Wikipedia:Common oppose reasoning

This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community.

Shortcut WP:RFANOPEWP:RFANOPE

This page in a nutshell: You should only oppose an RFA for good reason. Here are some good reasons to choose from.

In requests for adminship (RFA), it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the "!vote" that is important, especially when opposing a nomination. This essay strives to provide a comprehensive overview of such reasoning, similar to Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.

1. Did not wait long enough before launching an RFA ("not now")
2. Waited too long to launch an RFA

1. Self-nomination
2. Single nominator
3. No admins as nominators
4. Too many nominators ("overkill")

1. Addressed an oppose
2. Failed to address oppose reasons
3. Do not like their answers to one or more RFA questions
4. Did not answer one or more RFA questions

1. Not familiar enough with policies and guidelines ("lacks clue")
2. Too familiar with policies and guidelines, suggesting undisclosed prior account ("too much clue")
3. Disagree with their interpretation of policies and guidelines

1. Too eager for the tools (displayed {{admin hopeful 2}}) (May be a complicating factor with "Too many nominators")
2. No interest in the tools (did not display {{admin hopeful 2}})
3. No need for the tools

1. Had too many conflicts
2. Avoids conflict
3. Lacks experience resolving conflicts
4. Hangs around noticeboards too much
5. Not enough noticeboard participation

1. Made a mistake ever
2. Made too many mistakes
3. Made a mistake too recently
4. Made a mistake that was not recent, but it was significant
5. Made a mistake that was not recent or significant, but did not apologize for it
6. Made a mistake and apologized for it, but not convincingly
7. Has never apparently made a mistake, so clearly is too risk-averse
8. Has never apparently made a mistake, so clearly has been trying to avoid making mistakes in order to RfA
9. Too much incivility (insufficient "temperament")
10. Gets stressed out regularly

1. Indifferent to others' incivility
2. Too much civility policing
3. Likely to sanction too often
4. Likely not to sanction often enough

1. Too few edits ("inexperienced")
2. Too many edits ("overuse of automated tools")
3. WP:EPD too low ("does not edit regularly")
4. WP:EPD too high ("bot-like editing")
5. Not enough content work, too much "hanging out in the back room" (mainspace % too low)
6. Too focused on content, not enough back-room experience (mainspace % too high)

1. Not enough experience in an area they plan to work in (not "ready")
2. Not enough experience in an area they do not plan to work in (not "well rounded")
3. Does not use edit summaries
4. Does not use edit summaries enough
5. Wrote one or more bad edit summaries
6. Reverts vandalism without posting template warnings
7. Posts too many template warnings, not enough non-template messages
8. Spends too much time socializing (user talk/talk % too high) ie: "not enough serious work"
9. Spends too little time socializing ie: "insufficient exposure to maintenance areas and project norms"
10. !Votes "keep" too often at XfD (inclusionist)
11. !Votes "delete" too often at XfD (deletionist)
12. Does not communicate enough (user talk/talk % too low)
13. Rehashing old disputes
14. Failing to disclose old disputes
15. Open to recall ("spineless")
16. Open to recall ("pandering")
17. Not open to recall ("refuses to be held accountable")
18. Voter does not like their username
19. Voter does not like RFA
20. Voter does not like some other unrelated area or policy on Wikipedia
21. Currently winning RfA by a unanimous margin ("nobody's perfect")

Some of these reasons may also be used outside of RFA, such as at unblock requests, permissions requests, ban appeals, and, occasionally, in content disputes.

The following is the common outcome of oppose !votes at RFA:

1. The oppose !vote is made
2. The oppose !vote is challenged
3. The oppose !voter doubles down/stands their ground
4. The oppose !voter is badgered further by one or more editors
5. One or more bystanders say the badgering is disruptive
6. A brilliant editor above the fray says that both the vote and badgering are disruptive, and decries the toxicity of RFA and of Wikipedia
7. The post-oppose discussion is moved to talk
8. A thread is started at WT:RFA to discuss reforms