134.119.32.35 (talk) |
|||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
*'''Oppose''' -- RfA's are supposed to be a good community discussion, [[WP:VOTE|not a vote]]. This makes users stand behind their opinions and can give good constructive criticism to the candidate. '''[[User:EoRdE6|EoRdE6]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:EoRdE6|Come Talk to Me!]])</small></sup> 04:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' -- RfA's are supposed to be a good community discussion, [[WP:VOTE|not a vote]]. This makes users stand behind their opinions and can give good constructive criticism to the candidate. '''[[User:EoRdE6|EoRdE6]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:EoRdE6|Come Talk to Me!]])</small></sup> 04:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' per previous opposers, and also because processes like this one should be transparent. This transparency does act to discourage socking in general.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 04:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' per previous opposers, and also because processes like this one should be transparent. This transparency does act to discourage socking in general.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 04:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
* '''support''' rfa's already a popularity contest, might as well make it official [[Special:Contributions/134.119.32.35|134.119.32.35]] ([[User talk:134.119.32.35|talk]]) 09:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Vote discussions== |
==Vote discussions== |
||
Line 192: | Line 193: | ||
If copy and pasted questions, why not copy and pasted answers? It took very little effort to ask a "canned question", and the questioner ought not to expect much more from the candidate. '''[[User talk:Konveyor Belt|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;"><span style="color:#00008B;">Konveyor</span></span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;"><span style="color:#B7410E;">Belt</span></span>]]''' 00:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
If copy and pasted questions, why not copy and pasted answers? It took very little effort to ask a "canned question", and the questioner ought not to expect much more from the candidate. '''[[User talk:Konveyor Belt|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;"><span style="color:#00008B;">Konveyor</span></span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;"><span style="color:#B7410E;">Belt</span></span>]]''' 00:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:the question im looking @ asks for a 1 letter answer, think that's too much to expect? [[Special:Contributions/134.119.32.35|134.119.32.35]] ([[User talk:134.119.32.35|talk]]) 09:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Question == |
== Question == |
||
Line 200: | Line 202: | ||
:::{{ping|ToonLucas22}} Yep! '''~''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#07517C">Super</span>]]''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#6FA23B">Hamster</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]] [[Special:Contribs/SuperHamster|Contribs]]</small> 00:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
:::{{ping|ToonLucas22}} Yep! '''~''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#07517C">Super</span>]]''[[User:SuperHamster|<span style="color:#6FA23B">Hamster</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:SuperHamster|Talk]] [[Special:Contribs/SuperHamster|Contribs]]</small> 00:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::Yes, now of course the closing 'crat can take in to account the entirety of the discussion-including anything in the neutral zone. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 00:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
::::Yes, now of course the closing 'crat can take in to account the entirety of the discussion-including anything in the neutral zone. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 00:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::like anyone even bothers reading discussions before closing anymore lol [[Special:Contributions/134.119.32.35|134.119.32.35]] ([[User talk:134.119.32.35|talk]]) 09:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:45, 29 March 2015
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sdkb | RfA | Successful | 16 Feb 2024 | 265 | 2 | 0 | 99 |
Current time: 10:00:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Opposes based on AfD "inaccuracies"
I was just wondering what people think about !voters opposing RfA candidates because their AfD votes are supposedly not accurate enough. In my opinion, all this does is create a fear of voicing your true opinion (that's what AfDs are for, right?) and encourages going along with the crowd. Besides, how would having a different opinion interfere with your ability to judge the consensus of others and close debates properly? --Biblioworm 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree 100% that analyzing RfA candidate's AfD stats (without looking at their !votes) is harmful. Really, as long as someone's reasoning is rooted in policy, and not in "I don't like X", etc., it's fine, IMO. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think the point is (or ought to be) that AfDs are not about one's opinions per se but about how one understands the policies and applies that to the articles under scrutiny. If the candidate has frequently got it wrong, that shows that either they do not understand the policies or they deliberately ignore them in debates. The former is clearly a disqualification; the latter may show that the user would be tempted to supervote, or to close based on numerical !voting instead of policy arguments when this suited their opinions. You are of course right that this would not be true for some users and therefore going by AfD percentages alone, without examining their actual opinions and actions, is problematic. BethNaught (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- A candidate brave enough to have participated in many close, controversial, or complex AfDs will inevitably get it "wrong" quite often, whereas one who mostly piles on in clear-cut AfDs will be "accurate" according to the numbers. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The point about AfD is that in spite of saying we're not, Wikipedia is in fact a democracy and anyone is allowed to vote at AfD. Quite often AfDS get closed on simple count and even on the weight of the arguments, but not infrequently , some of those convincing argument that lead to a close are founded on opinion rather than fact-based policy or guidelines. I don't think anyone really votes with the apparent majority just to make their AfD performance look good - IMO RfA candidates dob't usually look that far and if they do they are the ones who are going to fail at RfA anyway. It would be nice indeed if the voters at RfA would all take the trouble to do some proper research before putting their oar in or simply piling on. My unbroken research into RfA over the years tends to demonstrate that the 'oppose' voters are the ones who have genuinely examined the candidate before voting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- A candidate brave enough to have participated in many close, controversial, or complex AfDs will inevitably get it "wrong" quite often, whereas one who mostly piles on in clear-cut AfDs will be "accurate" according to the numbers. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- While I do consider AfD participation on some level to be pretty close to obligatory if you want my support at RfA, I don't get too worked up over the breakdown in votes. If there is a truly glaring or gross discrepancy then a closer look may be warranted. But otherwise I tend to agree with many of the above comments. Independence of thought and a willingness to take a principaled stand in close cases is more important to me than "getting it right." Point in fact if anyone dug around in my own AfD record they would find a number of cases where I was on the losing end of the debate. Heck, in some of those cases I was even wrong. ;-). -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Any AfD !vote based on this kind of criterion ought to be discounted as invalid by the crats, as a matter of principle. The whole idea of judging AfD participation in this way is just outrageously wrong. It is based on the assumption that the "winning" side of an AfD must automatically have been "right", and anybody who voted in the opposite way must have been "wrong". This assumption is poisonous, not only for RfA but for the entire environment of consensus-based discussion. People who cast votes like this ought to be ashamed of themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, FPaS, for saying what needed to be said. Possessing a minority opinion should not have any bearing on an administrator's ability to judge consensus, which is what AfD is all about. Opposing someone because they voted against the end result on a regular basis is silly. Kurtis (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is a bit more complicated than that, though. If someone has voted keep on many obviously non-notable articles or the other way around, it's obviously not a good sign. If they've been wrong on many close calls, then that's where this issue comes into play. ansh666 23:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- So then instead of presenting raw statistics, participants should give actual examples of arguments that the candidate has made at AfD and explain how it demonstrates an overall subpar grasp of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. "Just last week, So-and-so argued for deleting an article about a high school by saying that there were no citations provided to back up its assertions of notability, when in fact a simple Google search would have revealed numerous third-party sources which can easily be used to verify that this is a school with several hundred students and a very noteworthy fine arts program" is a much stronger argument against granting sysop tools than saying that "80% of the time that So-and-so argued delete, the article was kept."
What I am against is the notion that an editor's participation at AfD can be measured solely by how often their votes align with the end result, and that having divergent opinions will inevitably taint anyone's ability to impartially judge consensus. Raw percentages alone are not enough reason to disqualify a person for adminship. Also remember that they are called notability "guidelines" for a reason. If there was a black and white "right" or "wrong" answer, then we wouldn't even need AfD.
An oppose based on anomalies in AfD participation would have to be very well substantiated for it to give me pause. I'd need to be convinced that the evidence presented gives strong indication of certain character traits that are incompatible with adminship. Take for instance my "high school" example from above. Their vote in that AfD could signify an unwillingness to do some basic research before coming to an informed conclusion (particularly if it can be demonstrated that this is part of a general pattern, rather than a one-off misguided comment), which would indeed be an issue if they were an active administrator, as this could imply a possible tendency to act on instinct rather than doing the necessary grunt work beforehand (e.g. deleting a page tagged for speedy deletion because it looked like it satisfied A3, when in fact the article was just created ten or so minutes ago, thus giving its author no time to expand upon it). If someone's voting "keep" on biographies which cast their virtually unknown subjects in an unduly negative light, and they're not giving a particularly strong reason for doing so, I'd question their understanding of BLP, let alone their commitment to it. Certain AfDs relating to these sorts of biographies should be deleted even if the numbers would normally result in a "no consensus" closure (which defaults to "keep"), as BLPs are held to a higher standard than other articles due to the real-world implications they could have for their subjects. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable trusting an editor with closing deletion discussions if they've shown such an inability to appreciate the sensitive nature of biographical content. Those are just examples, and by no means an exhaustive list — but they are the sorts of things I'd be looking for in an oppose based on an editor's AfD participation, as they demonstrate convictions and attitudes which would be problematic for an administrator to possess. Kurtis (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- So then instead of presenting raw statistics, participants should give actual examples of arguments that the candidate has made at AfD and explain how it demonstrates an overall subpar grasp of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. "Just last week, So-and-so argued for deleting an article about a high school by saying that there were no citations provided to back up its assertions of notability, when in fact a simple Google search would have revealed numerous third-party sources which can easily be used to verify that this is a school with several hundred students and a very noteworthy fine arts program" is a much stronger argument against granting sysop tools than saying that "80% of the time that So-and-so argued delete, the article was kept."
- The idea that votes ought to be discounted by the crats is silly. If someone has a quality that one or two people thinks means they wouldn't be a good administrator, this will turn out to be irrelevant, and they'll sail past RFA without difficulty. If there's something that a large minority (or a majority) of the community thinks is a necessary quality to be a good admin, then the crats should not ignore it. Of course, as noted, just using straight percentages from the auto-counter is a bad idea. For example, someone who completes AfD noms for new/inexperienced editors gets counted as a delete !vote, though obviously that's a commendable behaviour, and one I'd take as a sign someone would make a laudable admin. Other situations are possible (though that's the only one can I recall off the top of my head having seen when I've looked through someone's AfD history). WilyD 10:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fut.Perf. says it rather strongly, but I agree. Only in a minority of cases are policies enough to decide whether an article should stay or go. It usually comes down to consensus (the key policy, after all). When an article is kept one month and deleted the next, how can the winning and losing sides be called "right" and "wrong"? Performance at AfD matters, but it's the quality of the arguments and receptiveness to other editors' comments that counts, not being on the winning side, which is easy to accomplish just by confining ourselves to "me too" votes with the obviously emerging consensus. --Stfg (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've found very few cases where someone's AFD record was poor but their arguments and application of policies and guidelines to be adequate. Perhaps I'm wrong but while we're right about a "record" not being an absolute relationship to the quality of someone as an admin, there's a reason why it's been a benchmark for a long time. It's one of the many metrics editors can and should not feel poorly about applying when evaluating someone. There are always exceptions to the case but when these exceptions are far and few between, then editors can simply take that into consideration. The proposal that a person's !vote should be outright discounted as invalid is one of the least thought out arguments I've seen here -- especially when sysops are specifically tasked with closing discussions against CONSENSUS. Mkdwtalk 02:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- The only grids on the AfD chart I'm interested in are delete votes where the outcome was to speedy keep, as even a single one of these indicates the candidate's utter cluelessness, and delete votes where the outcome was to keep, as too many of these indicates the candidate is likely to misuse the deletion tool. All the rest is irrelevant. Deleted articles the candidate wanted kept, etc.? Who cares; not deleting an article has nothing to do with admin tools. As far as the numbers, 100 AfD votes in total is the bare minimum. If you don't have that, you've no business applying, plain and simple. 190.245.75.48 (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I got the mop in October 2011. I certainly didn't have 100 AfD votes at the time, and I don't think I've got as far as 100 AfD votes yet: would you like to start the desysop process now, or wait until I delete something that I shouldn't have? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Why must people have 100 AfD !votes to run for RfA? For that matter, what's with all the arbitrary numbers people are starting to set? Suppose the candidate does not wish to work in AfD, and they have a very strong record in other areas. They shouldn't be admins merely because they have not reached some minimum threshold? (By the way, are you a registered user editing behind your IP address? It seems that you know quite a bit about the internal workings here.) Oh, and according to your standards, I've blown it big time, since I made a single errant nomination where the outcome was speedy keep. Guess I'd better pack up and forget any ideas of ever becoming an admin. --Biblioworm 13:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I wouldn't say that. It's early days yet - give it a couple of years and I'm sure you'll get the mop. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree that this record (!voting "delete" on articles which were kept or speedy-kept) is a sign of cluelessness. Much more commonly, the reason an AfD closes as "speedy keep" or "keep" is because the article has been improved during the discussion. If the improvement happened after the person voted "delete", their "delete" may have been perfectly legitimate. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- In the recent case of Ethically Yours, I pulled up his AfD stats specifically because he said he wanted to work in that area. I've called about 500 AfDs, and my score has gradually dropped to just below 80% correct now. I don't think this is because I'm getting worse; rather, this is because AfD activity is down and more and more debates are getting closed as "No consensus", which accounts for about half of the remaining 20%. I've got a redirect closed as "Speedy keep", but that's because the nominator withdrew. I've also taken an article to DYK that was previously AfDed as "delete". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- This idea of "score" is fundamentally flawed. The bolded part of an AfD comment is the least important part of the comment, as AfD is not a vote (and unlike RfA, it should not be). We need people who are willing to take part in contentious discussions and bring good arguments, not people who try to score points in the AfD game. If somebody has the "correct" result on 100% of their last 100 AfDs that raises a red flag to me more than if somebody has 60% "accuracy". —Kusma (t·c) 14:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I had been following this discussion without commenting for several weeks because I am an active AfD participant, and I remember how my own perspective and understanding of AfD have evolved over the last 5 years, and I also have observed a lot of XfD behavior patterns of others over the same time. As others have stated above, the "correct" AfD result rate means very little without context. Some quick observations on point:
- 1. An 85 or 90% correct result rate on AfD nominations submitted by the subject editor is outstanding; it suggests that the editor recognizes weak articles, understands our notability guidelines and other suitability standards, and can articulate those guidelines and standards for the benefit of other discussion participants.
- 2. While a correct result rate may mean very little without examination, an incorrect rate higher that 25 or 30% may indicate that our subject editor does not yet fully grasp the applicable notability guidelines, etc. A 25 or 30% incorrect rate on AfD nominations is even worse, because the nominator gets to choose the articles he or she nominates for AfD, and should be doing his or her BEFORE homework to better understand the notability and suitability of the article subjects.
- 3. A high "no consensus" result rate is better than a high "incorrect" rate. It suggests the subject editor is not unwilling to voice his or her opinion when the outcome is actually in doubt, and is not merely trying to compile nice stats for an RfA run.
- 4. In addition to reading the AfD rationales for those articles the subject editor has nominated for AfD, other good places to look for an understanding of the editor's grasp of guidelines are those AfDs that had an "incorrect" or "no consensus" result. Someone who is willing to articulate a correct/better interpretation of policy, guidelines or standards, even in the face of strong opposition, is a good RfA candidate -- especially if that person can disagree agreeably and articulately.
- 5. No one should judge an RfA candidate on the basis of a cherry-picked few AfD results. Even the best candidates make occasional mistakes (and sometimes those "mistakes" only exist in the eye of the beholder). Speaking from personal experience, even the most diligent AfD nominators sometimes get surprised by significant off-line sources or those behind an online newspaper pay-wall (man, I hate that!) -- and when confronted with relevant new information, can the subject editor accept the new information and concede the point graciously?
- Bottom line: when reviewing the body of AfD work by an editor, we should look not only at the "big picture" correct/incorrect stats, we should also be reviewing those particular areas that are most likely to provide greater insights into the candidate's knowledge of subject matter, online personality, grasp of guidelines, and ability to communicate effectively and courteously with other AfD discussion participants. Having said this, I hope that I come relatively close to living up to my own standards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have sometimes been surprised at the result of an AfD. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makkal Mahatmyam, which I initiated, was kept with very little in the way of reliable sources, and yet Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (5th nomination) was repeatedly deleted and squeaked by the fifth time looking like this. It seems that there is quite a bit of unevenness in the way notability policies are applied, with some subjects being held to higher standards than others. This makes it inevitable that an editor will sometimes be !voting opposite to the close.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
A correct result?
The idea of a correct result at AfDs baffles me. It rather suggests a cultish requirement for everyone to drink the kool aid. Why would we want everyone to have a view which accords with the views of everyone else? People can have minority opinions and express them well in AfD discussions. They shouldn't be disuaded from making points because they think the ultimate consensus may go against them. The fact that a potential admin, when expressing their own opinion, errs more on the side of keeping or deleting content than the consensus in the discussions in which they participate should not affect how they will perform as an admin. When closing AfDs, they will need to respect the consensus of the discussion, whether they agree with it or not. Indeed, if these chose to close a discussion, they will need to implement the consensus even it is the "wrong" decision (just because there is a consensus among the participants in a discussion does not mean it is the right answer). I think a healthy community (including the admin corp) thrives off our differences. I enjoy hearing from other who disagree (civilly) with my comments and decisions. I hope that we have many admins who think in entirely different ways to me. I hope this sort of approach isn't leading us towards creating a group of admins who all think the same way about everything. WJBscribe (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Anonymous voting
Rather than fill up EuroCarGT's RfA with discussion about this I thought it a good idea to start a discussion here regarding Andrew Davidson's comment that "We have secret ballots for arbcom now to ensure that they are done properly and it's the same for other institutions such as the boards of trustees. Why is RfA different?" What are everyone's thoughts on this? For reference I found one previous discussion but I'm sure there have been others more recently. Sam Walton (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see a great advantage of the current system that voters not just provide votes, but also important feedback. In principle, voting could be re-organized, for instance, keeping secret ballots and at the same time maintaining the feedback page, but I am afraid this would make things unnecessary complicated.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- While he may not realize it, Andrew Davidson himself highlights why this would be a bad idea. He's developed a reputation for casting opposes with little to no merit. Thankfully, he is reguarly called to task for this, which hopefully helps deter others from doing it. As this community has recently been fairly tough on those who oppose frivolously at RfA and contribute to the bad reputation of the process, the problem of problematic voters has dwindled. Allowing anonymous voting would enable anyone to oppose for any reason without having to explain themselves and I don't think we want that. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree with Mellowed Fillmore above. Anonymous voting is basically a cloak for troublemakers, users with grudges against the candidate and frequent opposers to hide behind. It, in my opinion, would lead to more opposes, with no real reasons behind them and more bad feelings about this process. Orphan Wiki 13:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- As some background and for full disclosure, note that I used to edit using a pseudonym, Colonel Warden, but now edit mainly under my real name. The voting proportions of that account were similar: 39 supports and 72 opposes, so that my total record is 45/83/3. I was recently thanked for my opposing comments in the older case of Wifione who has since been banned. There were 90 supports in that case so my position was quite a minority one. From such cases, we see that there's a risk in stifling opposing votes in that more bad actors will slip through unopposed and then use admin powers to support their agenda. RfA is not supposed to be a rubber stamp to ensure that Buggins gets his turn; it is supposed to be a safeguard against editors getting their hands on dangerous tools which they might abuse and so it seems appropriate to be prudent and risk-averse. Anonymity helps in this, as with whistleblowers and other cases where people might fear reprisals. Of course, there need to be safeguards for this too. In the case of UK voting, the ballot isn't totally secret because there are counterfoils which the authorities can use to investigate cases of electoral fraud. In our case, the bureaucrats should still have access to an audit trail so they can check for ballot stuffing or other abuse. That's what's done in the arbcom elections, I gather. The system they use for that is still shaking down but when they have a well-established process and robust software, we might consider adopting it for RfA too. It is efficient to use common methods for similar cases as they will get better support and be more familiar to everyone concerned. Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- You aren't acknowledging the fact that an anonymous voting system would enable anyone to oppose any candidate for any reason. For example, someone who was once warned by the candidate for vandalism could pop in and leave an anonymous oppose. Do we really want that? The point of RfA is to vet a candidate and determine if he or she qualifies for adminship. That can be better accomplished when the participants state their rationales for the record. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Colonel. I wondered already what had happened to old Warden, well, changed his user name, who would have thought about that? I remember you as regular at RfA, long before Amaryllis and Fillmore even knew RfA exists. I remember dimly that our !votes were mostly at odds, but that's really irrelevant. Each !voter is entitled to make up his own mind, and state their reasons. I know now that you can fend for yourself, and will not succumb to bullying. The notion to mob opposers so that other users would refrain from opposing candidates, or calling other !voters' choice "frivolous" (done by Mellowed Fillmore) here above, might even be actionable. But I'll drop out of this discussion now, and will go back to content. Good bye. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I stand by my words, which aren't even remotely actionable, unless Wikipedia has now fully gone off the deep end. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Colonel. I wondered already what had happened to old Warden, well, changed his user name, who would have thought about that? I remember you as regular at RfA, long before Amaryllis and Fillmore even knew RfA exists. I remember dimly that our !votes were mostly at odds, but that's really irrelevant. Each !voter is entitled to make up his own mind, and state their reasons. I know now that you can fend for yourself, and will not succumb to bullying. The notion to mob opposers so that other users would refrain from opposing candidates, or calling other !voters' choice "frivolous" (done by Mellowed Fillmore) here above, might even be actionable. But I'll drop out of this discussion now, and will go back to content. Good bye. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- You aren't acknowledging the fact that an anonymous voting system would enable anyone to oppose any candidate for any reason. For example, someone who was once warned by the candidate for vandalism could pop in and leave an anonymous oppose. Do we really want that? The point of RfA is to vet a candidate and determine if he or she qualifies for adminship. That can be better accomplished when the participants state their rationales for the record. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- People seem to be talking as if the current system is working well and so a change would make matters worse. It is good that we have Mellowed Fillmore here as his case demonstrates the actual reality. Firstly, that account name is a pseudonym and that provides some degree of anonymity. Next, consider the timeline of this account:
- 27 Oct 2014 - Mr. Stradivarius notifies Jackmcbarn that he is about to nominate him at RfA
- 28 Oct 2014 - Mellowed Fillmore starts editing, initially working on innocuous sports stats updates so that the account is autoconfirmed
- 2 Nov 2014 - Mellowed Fillmore !votes in the RfA. Remarkably, he openly explains that he has had other accounts but does not trouble to explain that this one has been created for the specific purpose of participating in this RfA.
- So, to get privacy and protection at RfA, one can start a fresh anonymous account. Not only do you get to vote but people even listen to you respectfully at policy pages like this. Compare this with the process used for arbcom. That doesn't just provide some privacy for the voters; it also provides a considerable degree of scrutiny to make sure that they are legitimate. Such pains are taken at arbcom because the election process is taken seriously. But at RfA, how many Mellowed Fillmores are there? There doesn't seem to be any way to tell because there are no effective controls. Editors like myself, who like to do due diligence and take some convincing, are scorned for rocking the boat because most everyone just seems to want a feel-good process with no awkward questions; just a rousing chorus of "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow". Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP:SPI is thataway. Not that it would make any sense for me to create a sockpuppet account for the sole purpose of voting on one RfA (you will note that I have made over a thousand edits and am NOT a single-purpose account). Oh, and if you were to look at some of my other contributions, you'd find that I don't at all think that the current system is working well. I'm merely opposing your idea because it wouldn't work. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson:Go to WP:SPI to make your accusations. Around here it's SPI or shut up, I'm surprised you didn't know that. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mellowed Fillmore's own words were "I have previously edited with other accounts (I am not socking) and I do not wish to disclose prior identities (so please don't bother asking)." So, he is claiming to be legitimate and so we should AGF, of course. The point here is that he was declining to reveal prior identities and so this was a fresh new account providing anonymity. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Andrew, I wish you well, and I was actually preparing to post here to defend your right to oppose, and to suggest that people stop attacking you for your pattern of oppose votes. But with regard to these Mellowed Fillmore comments of yours, my only advice is: you have gotten yourself into a hole; stop digging. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Would it be better for all concerned parties if I stated my previous accounts? Otherwise, I fear that this will continue to come up every time I take a strong position that leaves someone looking to discredit me. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Survey
- Oppose Mellowed Fillmore, above, said it best. Replying to Andrew about real names vs. pseudonyms, that isn't the point. Most of us do not edit under our real names. We are talking about commenting under our "real wikiname", to coin a phrase. We should be willing to state our opinion publicly and stand behind what we say, as you do, to your credit. There's a reason why IPs are not allowed to vote at RfAs, and the same reason would apply to anonymous voting there.--MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. IP editors are more likely to sockpuppet under dynamic IPs. Their comments, judging from the last year's RfAs, are rarely helpful.If they want to vote, they can create an account and edit constructively, since these IP editors who do try to vote are usually experienced IP editors. (Note: This was added. Epic Genius (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC))
As for registered editors, well, there may be good reasons to oppose an RfA. I think the best opponents at RfA are the people with a lot of interaction with the candidate, who can precisely tell them their weaknesses (i.e. established registered editors) and then be honest to them about it. Epic Genius (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Unless some editors that actually cared about the candidate stopped by their talk page after the RfA and gave them advice. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I guess some trustworthy editors who are friendly with the candidate could do that after the RfA. Epic Genius (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: This isn't about allowing IPs to vote at RfA. It is about hiding the identity of logged-in users when they vote in RfA. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: So that's why we can't allow IP editors to vote, because it's a lot easier to sockpuppet. Epic Genius (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: This isn't about allowing IPs to vote at RfA. It is about hiding the identity of logged-in users when they vote in RfA. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I guess some trustworthy editors who are friendly with the candidate could do that after the RfA. Epic Genius (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Unless some editors that actually cared about the candidate stopped by their talk page after the RfA and gave them advice. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, just think, problematic users could disrupt the RfA easier, but the ones that have good reasons for explaining their oppose vote could not express their reasoning. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 3) Oppose. I'm almost never in favor of restrictions on editing, but RfA is the exception. In the time I've been here, anyway, I don't think I've ever seen an IP !vote constructively. It's usually something along the lines of "The candidate is stupid/an asshole/(insert more insults here)". We revert these comments automatically, since IP !voting isn't allowed, but actually allowing these !votes to stay would be very bad for candidates. For example, on a recent RfA (Cadillac000's), I had to deal with an IP who accused me of having a previous account under restrictions. --Biblioworm 16:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- The proposal is not referring to IP voting but rather registered editors voting anonymously. --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oppose In addition to what has been said above, I have often either changed my opinion or !voted oppose out of concerns that have been brought forth and to the attention of the RFA in the oppose section. Mkdwtalk 16:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: Not to mention there would be no oppose "section". --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - unlike Arbcom and Stewards and such, this process is a consensus-seeking discussion, not a straight vote. It often functions like a vote, like all of our discussion processes do from time to time, but it is not supposed to be a majority-rules environment. A strong argument (based in policy, or by an influential editor) can completely swing an RFA, and it should be able to. This also opens the door to uncheckable socking and canvassing. Ivanvector (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose People need to defend their position in debate if they want their opinion to be given consideration in a close decision. Chillum 16:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ivanvector. Moreover using a secret voting system such as SecurePoll, apart from requiring configuration and management far beyond just creating a page using a template, would require election commissioners to ensure procedures are followed (eg to stop socking). That's beyond the crats, who are supposed to be transparent implementers of consensus at RfA. BethNaught (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: RfA is a discussion not a vote, and the identity of editor username is key information. If a highly respected editor chimes in strongly against an RfA candidate, that one editor can effectively kill the nomination. Or save it.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Would cause more problems than it would fix. (To be clear: it would help fix at least two very big problems with RFA - cheerleaders who support almost anyone, not on the candidate's merits but out of a desire to make their own usernames recognizable to the other cheerleaders for when they run their own RFAs; and opposes worded so harshly and piled so deep that we not only don't promote the candidate but lose him as an editor entirely.) —Cryptic 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Losing the Y in my name I'm actually using my real name so some of us do real use our real names :), Anyway back on topic - personally I'd rather say my opinion whether It's Sup or Opp as opposed to simply clicking a checkbox and that's it, As noted above there would also be the problem of setting up the Securepoll & all that - In all honestly I think it's more trouble than good, But good suggestion nonetheless, –Davey2010Talk 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - It is critical to the process that participants have all relevant information. Having anonymous vote would require 100+ editors to do their own research to find the same issues (or lack thereof). --NeilN talk to me 19:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Oppose If people had taken note of the alarm bells rung by Andrew Davidson (Warden) and Atama on the Wifinone RfA there wouldn't have been need for the extensive, recently closed Arbcom case. With the transparency of the current RfA !voting system, at least such issues stand a chance of being brought to light. I did not vote on that RfA, but had I done so and seen those comments, I would have gone off and done some deeper investigation in order to corroborate those statements, which along with other factors would probably have resulted in an 'oppose'. I'm not saying that I would have done the extensive research that HJ Mitchell carried out for the Arbcom case and which took him the best part of a whole day, or that one more oppose would have greatly influenced the outcome, but we'll never know. Intriguingly, would that COI have reached Arbcom or even ANI if Wifione had not been an admin? Possibly not.
- I therefore do not get the impression that "...everyone just seems to want a feel-good process with no awkward questions", even if I am one of the loudest proponents for a clean up in the way users express themselves at RfA. Such questions and comments are essential to the scrutiny, but they must be made without being antagonistic - which Warden, compared to some, manages to do, so I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why he may be advocating a secret ballot. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Causes more problems than it solves. If said anonymous !voting system were to be implemented, people could then create frivolous rationales and even begin attacking editors while getting off scot-free. On an unrelated note, I thought we were originally discussing the conduct of AD. I still find his presence at RFA disruptive, but I guess that's irrelevant for right now. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, not that it's necessary at this point. Decennial proposal? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose interesting idea, but I'm afraid it would create more bad feelings. The current discussion model is (mostly) valuable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose RFA is finalized using the judgement and tools of someone using the Bureaurcrat tools. Allowing IP's to vote would require someone with the Checkuser tools and skills. Those skills are not at all similar nor complimentary, and in fact, would be handing some of the power of the Crat over to a CU. That is problematic for a number of reasons, which I will refrain from explaining for the sake of brevity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: Actually, this is a proposal for making all registered users' votes anonymous, while still restricting IP editors from voting. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would obviously oppose that for the same reason, and 100 more that I could give as to how that would be so easy to corrupt and guarantee less participation from good people, as it would discourage honest discussion. I see why they do Arb votes privately (fear of retribution), but Admin aren't gods, we are on par with non admin, we just have a few tools. To be judged worthy or not by our peers, we should see and hear their words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, this would lead to more abuse by !voters by being able to submit trivial support/oppose rationales that bear the full weight of an oppose with no repercussions. RFA discussion participants should be able to stand behind their support/oppose rationales. Nakon 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. RfA should be more of a discussion and less of a vote, not the other way around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:SNOW. Philg88 ♦talk 17:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose -- RfA's are supposed to be a good community discussion, not a vote. This makes users stand behind their opinions and can give good constructive criticism to the candidate. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per previous opposers, and also because processes like this one should be transparent. This transparency does act to discourage socking in general.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- support rfa's already a popularity contest, might as well make it official 134.119.32.35 (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Vote discussions
On almost every RfA someone ends up needing to move extended, off-topic, or disruptive replies to votes to the request's talk page. A number of editors have said that they feel concerned about voting in a given section, typically the oppose section, because of the debates happening with other voters. I'd like to see what the general opinion is on enforcing that anything which isn't a vote be posted to the talk page, thoughts? (We could require that a single note be posted under a vote if there is a discussion related to it on the talk page). Sam Walton (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your efforts to make RfA a better place, Sam, but I don't think this would solve that problem. 1. If people are scared to oppose a candidate because they fear the badgers will jump out and claw into their faces, making the discussions happen on the talk page wouldn't help much I'm afraid. 2. Going back to what others have said in the section above, the RfA is a discussion itself, so it wouldn't make much sense to only let comments with introductory bold text (Support, Oppose, or Neutral) be posted on the RfA page. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Query Isn't that part of the clerking duties to make these judgement calls Sam? Irondome (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Query: Do we have RfA clerks? I thought that was just an idea in the talking stages. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't tell me we have no clerks. I've always believed in the existence of clerks. You have ruined it for me now. I hope you are satisfied ;) Irondome (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Psst! Nobody tell Irondome about the tooth fairy, OK? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Im having quite a bad anxiety attack now. Irondome (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Jeez it's worse than I thought. We really really really really need to get some clerks. Who's flying this thing? Primal scream and foetal position. I'm serious here. Irondome (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- The tooth fairy is running the show. Guess what? It works fine. We don't need clerks. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I find that oddly reassuring. So we are all clerks and can take BOLD actions in case of extreme disruption? These are serious questions. I was always under the impression that there was some kind of clerk presence. Ok then. I'm having a similar feeling to the time you got your 16,000th edit. We are in charge. It's never dawned on me. Nearly 4 years. I love you User:Hammersoft. Irondome (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Have a look in the mirror. You are among the masses who made this project work, despite all the belief in the world that a crowd sourced knowledge base project would fail. We, the unwashed masses are what make this project work. We do not need multiple levels of bureaucracy. We do not need specialists empowered to do "clerking". We are quite capable of doing so and have proven it year in, year out. Oh, and I love you too :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oh wow. I need a drink. Irondome (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, yes. RfA clerking has been suggested and even developed as a proposal in the past but it has never been put into effect. I still think it's a good idea in theory, but as of right now the role is unofficially filled by crats or bold users. No one's in charge of or responsible for maintaining RfAs, so in effect we are all responsible. Swarm X 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Jeez it's worse than I thought. We really really really really need to get some clerks. Who's flying this thing? Primal scream and foetal position. I'm serious here. Irondome (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- We should have more discussion at RfA, not less. Candidates and participants would find it more useful and less bruising if it was an honest discussion about their suitability for adminship rather than an election. Part of that is candid commentary, but equally participants (regardless of which section they land in) should be prepared to explain and justify their position. If they're not, they shouldn't participate. A less adversarial RfA would also be much better properly analysing candidates' histories rather than encouraging the sort of drive-by "me too" votes that contribute nothing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- RE "should be prepared to explain and justify their position" - That's exactly the point. They should be, and usually are, prepared to explain their position/rationale/reasons. They should not be prepared to explain their person, their off-RfA behavior, their political stance or their marital status, or what not all. I wish all RfA !voters would stick to discuss the candidate's ability for adminship, and not the !voters' ability to !vote.
- RE "drive-by "me too" votes that contribute nothing" - Support or oppose votes consisting of the rationale "per User:XYZ" or "per answer to Q #" without explaining further, are indeed important. They may second the views of other !voters (so they know that they are not the only ones who object to some fault) or the !voters may have analyzed the candidate's history and came to the same conclusion as somebody else, making it unnecessary to duplicate the comments. Besides, it is important to see how many people overall take interest in the candidature. RfAs are meant to show approval, or not, by the community, so, the more !votes the better. To weigh the arguments, and to conclude a result, is up to the bureaucrats, one of which left a message at the uppermost thread here ("A correct result?") which really increased my trust in both RfA, as is, per se, and the bureaucrat corps in particular. Kraxler (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a bit of a side topic, but can we let the silly "!vote" terminology die already? One step in fixing RfA is being able to talk coherently about how it currently works. Saying "!vote" is either a bad habit or a way of clinging to the fiction that RfA is not a vote. It's clearly been a vote for 10 years. Not a vote by a straightforward election method, at times, but a vote nevertheless. Support votes and oppose votes are votes. If you think RfA shouldn't be a vote, well, that's a thing to propose. rspεεr (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please see WP:!VOTE "The exclamation mark in "!vote" is the symbol for logical negation and can be read literally as "not vote". It serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." I don't make the guidelines, I just follow them. Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel that the term is an affectation and a bit of jargon that is unnecessary. Participants can use terms like "my opinion", "my view", "my reasons", and so forth to emphasize their reasoning, rather than use something whose origins come from computer programming. isaacl (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- If RfAs were indeed a vote, we would have a promotion bot instead of bureaucrats. Sure, 95% of the time it might as well be a vote (i.e.: if 99 people support an RfA and one person dissents, yes, there will be a promotion), but there have been plenty of times where the we've had to actually weigh the arguments of each side to make a determination. There is no argument-weighing in straight voting. You may dislike the term "!vote", but it is rather accurate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think that "consensus" needs to be examined on a case by case basis, I mean, if there are 100 supporters saying "blah blah" or "whatever" (obviously not looking in to anything), and then there's one or two opposers saying "this user is not civil, they have a history of being blocked, and they have been brought up numerous times at AN/I", then there is no consensus for promotion, but you can't just disregard a simple "vote", because I often support with no rationale, and what I mean by that simple "Support" is "Decent/good editor, no bad history". IMO, it's not something that's simple to describe. That's why we have bureaucrats to determine whether there's consensus, it's complicated. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Further to, in all the ways RFA needs reform, I have never felt the !voting/voting process and how consensus is determine is in need of repair, because it doesn't appear to be broken. We haven't really had any outcomes in a long while where the outcome was controversial to the point where the community had major issues. Mkdwtalk 18:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can only think of one RfA in my time here that turned out different than I thought it would, and neither I or the community were enraged because of it. RfA has bigger problems than the crat's supposedly faulty consensus determining. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think the current structure is unduly repetitive, with each person expected to state their viewpoints even if it duplicates the reasoning of others, and as it is now, often forks off into numerous multi-branching threads, making it hard to follow. My personal preference is to build up a consolidated list of pros and cons for a given candidate which can then be weighed, rather than each person having to repeat this process individually. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- How would you propose each pro and con be weighted? Still using an oppose and support system? How do you know if editors are simply arbitrarily voting for candidates they like or don't like? Sometimes some pros and cons are very similar and in those nuances editors support or oppose. For editors with the exact same rationale, in many cases editors cite the arguments of that person. In that way they're already consolidating their arguments. The issue usually is that editors oppose or support for things they feel aren't reflected by what other editors have already said or brought forth. I think this last RFA was an exception where editors did focus on one specific thing but even then there were still a number of points brought forth surrounding it, and it's not as common for that to happen in RFAs. Mkdwtalk 05:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay in responding; I did not notice this reply earlier. As I previously discussed, I suggest that editors can add their names to a list of those who believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or vice-versa, with a brief summary statement. Currently citing the arguments of others repeatedly still drags out the length of the discussion, discouraging participation. You can see the previous thread for more discussion on this. (Yes, I know there is currently no consensus for this type of change; I just feel that structural changes along these lines would help de-escalate confrontational commentary and encourage greater participation by making the discussion easier to follow.) isaacl (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- How would you propose each pro and con be weighted? Still using an oppose and support system? How do you know if editors are simply arbitrarily voting for candidates they like or don't like? Sometimes some pros and cons are very similar and in those nuances editors support or oppose. For editors with the exact same rationale, in many cases editors cite the arguments of that person. In that way they're already consolidating their arguments. The issue usually is that editors oppose or support for things they feel aren't reflected by what other editors have already said or brought forth. I think this last RFA was an exception where editors did focus on one specific thing but even then there were still a number of points brought forth surrounding it, and it's not as common for that to happen in RFAs. Mkdwtalk 05:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Further to, in all the ways RFA needs reform, I have never felt the !voting/voting process and how consensus is determine is in need of repair, because it doesn't appear to be broken. We haven't really had any outcomes in a long while where the outcome was controversial to the point where the community had major issues. Mkdwtalk 18:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think that "consensus" needs to be examined on a case by case basis, I mean, if there are 100 supporters saying "blah blah" or "whatever" (obviously not looking in to anything), and then there's one or two opposers saying "this user is not civil, they have a history of being blocked, and they have been brought up numerous times at AN/I", then there is no consensus for promotion, but you can't just disregard a simple "vote", because I often support with no rationale, and what I mean by that simple "Support" is "Decent/good editor, no bad history". IMO, it's not something that's simple to describe. That's why we have bureaucrats to determine whether there's consensus, it's complicated. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please see WP:!VOTE "The exclamation mark in "!vote" is the symbol for logical negation and can be read literally as "not vote". It serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." I don't make the guidelines, I just follow them. Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a bit of a side topic, but can we let the silly "!vote" terminology die already? One step in fixing RfA is being able to talk coherently about how it currently works. Saying "!vote" is either a bad habit or a way of clinging to the fiction that RfA is not a vote. It's clearly been a vote for 10 years. Not a vote by a straightforward election method, at times, but a vote nevertheless. Support votes and oppose votes are votes. If you think RfA shouldn't be a vote, well, that's a thing to propose. rspεεr (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- "You may dislike the term "!vote", but it is rather accurate." – EVula. Well, if the support faction is over 85%, the candidate passes. Below 70%, the candidate fails. In the middle, a bureaucrat makes the deciding vote. (No doubt someone will point out the exceptions to these values.) It is a vote. The bureaucrats are chosen by the community to make those deciding votes. I don't have a problem with that. It is only "not a vote" in the sense that opposers who don't give a reason are badgered into giving a reason. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion has been coming and going for about 10 years. It should be pointed out that the 85%-pass/70%-fail rule-of-thumb was created arbitrarily by the early Bureaucrats, but not exactly as a "law" that would be automatically applied to all of the old RfAs. It was put forth essentially as an explanation so that the community could understand how the Bcrats were deciding things at the time. Naturally, if one says this is how something is being done, one should, in good-faith, be true to one's word, and so the practice continued and eventually became embedded in the RfA system. But it is a fact that the complexity of RfAs have changed greatly since the old days of the early 2000s.
My opinion has always been similar to EVula's, which I second: it is not a vote, but it is an "ivote" situation. My suggestion would be rather simple: discuss at will, always provide rationales, avoid "ad hominem" and, most importantly, do not feed trolls. The Bureaucrats will sort it out at the end. Trust their work. That's what they are here for. Redux (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- This discussion has been coming and going for about 10 years. It should be pointed out that the 85%-pass/70%-fail rule-of-thumb was created arbitrarily by the early Bureaucrats, but not exactly as a "law" that would be automatically applied to all of the old RfAs. It was put forth essentially as an explanation so that the community could understand how the Bcrats were deciding things at the time. Naturally, if one says this is how something is being done, one should, in good-faith, be true to one's word, and so the practice continued and eventually became embedded in the RfA system. But it is a fact that the complexity of RfAs have changed greatly since the old days of the early 2000s.
Hypothetical question
Once again that hypothetical question has been asked at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakec (question 4). it was asked during my RFA too. I think they are just copy-pasting this question. Two points/questions: a) firstly is there any rule that discourages same questions on every RFA? b) is this question really related to his adminship assessment? I have never seen such a situation. Do we really need to ask such question? --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that there's a policy about it but I think questions like this don't do any good for RfAs, it seems like it's meant to pick out a reason someone qualified shouldn't be given admin rights. Being an administrator on Wikipedia is about being trusted to act responsibly, not being able to deal with every "possible" situation. I doubt there are any situations where an administrator is forced to make a decision on their own, there's nothing wrong with leaving a decision for another administrator or, if it's time sensitive, asking someone else for their opinion. A good administrator is one who has a good understanding of the policies that relate to the actions they make and knows when they lack the knowledge or experience to make one. PhantomTech (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Theoretically a user can ask the same question at any RfA they see fit. I don't see anything wrong with this question. It seems to be perfectly relevant and reasonable for an RfA to determine how a candidate will judge consensus—this is a major aspect of adminship. There's no right or wrong answer, but it definitely helps in judging a candidate to see their response to a hypothetical situation. I was pitched some absolutely ridiculous hypotheticals that didn't even make any sense at my RfA, I simply answered them the best I could, the people who could take something from them did so, the people who didn't, didn't. Swarm X 04:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- IMHO this is a perfectly good question, as there ought to be some way of judging how someone would use admin tools -- as past experience isn't helpful in this case -- and it's a possible situation and one to which there are more or less "right" and "wrong" answers. There are no policies on RFA questions and votes; Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions are essays, and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is an information page and does not take a firm position on these things. ekips39 (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's an excellent question, if not for the reason many seem to assume. It highlights that strange place where supposed non-authority figures are called upon to be authority figures. GraniteSand (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's no reason to object to asking the same question at multiple RfAs -- the standard questions are asked at multiple RfAs, after all! This one is an excellent question: it tests whether the candidate is clear that policies and guidelines are developed by community consensus and trump the 4-1 "majority" of group A in the question. --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's actually a silly question in that it presents a false dilemma. I have a great deal of difficulty conceiving of a circumstance where a specific administrator is compelled to make that decision under those circumstances, limited only to those two options. To even produce this exact situation in reality – four voters who totally don't grasp Wikipedia policy, and one voter who completely does – you're typically dealing either with fanboys in a darker corner of Wikipedia (something related to Pokemon or cold fusion), canvassed puppets at an AfD or similar process, a deeply contentious political article, or some similar mess with significant backstory and overtones beyond the vague hypothetical framework. The question, as written, is a lose-lose—every reader is going to be able to come up with a situation where A or B might be the correct outcome. Trying to force the candidate to pick one or the other (and giving them no opportunity to consider anything else: "What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?") is a contrived, uninstructive, and counterproductive exercise.
- Any admin not sure of his ground in such a situation has a plethora of options. Doing nothing is a valid option, as taking an admin action is never compulsory for any one individual. Adding one's own vote endorsing the policy-compliant view is an option. Extending the deadline to get more discussion is an option (sometimes the lone voice doesn't grasp policy as well as he thinks, and it's good to wait for confirmation). Asking for assistance at AN or elsewhere is an option. Opening an RfC or escalating the dispute to a relevant noticeboard (WP:BLPN, WP:FTN, WP:RSN, etc.) is an option. The deeply-cynical but usually-correct approach is to start by figuring out why there are all these people who don't understand core Wikipedia policy attending this one discussion in the first place, and then go from there.
- It actually smacks of the questions we see on a regular basis at WP:HD, WP:VP, WP:AN, and even User talk:Jimbo Wales. Someone poses a "hypothetical" scenario with names, article titles, diffs, and context omitted, and asks how admins should (have) handle(d) it. After very little exploration, it tends to become extremely clear that the poser of the question's "general" query is actually quite specific, and they're trying to trap admins into (re)litigating a particular situation based on the poser's personal slanted presentation, making a decision that applies to a specific case sight unseen. Most admins tend to be pretty quick at calling bullshit on this type of nonsense, and either identify the real underlying dispute or keep quiet until an honest question is posed. I suppose that Iaritmioawp might have intended to test whether a potential admin could recognize these sorts of traps ("The only winning move is not to play"), but I fear that's giving too much credit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe the questions section should come with a reminder to the candidate that if they choose to answer a question, they are not obliged to accept the premise of the question... WJBscribe (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- This was asked at my RfA too. IMO it is a dumb question, because as TenOfAllTrades correctly states, it presents a false dilemma, not a real situation. My answer was that the hypothetical discussion is not ready for closure, because consensus has not been reached - and the notion that the candidate MUST make a closure is not something that would happen in real life. I said that rather than closing, I would cast a !vote for option B, and leave it for the next person to close. The question as posed seems to call for the closer to cast a supervote in favor of option B, which is not something admins are supposed to do. But with that said, I don't think we can or should prohibit copy-pasted questions or even dumb questions from being asked. Let the candidate deal with it, or not, and see what their response reveals about them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a false dilemma; it would make more sense to say "What do you do? [do you close the discussion? if so, how? if not, why not?]" than "A or B?", since the latter is arguably a trick question and is not fair to anyone because such tricks would not be part of the actual situation should it take place. I've never closed discussions so I can't comment on the situation itself, but I think some kind of question about consensus should be asked to determine how well the candidate understands it. Perhaps linking to a real situation would be better? ekips39 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Linking to a real situation is a pretty good idea but only if it's still open (so they can't just say they'd do whatever the closer did) Without an active discussion it might be a good idea for the questioner to write out a scenario in their sandbox or something and have the candidate respond to that. PhantomTech (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a false dilemma; it would make more sense to say "What do you do? [do you close the discussion? if so, how? if not, why not?]" than "A or B?", since the latter is arguably a trick question and is not fair to anyone because such tricks would not be part of the actual situation should it take place. I've never closed discussions so I can't comment on the situation itself, but I think some kind of question about consensus should be asked to determine how well the candidate understands it. Perhaps linking to a real situation would be better? ekips39 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I actually think that false premises come out all the time in debates and seeing that a potential admin recognizes them is a good sign. I've asked occasional trick / trap questions myself especially when I'm unsure about the candidate or have a particular concern. ( Hint: If I ask a question at an RfA and carefully label details of it to make it easier to talk about, question the question. ) Such questions are particular useful when someones edit history is either weak in an area or if they have had problems in the past. Direct questions sometimes might be too easy to answer right without really telling how they would respond in the real situation; if I want to give someone the benefit of a doubt I like to have a way to gauge first. For example consider the question I asked SoV; there was still concern over some past issues ( and I had opposed a previous RfA for those issues ); even with the statements that they wouldn't reoccur so I asked a question to see if they would attempt to self-justify "obvious" answers. And when they "copped out" on answering the question, I felt justified in supporting. For the question in particular I've also seen this consensus question asked before and answered before and seen good answers to it. It may be a bit of a false premise, but it's also a bit of a softball question to be honest. There are lots of very clear good responses to it if one is familiar with how consensus works. PaleAqua (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- This was asked at my RfA too. IMO it is a dumb question, because as TenOfAllTrades correctly states, it presents a false dilemma, not a real situation. My answer was that the hypothetical discussion is not ready for closure, because consensus has not been reached - and the notion that the candidate MUST make a closure is not something that would happen in real life. I said that rather than closing, I would cast a !vote for option B, and leave it for the next person to close. The question as posed seems to call for the closer to cast a supervote in favor of option B, which is not something admins are supposed to do. But with that said, I don't think we can or should prohibit copy-pasted questions or even dumb questions from being asked. Let the candidate deal with it, or not, and see what their response reveals about them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with asking the same question at an RFA. The user asking the question clearly has a personal set of criteria that the question is designed to answer. The question generally shouldn't be added to the "default questions" because the user may not wish to ask it on every candidate and the community hasn't endorsed the question for default use. Regardless of the content of the question, candidates should not be pressured to answer any questions they don't feel are appropriate or are badgering. Nakon 03:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with asking the same questions at RfA, provided they're not silly or abusive, which this isn't. I agree though that this question poses a false dilemma as no admin is ever obligated to close a discussion, and the closing result depends on what 'A' and 'B' actually are. Consider a nationally important Ivory Coast politician, who doesn't appear prominently in a UK or US Google search. Five "A"s all speak English as a second language and give vague criteria such as "he's important" or "he's nationally famous" because that's all they know, while "B" is "fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG" and other policy links with links to search results. "A" might still be the right option depending on how good B's research skills are. This is why I like to ask specific questions with specific content, which show that a candidate can apply a policy to a particular situation, there is no "right" answer and indeed a good answer can show insights I didn't think about.. Vague "what do you think about policy 'x'" questions are too likely to simply get you what you want to hear. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with someone asking the same question at multiple RfAs. But I am not a fan of trick questions either, and I think this is bordering on being a trick question.
- Questioner: If you were called upon to close debate XYZ, how would you close it?
- Candidate: Well, I'd take into account foo, bar, and baz and probably close it in favour of bleck.
- Questioner: WRONG! You shouldn't close it at all, you should put in a vote instead. !!!GOTCHA!!!
Reyk YO! 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- The already infamous 4xA vs 1xB question looks rather like a Rorschach test. Although the question is always the same, I've seen quite a variety of widely differing answers. The !voter is then called to make up his mind about what the answer might mean... Kraxler (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- In which case, be very careful how you answer. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting side note: It's been suggested that the person who pastes this question into every RfA has a particular answer they are looking for. But in fact, as far as I can tell this editor never posts a "support" or "oppose" vote. They do not seem to care how the candidate responds; they simply post their question. Nothing wrong with that, of course - the responses may give insight to other !voters, so to that extent they are contributing to the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
If copy and pasted questions, why not copy and pasted answers? It took very little effort to ask a "canned question", and the questioner ought not to expect much more from the candidate. KonveyorBelt 00:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- the question im looking @ asks for a 1 letter answer, think that's too much to expect? 134.119.32.35 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Question
What does the bot do to calculate the S% on RfX pages? Just for curiosity. --TL22 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)