I knew the candidate would not pass and that the oppose votes had valid concern, I wanted to point out that there were good things to be said about the candidate's contributions or general suitability for adminship. -- Renesis (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think moral supports should exist at all - they are simply insulting to the candidate. They say, "You're never going to pass, but I'm going to vote support anyway because I think you're stupid enough to feel better because of it." --Tango 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I give out moral supports occasionally. I don't think they are insulting - it's more in reaction to the oft-unnecessary piling on of oppose votes, which are insulting. If someone's RFA is 0-13, do you really need to oppose? A moral support, if nothing else, is an opportunity to mention to the candidate - often they are fairly new - that they need more experience and so on. Proto::► 16:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you don't really need to oppose, but not needing to oppose is not the same thing as needing to support... The way to avoid a pile on is simply not to vote on that RfA. If you want to give some advice that hasn't already been given (which is unlikely), then there is the comments section. --Tango 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, if a candidate is insulted or demoralized by his receiving pile-on opposes, he might surely withdraw his RfA. In the absence of such withdrawal, it is, I think, fair to say that the candidate is interested in receiving more feedback from the community, such that, as Tango says, the only users who ought not perhaps to continue opposing are those who oppose for reasons stated plainly by others; even those users, though, would do well to oppose in order that (a) the candidate might understand that objections registered by some are shared by the community writ large and relate to certain standards that might be understood as common (those, for example, set out in the GRFA) and (b) he might readily appreciate that there may exist some concerns that the community think to be forever unassuageable. As to the normative question, I can't imagine, FWIW, that any individual who should be insulted or even particularly irked by his being overwhelmingly opposed for adminship should be possessed of the good judgment and even temperament we should hope to find in an administrator (or, for that matter, in any editor), but I suppose that that's an issue we need not to reach. Joe 07:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A mention of advice can be given succinctly in a straight-faced oppose vote, while toning down the language used to make such votes. If someone is insulted by a slurry of genuine oppose votes, then obviously that person shouldn't be running for RfA at all. I have to agree with Tango; a moral support vote is quite a condescending measure, especially if there are multiple such votes, as a candidate may see this kind of support as half-hearted. Of course, we don't need a measure saying no moral support votes, or it would be needless instruction creep. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, deja vu. We had this discussion last year. My opinion has not changed: Moral support exists because people don't know when to stop casting oppose "votes". Let's go acronym: WP:BITE, WP:DICK, WP:COMMON, etc. -- ReyBrujo 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps WP:NO BIG DEAL? --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I'm going to compare this to FAC, I guess because both are places where occasionally people just can't be bothered to look around first, and nominate an article/a user that has no chance of succeeding. At FAC, what basically always happens is the hopeless case gets 3-5 oppose votes that spell out the general things wrong with the article (ongoing edit wars, pending cleanup/npov/referencing tags, lack of references, image license problems, etc) and then people stop opposing after a day or two and Raul removes it from the FAC page after the standard 5 days. I rarely see "per X" opposes here, people just oppose to point out yet another problem with the article. No one, to my knowledge, has ever given moral support to a hopeless FAC.

On RfA, basically people will not stop opposing an RfA that's hopeless. I think there are some people who'd jump in to cast the next "per X" oppose even if it were 0/70/0. This is why people cast moral support votes... and honestly I can't blame them for it. I just can't get why people oppose a hopeless RfA well after the standard 5-10 votes to get the message across have been cast. So I dunno, that's why people do moral support votes. Really they shouldn't happen, but people shouldn't just keep opposing hopeless RfAs just for the hell of it either. --W.marsh 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If 'pile-on' votes to oppose are to be discouraged, shouldn't 'pile-on' votes to support be discouraged as well? Many RfAs are obviously going to pass before the vote count reaches 30, so why do we need vote counts of 100/0/0? RfAs are different from AfDs or FAC 'votes'. In RfAs we are selecting people to fill the role of admin/sysop. As vote count does seem to be a prime criterion for being made an admin (unlike in AfDs, where the closing admin should weigh the arguments presented rather than simply counting votes), I think it would be a mistake to discourage either support or oppose votes. -- Donald Albury 14:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The main difference is that a tack-on support is nice but pointless, a tack-on oppose is mean but pointless. That's just how it seems to me. I know people who cast tack-on opposes probably aren't trying to be mean, but it comes off that way, since the oppose really isn't accomplishing anything at all. --W.marsh 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, and supports contribute to a positive sense of community whereas pile on opposes do not. I'm not saying to avoid !voting in even remotely close cases, but snowball cases, the pile on opposes just don't help. If we had less of those, we'd have less moral supports, which I do agree are condescending, even if meant with good intentions. - Taxman ^Talk 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)