 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This essay is for established editors who are hesitant to go through the RfA process. If you are reading this, you are considering either accepting a nomination for RfA or submitting a self-nom. Whatever the case, you have reservations about the RfA process. Perhaps you feel it's broken, perhaps you are worried about an edit in your past, or perhaps you do not feel you can handle the drama. If that is the case, please read below and give it a good honest nights rest to consider. Please note that this essay is for well established users. If there is any chance you could be considered a new editor, this isn't the essay for you.
Oppose !Votes edit
It is not neccessary to reply to each and every oppose. In fact, I would recommend against it. If you are a good candidate, your supporters will back you up. Dubious oppose !votes that can easily be criticised are the least of your worries. Any established editor can discern the difference between a rational oppose and an irrational oppose. Give Wikipedians the benefit of the doubt that when they read these rationales that they will recognize them for what they are.
For well thought out oppose rationale, there is no need to attack it. Give other editors a chance to come to your defense. If you are wrong and you've learned your lesson, a short explanation that you understand may be appropraite. Avoid replying to others who "per X" or repeat the same rationale. If you've addressed it once, you've addressed it.
Attitude edit
Keep a positive, open, and friendly attitude.