Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 104

message: I have an idea: let's replace If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Foo before commenting. with If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review wannabe_kate report before commenting. Because that's what a lot of people are doing anyway. 
And going with what seems to be the trend at RfAs now, I request a bot maker to make a new edit counting bot that has the following extra metrics in addition to the Wannabe Kate stuff:
* Make a pie chart depicting the ratio of edits in each namespace.
* Calculate the following ratios
*** Article to article talk edits
*** AIV and CSD to user warnings
*** Wikipedia space to mainspace
*** Wikipedia space to wikipedia talk
*** [insert any other absurdity anyone else can manage to come up with]
* Also if the bot can somehow calculate the number of barnstars that the candidate got, that would just be great. 
Such a bot should make the job of the edit counters a lot easier. They don't even have to know how to use a calculator. - TwoOars (Rev) 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, no, we're supposed to review the candidate by the quality of their contributions, not just by their edit count (although that can be a rough indicator of experience). Melsaran (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... WP:SARCASM does say that sarcasm is a bad idea. But I thought I made it rather obvious by linking to that page.. oh well. - TwoOars (Rev) 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is really up to the individuals how they conduct research on an applicant. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, no I did not notice it was sarcasm. The sad fact is the most RfA change proposals are just a ridiculous and often sincere. hehe ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that adminship has become a reward for lots of vandal fighting, participating in Wikipedia space and mainspace editing. 86.138.5.224 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That by itself isn't a problem. It's just that "lots" should be measured partly by quality of edits which are made, not just sheer numbers. Having 10,000 edits doesn't matter if they are all bad (although having 5 incredibly good edits doesn't matter if you don't have more either). -Amarkov moo! 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: TwoOars: heh. I've actually thought of doing just that on certain RFA debates (which I won't mention to protect... whomever). GracenotesT § 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the ratio of talk to article edits tell you anything useful whatsoever? Things like vandal fighting will throw that ratio way off, but I can't even tell what it would be thrown off of. What is a "good" ratio, and why? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As a more serious proposal (except I probably do not seriously have the time to make it happen), I'd like there to be a bot that helps people review contributions as much as Wannabe Kate helps people vote by numbers. It could pick a sample of the admin's most recent 1000 edits or 3 months of editing (whichever is more), and bias the sample towards edits that seem interesting, by looking for uncommon words (not "rv", "cleanup", etc.) in edit summaries, large changes, pages where the candidate frequently edits (the one useful thing wKate tells you), and so on. Then, responsible RfA voters could pick some of those edits and review them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, something like that would be helpful.  --Rocksanddirt 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am afraid that wouldn't help. Once someone makes such a bot, which gives the illusion of a more in depth analysis, more people would just analyze the bot-presented results more thoroughly rather than "pick[ing] some of those edits and review[ing] them" as rspeer suggests. More importantly, it is difficult to find emotional outbursts, mischaracterization of edits as vandalism, evidence of poor judgment etc. with such a bot-produced analysis. Besides, never trust a bot to do a human's job. - TwoOars (Rev) 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a overly good idea. The number of edits does not really matter when voting for a nominee. We need to look more at the quality than the quantity. I feel as if this change encourages users to just look at the quantity. Sorry.--SJP 05:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SARCASM|Yet another RfA reform proposal]] 

message: In light of events on some recent RFA's, see WP:VPP#Canvassing on RfX's and similar pages.
FT2 (Talk | email) 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  No.  NO!  You want to block users for canvassing!  Isn't failing the RfA enough? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FT2 is not talking so much about the RfA candidates themselves canvassing, but others canvassing for or against him (or just canvassing, period). See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Number 57 where this is alleged to be an issue. (The same thing happened during my second RfA to undesirable effects.) Canvassing seems to always hurt the candidate no matter how it is done, but it seems rather unfair for him or her to suffer because of someone else's actions. -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll lighten that to just the one "no."  Threatening a block for an action that doesn't damage the project (well, not the same way as consistent vandalism) just isn't on.  Surely there could be some other solution. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do we seriously need to have a rule for everything? Something happened twice in two months, that's... really not that spectacular. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not block for canvassing, it's just a silly guideline that is abused all too often. Majorly (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree here, with Majorly. A block for canvassing is really quite ridiculous as far as I am concerned. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Blocks are to prevent harm to Wikipedia, not to be punative to editors. The rights and wrongs of canvassing are subject to debate (and have been) but a block is not the way to proceede at all. Pedro |  Chat   08:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While a block would obviously be seen as punitive, the type of canvassing seen on User:Number 57's RfA is quite blatantly disruptive and I would say it is capable of causing harm, such as if that canvassing should result in a good candidate's RfA failing merely because of Oppose !votes from people who perceive the candidate as having an opposite POV to themselves.  In this case, at least one of the oppose !votes cites a mass category move as being POV when to me, an uninvolved editor, it looks to be exactly the opposite.  So if we don't block for disruptive behaviour, I am slightly at a loss as to how we discourage it. ELIMINATORJR 10:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I still think a block is unwarranted in this situation. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I was just fishing for any alternatives that people may be able to provide. ELIMINATORJR 10:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there are any alternatives, I would be very glad to hear them. They might prove to be a good answer. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No need to make a rule about these things. This was undoubtedly bad form but let's get real: we're talking about two messages left on talk pages, not mass canvassing. This is a routine occurrence on IRC and likely happens through email anyways. Sure, we all wish people would avoid campaigning for/against candidates but unless this is done on a large scale we shouldn't waste time policing the whole thing. Pascal.Tesson 11:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. It is likely unstoppable; off-wiki influences have effects, and this wasn't a major issue. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I had a rather long wiki break. Has the policy on canvassing changed in the last several months? I thought it was an absolute not to do thing. The policy merely warns that it can lead to disruption. I've over 12,000 edits. No one ever said my edits looked like WP:POINT before Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Number 57.  Be that as it may, I don't think we need more rules and I don't think it shoild be a blockable action. The 'crats know how to weight a !vote that follows canvassing/informing/whatever. I think it's probably safe to leave it to them.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly it's rather rich of User:DLand to say that contanting other editors who have a certain point of view is WP:POINT when that's exactly what he's already done. ELIMINATORJR 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not go there.  I agree with Walton, also, about the strictness of the rules.  The biggest issue, though, is not pile on opposition because someone else canvassed.  It's that the candidate will get EVEN MORE pile-ons if they try to run again (soon), in a non-canvassing RfA.  All the "oppose, you ran 1 month ago, issues not addressed" crap has to stop when an RfA failed for something like this. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Canvassing is not a big deal, it is common, and it is silly to block someone for canvassing.--SJP 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not saying that it is okay to break though:)--SJP 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canvassing on RfX's and similar pages 

message: At the moment, there are basically two possible outcomes from an RfA: promotion, or fail (as a "consensus not reached" defaults to failure). I propose that we need a third outcome: Fail Encourage. Basically, it would work like this:
*Pass - You have been promoted to adminship.
*Fail Encourage - You have not been promoted, as the community has determined that you are not yet ready for adminship. However, you are encouraged to apply again in the future.
*Fail - You are unsuited to be an administrator and are not encouraged to apply again.
This would involve quite a significant change to the existing system. The bureaucrats would probably have to look at the discussion and interpret whether the community consensus was that the candidate was not quite ready for adminship, or whether the consensus was that the candidate should never be an administrator. As such, this should keep the "discussion not vote" people happy, as it would involve the bureaucrats interpreting consensus rather than counting votes. At the same time, it would have the benefit of not hurting or offending good editors who are not quite experienced enough to become admins; their nominations could be closed as Fail Encourage, with a recommendation to apply again in a few months. In contrast, those who are opposed because of gross incivility, or because they can't be trusted with the tools, would receive a straightforward Fail. WaltonOne 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sound like the option that's being added is "Fail". Right now, there's no outcome where a candidate is explicitly told they shouldn't apply again. Perhaps some candidate may feel they're being discouraged from applying again, but I don't think it would be a great idea to actually make an "official" judgement. Chaz Beckett 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a bad idea, if you don't pass RfA you you don't pass. It's way too bureaucratic to start putting people that don't pass in different sections, and quite frankly, we don't need it. I see no good point to doing this, the only thing it will achieve is making the snowballed candidates feeling even worse. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, if a candidate is serious and dedicated enough, they should know whether they're close or not.  The Rambling Man 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Candidates regularly come back to get adminship after a bad early RFA. There are legions of examples listed at WP:RFAF, of which this is a good one.--Chaser - T 18:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is also improper to suggest that a User will never be able to become an admin. After enough time almost any transgression can be forgiven. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK forget it then. I could defend my suggestion, but there's no point, since it's clearly not going to gain this mystical, vague quality known around here as "consensus". All comments struck accordingly. WaltonOne 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, not sure but don't let this particular version of 'consensus' get you down.  I personally believe that potential admins probably ought to understand what's expected and your proposed three-tier pass/fail won't help.  Most, if not all, RFA's should be conducted with constructive criticism so the marginal result should be unnecessary.  The Rambling Man 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I archive this thread? It's probably pointless. WaltonOne 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Walton, this thread has been up for only 3 hours. You may get some different feedback. I suppose it's up to you.-- Flyguy649 talk contribs 20:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Flyguy: I've responding to your first comment above. If, in theory, Willy on Wheels' ban was lifted (I'm just using a rather infamous user purely as example, and because he apparently wished to comeback, said so an AN/I post), and you knew he was contributing constructively for 10 months to the project, and he went up for adminship, would you support him? I'd still have doubts. Maxim(talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think that your suggested change is needed. You either fail or pass.--SJP 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fail Encourage

message: Yes, I'm aware that someone will soon tell me I write too many essays, and waste too much time and space advertising them on talk pages. (Honestly, I do write articles too - check my contribs.) But I've written another essay in my userspace, User:Walton One/Constitution of Wikipedia. It's not intended to change anything, I'd just be interested to get people's feedback (on the talk page of the essay). WaltonOne 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise this is remarkably similar to Juche? Workers, all glory to the Dear Leader Comrade Jimbo! —  iridescent (talk to me!) 20:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought of that - I think it's really more similar to a constitutional monarchy, as I said in the essay. The only obvious similarity with the DPRK is that Jimbo is recognised as Wikipedia's "leader" despite not holding any de jure official position. But I wouldn't compare Jimbo to Kim Jong-Il; for a start, Jimbo hasn't yet commissioned any large statues of himself (AFAIK). :-) WaltonOne 20:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit about Jimbo not exercising his power to ban recently isn't quite right... he banned Fourdee  just a couple of weeks ago. Pinball22 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And quite right he was too. ELIMINATORJR 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I've updated the essay to reflect this. It's interesting to me that the section about Jimbo's political role, which I put in as an afterthought, is the section that's attracted the most attention. WaltonOne 08:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it just happens to have made people think about Jimbo's unusual monarchical role. :)  And Eliminator, I agree, just wanted Walton to change that, if it wasn't clear. :) Pinball22 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think General Secretary of the Wikipedia Party sums up Jimbo's role better, though - the difference between "Ignore All Rules" and "Permanent Revolution" is just a matter of phrasing. (We even have our own Leon Trotsky in the form of Larry Sanger.) That comparison between the theory (as opposed to the practice) of Juche & Wikimedia is serious, btw - substitute "WikiProjects" for "delegates selected from each public organisation" and you've pretty much described the Congress of Soviets —  iridescent (talk to me!) 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly true. That would also fit with Wikipedia's widespread cultural resistance to the ideas of voting and democracy. Communist dictatorships generally claim to exercise power on behalf of their citizens (as with democratic centralism); likewise, "consensus" around here too often tends to mean what the people in power want it to mean. WaltonOne 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another essay from me

message: Hey the folks. I'm a new admin, and was wondering if there is some sort of Admin Buddy system? --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 00:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be your buddy! Can I act like the Skipper and you be Gilligan? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really.  You just have to watch other admins and then slowly dip your toes in on things.  If you make a mistake, somebody will smack you on the back of your head fairly quickly. =)  If you have questions, you can ask on WP:AN or WP:ANI. -- Gogo Dodo 00:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're looking for a place to test out the delete ability, swing by Main Page. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a wonderful way to end up like User:Wonderfool and his admin sock User:Robdurbar. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 02:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, Bibliomaniac15. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 13:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and thanks for the answers, people. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:New admin school.  Oh, and what EVula said (Test the block button on this guy ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, not speedily deleting stuff - that gets you same new "friends" very effectively, too. Admins are so lucky - so many people wanting to talk to them, whatever they do. :) --Tango 12:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Admin Buddy 

message: Okay, this is one of the more minor issues about RfA, but the "RfA is not a vote" mantra is really grating on me. When you give your opinion on a candidate in the hope of making their success more or less likely, you're voting. Yes, you're also discussing at the same time, but the voting is quite key to the way RfA was set up. Remember the experimental RfA formats that were all discussion and no voting? People hated those.
I believe what people mean when they say "RfA is not a vote" is that "RfA is not decided by a numerical majority or supermajority". That is, of course, not a necessary feature of voting. Look at U.S. presidential elections: those, too, are not decided by pure numbers, but by electors who fulfill a role similar to our bureaucrats (though electors' decisions may be bound by state laws or party loyalty). If you want to be really precise about it, in the U.S. presidential election you vote for which electors get to do the electing, and on RfA you vote for which set of reasonable outcomes the bureaucrat should choose from.
Treating "vote" like a bad word means we lose a very useful word to describe what we're doing. And then, to fill that void, from the land of Newspeak comes the term "!vote". (I pronounce it "unvote".) What does "!vote" mean? It means "something that for all purposes is a vote, but I can't call it that, so hey look it has an exclamation point before it and that makes it totally different".
The other thing "RfA is not a vote" could mean is "RfA ought not to be a vote", but few people actually want a situation that is entirely based on bureaucrat discretion and not voting.
Sorry for the snarkiness, and again, this is a pretty minor issue that probably isn't having any practical effect on RfA right now. But I see discussions sometimes getting bogged down in avoiding the taboo word "vote". It's a useful description of a mechanism involved in RfA. There's no need for the taboo. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  09:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on the !vote point. !vote looks so stupid. GizzaDiscuss © 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ive given this great thought as well. Of course I also think about beer, Sunny Lane and soap. However, I'm comfortable when I use 'vote.' It is, in fact, a vote. Just because the vote is backed by sentiment, doesn't alleviate it from being a vote. Consensus, is determined by a series of votes, and '!' is simply using semantics. I'd rather, as with AfD, users adhere to the premise that some votes are stronger than others based on merits of the vote. '!vote' is simply tapdancing. Dood, when I participate in RfA, or AfD, I give my vote, and I am very comfortable doing so. '*uck' is still 'fuck' no matter how it's hidden. the_undertow talk 09:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: !vote (ugh) is one of my pet peeves here. Majorly (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's mostly semantics... I think some people have the idea that if no one is allowed to call RFA a vote, then whatever they think is so bad about RFA being a vote won't be a problem anymore. But that's silly, a rose by any other name... you know? Just banning politically incorrect language doesn't really solve anything. A vote doesn't have to be a strict yae/nae affair, in fact, it usually isn't in situations where discussion is allowed. If you have a vote at a meeting in your office, 11 out of 12 people might vote yes to something, but if the 12th guy says "Oh, we don't actually have any funds for that..." then he probably gets his way, even if his side didn't win the "vote". Back to RFA, this thread seems to indicate the craze for purging the word "vote" from RFA might actually be dying down... that's a good thing, it just led to a lot of confusion and elitism, if you ask me. --W.marsh 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To reply to LaraLove, real blatant troll votes should be struck by community consensus (as happened with User:Neil Larson). However, everyone else's vote should be treated equally. If members of the Math project feel that members of the GA project are unsuitable to be admins, they're entitled to make that judgment, provided they do so in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. The 'crats should not "weigh up the arguments"; each individual voter should weigh up the arguments and come to their own conclusion on whether to Support or Oppose. WaltonOne 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If all votes (with the exception of "real blatant troll"s) are counted equally, then it is a vote. And wrong, in my opinion. The validity of an oppose should be considered. If one group rallied to oppose a candidate solely based on their distaste for the project in which the candidate contributed, that's messed up. LaraLove 22:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with rspeer; I too despise the "not a vote" dogma. Voting is not an inherently bad concept. Yes, we should discuss the merits of RfA candidates, and we should challenge each other's opinions. However, when it comes down to it, it is the community that should make a decision, not the bureaucrats. Each individual voter should weigh up the arguments and decide whether to Support or Oppose. Different users have different views about what makes a good admin, and, provided they're acting in good faith, they should be able to cast a vote and to have it count. Yes, bureaucrats are trusted members of the community, but they shouldn't be invested with supreme wiki-political power; it should be the community as a whole, not the bureaucrats, that makes decisions. (On the rare occasions when someone votes in bad faith in order to disrupt the process (as with User:Neil Larson) there is sometimes a valid case for their votes to be struck, but this should be done by community consensus.) WaltonOne 13:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So, we've just created an entire thread to abolish the use of the word "!vote"?  --Agüeybaná 13:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, no. I've participated in this thread to voice my frustration at many Wikipedians' intransigent resistance to the idea of voting, as per my comments above. The term "!vote" is useful for XfDs, because those aren't votes and shouldn't be treated as such. But RfA is a vote, and should continue to be a vote, as per my comments above. WaltonOne 14:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agüeybaná, I wish someone would get that word banned, it's hideous and wrong. Write vote or comment, !vote is just ridiculous. Majorly (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is ridiculous. What are we going to, ban every user that uses the word? --Agüeybaná 14:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is not just about the word "!vote". I use the word myself in relation to XfDs; in an XfD, people make a formal recommendation that is analogous to a vote, but is not treated as such. However, RfA is a vote; yes, it's also a discussion, but the final decision on an RfA is (and should be) made by numerical voting, as I've outlined more fully above. WaltonOne 14:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Er no, just discourage the use of the word :) Majorly (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. --Agüeybaná 14:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Er, it is a vote but many don't want to call it a vote. Shades of doublethink, and a rose isn't a rose....Rlevse 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: !rose --Deskana (talky) 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What RFA, etc really is is a place where users pretend they're voting but the closer, bcat's in the case of RFA, get to do whatever they want.Sumoeagle179 15:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really not what happens here. --Deskana (talky) 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: RfA is fundamentally different from XfD. In an XfD, although the general outcome should be the majority opinion, there are times when a compromise (e.g. a merge and redirect) is a better option. Also, XfD comments need to be backed up with coherent arguments, and the outcome needs to be in line with policy; this is because there are a lot of policies and guidelines about deletions. As such, the closing admin has to weigh up the arguments and balance them against policy. In contrast, there is no policy or guideline about "what makes a good admin", and there never will be. In an RfA, each voter has their own criteria for assessing a candidate; each voter should weigh up the arguments and decide for themselves whether to Support or Oppose. Bureaucrat discretion should therefore not be needed on the vast majority of RfAs; it should be the community's decision. In contrast, all XfD outcomes have to be consistent with deletion policies, regardless of numbers. WaltonOne 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If anything comes of this, I would hope that less editors will bite users about their terminology. During RfA's I have seen people use 'vote' as part of their responses, and then oppose '!votes' get piled on because 'candidate feels XfD is a vote.' All too often I see editors, who omit the omnipotent '!' get immediately shot down, regardless of the arena, with a holier than thou 'X is not a vote.' It's ridiculous. Thanks for your time and your continued support in the future. I'm going to the article page to emote an assertion about prospective candidates in a particular chronological order with no apparent numerical value. the_undertow talk 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, have you considered maybe working forming a consensus instead? Just an idea. ^^;;  --Kim Bruning 03:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using consensus works well when few people collaborate on something with many possible outcomes. For example, we use consensus to write articles. When many people make a decision with just two options, consensus is very difficult to achieve and measure (except in cases where strong majorities exist). As we need a system with a higher admin output, we need a system that is simple to use. Voting is easy no matter how many people participate. Consensus is easy if the discussion is held among a cabal of electors. Both methods have strong opposition. The current system where people campaign ("comment") and vote ("!vote") at the same time and votes are public does somewhat encourage sheep behaviour more than pure voting. If we make RfA more like a vote, perhaps we can eliminate some of the sheep behaviour (true votes in the real world are often secret and do not allow you to see how the current standings are). Voting is not evil, it is a tool, just like consensus is not a magic answer, but a tool that we use to collaboratively edit articles and write guidelines. If voting is the best tool for adminship that we have, we should use it. Kusma (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not a vote" 

message: Seriously, I'm chilling with a beer and looking at this type of thing and wondering if it is really still okay for a user to oppose. WP:OWN should apply to candidates as well. Meaning, just because it's 'yer boy' up for admin, it's not necessary to start severing heads of the opposers. A candidate will succeed based on merit, not on attacks of dissenters. We have to give people room to breathe, and I have this sinking feeling that being the first oppose on an otherwise 'heading for success' RfA has got to be a great source of anxiety for the editor. It's really intimidating and even if the oppose votes are arbitrary, let them be heard and get over it. My little diatribe is not directed at any one editor in particular, but is really based on a pattern that I find alarming. Carry on. the_undertow talk 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RfBs have failed for this, so apparently we recognise the problem.  In any case, I'd like to thing that legitimate (more then that one) opposition wouldn't be treated like that. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing... H2O 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: DM, I have a problem with the 'legitimate' part. The opposers obviously feel their opinion is legit, so why shouldn't we? Honestly, if I oppose a candidate because I don't agree with their ideologies, isn't that legitimate? It's not XfD, where we are using very specific criteria. Users may be 'discouraged' from using 'edit count' as an oppose, but they in no way should be prevented, nor badgered for using it. Hell, oppose on the grounds that you don't like my tattoos. I won't have a problem with that, and it's a valid concern. We can't start telling people that their concerns are not legit. It's like saying 'You don't have a right to be angry.' Everyone has a right to feel whatever they want, and if you have a concern, whatever it is, I would consider it legitimate because who am I to tell you that your concerns are not valid? the_undertow talk 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether a concern is valid is one thing, but there's then the question of whether a concern is relevant; then there's also a matter of whether the concern is clear; also, there's the matter of whether the concern is factually correct. It is one thing to ask a user to expand on his opposition (which may cause other users to oppose), or to clarify a point, and it is a different thing to tell a user that his concern is invalid. You are free to tell a user that his concern is wrong, if you can back it up with evidence, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question is, is it still okay to ask questions? I find the responses to the opposes perfectly reasonable, and the response to an opposer in one of the examples given is "Let me begin by saying that I respect your decision." If we're squelching discussion so much that that's considered unacceptable, that would be the real problem. Plus, I think opposition needs to get more scrutiny anyway, since it counts for more. Grandmasterka 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If we actually want candidates to succeed or fail on merit, then I think we have to be vigilant about preventing "concerns" that are arbitrary or insignificant from derailing candidacies. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have enough faith to believe that editors can recognize insignificance without 'vigilance.' the_undertow talk 00:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely we can't, since "the opposers obviously feel their opinion is legit, so why shouldn't we?" Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Undertow, I know you specifically said you're not targeting a particular editor but since I seem to be the example you use, let me still explain why I commented on that oppose. Iridescent is not "my boy" and Titoxf put it fairly well: it's about keeping RfA on topic. From time to time someone makes the point that admin candidates should be able to put up with all the crap they get on RfA because that's what they'll get as admins, as if routine incivility on RfA was a good thing for training purposes. Well, sorry but I don't buy that. Yes RfA has a tradition of being petty and merciless but that's not how we want it to be and it certainly was never intended to be like that. That opposition I lashed out against was "user advocates newspeak" and was the result of an innocuous comment Iridescent had made about !votes and votes. This is completely counter-productive: it's unfair, it has barely any relevance to RfA, it blows one quote out of proportion, it's bordering on incivility and it's precisely the kind of nonsense that poisons the RfA atmosphere. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I chose this point in time to bring up my concerns, and I didn't intend to address you personally, but the subject as a whole. Specific to this RfA, all I see is an opposer who is opposing on the grounds that he does not agree with the candidates wiki-views. I don't see anything wrong with that - at least he/she is being honest. You referred to the opposer as bullying and I certainly think that is being hyper-sensitive. If anyone was bullied, I feel it was the oppose vote. I agree that Iridescent's comment was certainly innocuous and not a reason that I would oppose, but that's me. I just don't see how an oppose vote is ever 'off-topic.' I mean, let's be honest, the topic is whether or not to hand out the tools. One user felt that they should not be handed out. Trying to explain to opposers that they need to stick to certain 'relevant' criteria defeats the idea of an open forum. Anyway, if my using this isolated incident offended you, you have my apologies. I did not intend to single you out and the 'my boy' was a rider on my diatribe that was not related to this RfA whatsoever. It was simply something I had witnessed several times, and I failed to provide an instance, and this was not one. the_undertow talk 04:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is striking their vote.  This is an open forum.  And that means that people can oppose or support for various reasons and others are able to comment on them.-Chunky Rice 04:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose my use of "bullying" here might be a bit hard to justify. What I was trying to point out that the editor had the choice of participating in the discussion he cited, engaging Iridescent to discuss his concerns or perhaps make his point by opposing the RfA and make sure to oppose anynobody that doesn't agree with all his views. He chose the latter and I do think he deserves a good ol' trout for that one. Pascal.Tesson 04:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, I'm certainly not Pascal.Tesson's boy — while he might be challenging one of the opposes to me, he's not actually supporting me. (Looking at the current open RFAs, it looks like of the 16 currently active, 6 or 7 are headed for a fail as things stand - including some very well-respected editors - so people evidently are still willing to oppose.) —  iridescent (talk to me!) 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Undertow, I think the reason people don't feel the need to explain supports as much is because if you're supporting, it's pretty obvious why: you haven't found any problems with the candidate, they meet all your standards.  I guess it could be blind faith, but it's not necessarily.  Whereas if you're opposing, there's a bunch of different reasons why you could be, so you do need to explain.   delldot talk 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To be rather blunt: people have just as much right to give bullshit reasons to oppose an RfA as people do to react to bullshit reasons. I have faith in the community's ability to discern what is and isn't valid in a non-creepy way (no set definition, just calling it out when it is seen and letting it stand when it's actually valid). Of course, it also depends on the phrasing of the opposing party; if someone said "This person harasses people" with no diffs to back it up, it's treated much less seriously as someone that says the same thing and provides a dozen diffs of the candidate biting people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, and the need to combat opposes on such lopsided RFAs is one I don't understand.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FAnonymous_Dissident_2&diff=154809393&oldid=154808724 is transparently a joke oppose on a completely one-sided RFA - why is that necessary? (and within five minutes!).  On a closer RFA, discussing the reasons for opposes is sensible (I was ~88%, and people responded to the silly opposes on my behalf, and I responded to the oppose that accused me of doing things I didn't do - fine, that was close enough that the issues really needed to be discussed.  I guess people just see it as a stain that they only succeeded 100/1/1 or something.  WilyD 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're reading too much into it.  Many people just prefer to challenge what they consider bad reasoning.  I don't see anything wrong with it, provided it doesn't become disruptive or uncivil.  I think anyone putting forth an opinion should be prepared to defend/explain it. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EVula put it well. If you have the right to call into question a support, the same right should be given to call into question a pointless oppose. If you feel strongly the way you do, stand up for your opinion. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it still okay to oppose?