Wikipedia talk:Common oppose reasoning

For ease of use by !voters

Sectioning would make it easier for people to find the reason they know is out there but they just can't quite put their finger on. Also it might be funnier. Valereee (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not... opposed I waffle on whether it's funnier is one long list or whether it should be sectioned. Maybe a pseudosectioning (add #:[section title] to the list), which will keep the numbering intact. Or we could manually number. Part of me guessed people might want to *'''Oppose''' per WP:RFANOPE #1 or badger opposes with "that oppose reasoning is nothing more than RFANOPE #1". I'm not sure if that's realistic, or healthy for the community, but more importantly, I doubt the numbering will survive long enough to be able to refer to them by number. I was also thinking about adding a section about "common reasons to badger an oppose" with something like: "That oppose !vote is (check all that apply): [ ] uncivil / [ ] uncalled for / [ ] making a mountain out of a molehill / [ ] sour grapes...", kind of like that picture we have of the same thing for ANI threads (the "[ ] witch hunt, [ ] lynch mob" one). But please feel free to mess up my beautiful work improve it as you see fit. It's probably already too long to remain as just one long list. (Thanks to everyone for the additions BTW!) Levivich (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking it has to be funny section heads. It's not good if it's not funny. But there's much humor here, we ought to be able to find it. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

We better call upstairs. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. He'll just take over. Probably images will be added. Valereee (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Just pblock him if you don't like his ideas. Levivich (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll be a bit overburdened IRL for couple of weeks, but how about a tic-tac-toe, bingo, or Chinese restaurant menu format (One from Column A, Two from Column B)? Or we could ask ChatGPT for advice. EEng 01:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I do like the "incorrect" pattern of headers though, you're right, that's an opportunity for more haha. I wonder if it should be "wrong" or "insufficient"... I kind of like the idea of suggesting that the standard is almost met, like you're just shy of having the right timing, the right noms, etc. Also, somewhere we should add something about how each of these should be preceded with "Regretfully," and followed by "try again in six months." Levivich (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be funnier if every heading were slightly different...incorrect, insufficient, inappropriate. Might not be able to keep that up, though. Valereee (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea and I think there are plenty of synonyms available. I just asked ChatGPT to list 20 and it asked me to prove I'm human. The nerve! Levivich (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried to write an article with ChatGPT the other day. Clearly I was doing something wrong because although I told it I needed citations, it did not provide them. Valereee (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

As much as I'd be amused at the idea of "common reasons to badger an oppose", I'm more interested in the fact that every oppose discussion has a specific pattern of events that follows: "Oppose vote -> Vote is challenged -> Opposer doubles down/stands their ground -> Opposer is badgered further -> A bystander says the badgering is disruptive -> A brilliant editor above the fray says that both the vote and badgering are disruptive, and decries the toxicity of RFA and of Wikipedia -> A WT:RFA thread is started about the whole issue". Never fails. Every time.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That might make for a promising flowchart in a section called "Common oppose outcomes". Levivich (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have plagiarized you and started a section. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Perfect! Looks great. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)