User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Assume good faith

Easier to support than oppose (Archive 54)

There is some arguement over whether it should be easier to support than it is to oppose. I think it should, since RfA is there to decide if there is a reason not to make someone an admin, it's not there to decide if there is a reason to. Being an admin in "no big deal" or whatever the quote is. I would prefer to do away with support votes completely and just have people give reasons for opposing and people "vote" (for want of a better word) on whether the reasons are valid. If any reason is decided to be valid (I'm not sure what the required %age should be for that), the RfA fails, otherwise it suceeds. That would also make it possible to gather statistics on why RfAs fail, which would help the various discussions I've seen about whether standards are dropping or requirements are increasing or whatever. Does anyone think it's worth changing the format of RfA? --Tango 14:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't agree with the claim that "since RfA is there to decide if there is a reason not to make someone an admin, it's not there to decide if there is a reason to." This is only the case if we have a strong reason to believe that the person will at least occasionally use their admin capabilities in a way that benefits Wikipedia. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with your proposed format. Sometimes reasons need to be weighed as more or less valid. For example, one might oppose for two reasons, neither of which is fatal to support alone. If we are going to switch formats, the discussion formats that have been already proposed are much more reasonable. JoshuaZ 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is all the reason you need to support someone. You need a reason to go against that assumption. By all means suggest improvements to the system - prehaps 2 reasons with a % in a particular range would be enough, or give people an option to vote "valid but insufficent" and work out some way of resolving the RfA using them. Do you have a link to the proposals you mention? --Tango 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A few comments: First, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. We should assume good faith, we don't need to assume sainthood without evidence, nor do we need to assume that the user will act in good faith under extreme stress without evidence. Nor does it force us to make any assumptions about a users competency. There are many users who go through RfAs where the issue is not lack of good faith but lack of competency and/or lack of experience. (which is why for example, some people vote oppose based on malformed RfAs, or lack of policy knowledge.) JoshuaZ 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tango, you should try to support somebody by simply saying "I assume he acts in good faith", and I'll bet you that most people (who havent read this talk page) will be critical about that vote! Certainly, its easier to support than to oppose. That's even codified. But to my mind, that inherent to the matter at hand. When you support, you support because the candidate portrays a good overall character and seems suitable. When you oppose, you usually do so for very specific reasons. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think I can agree with you here, Tango. The burden of proof lies on the nominator and candidate to prove they are worthy. But let's agree to disagree. The more important point, it seems to me is that there are two things that go on in our 'votes'. First, we express our opinion about the appropriateness of the candidate ('support/'oppose'); second, we try to convince others about our interpretation of the candidate's merits (or lack of them). If people decide to make a simple 'support' or 'oppose', I think that is their business: we should assume they are acting in good faith, according to their own rational reasons, even if they do not share them. If they provide a strong argument they may attract others to their view; if they provide a bad argument, they may repel others. But I think it should be up to each wikipedian to decide how much of their reasoning to share. To go to the next stage and demand detailed argument from the opposition implicitly assumes bad faith. You are requiring people to demonstrate good faith instead of assuming it. Bucketsofg 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're still thinking of RfA as a vote (maybe only subconciously, but you are). A statement of opinion without a reason doesn't help consensus, it just helps reach a certain %age, which isn't what RfA is about. --Tango 14:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? An opinion without support of argument does help determine consensus, though it carries less weight. Someone who "votes" support is saying, "Yep, I like these arguments: As a WPian, I throw my lot in with these guys." It would be nicer if he gave a long reason, but his opinion matters nevertheless. Plus, in certain contexts, like BD2412's unanimous record, or even Sam Spade's 2nd with 50 voices on each side, all reasons might be exhausted, and less talking by later participants is understandable. Xoloz 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"You're still thinking of RfA as a vote (maybe only subconciously, but you are)". With respect, I don't think I am, though I'll admit that my unconscious processes are not fully understood by me (or you, when it comes down to it). What I'm doing is being willing to assume that someone has given full and appropriate consideration to a nomination even when they say simply "support" (or merely adds some very general praise); you seem unwilling to allow the same assumption of good faith for someone to say "oppose". Bucke</b>tsofg 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't count any vote that didn't have a reason ("per nom" is a perfectly good reason - no point repeating the same reasons that have already been given), support or oppose. A consensus ought to be about pursuading others to your view, or reaching a compromise - that's what separates it from a vote. If you don't give a reason, you're not helping reach consensus. The current RfA system is not a consensus - it's a qualified majority. They are not synomynous. We should at least try and work towards a consensus even if we can't reach one and have to fall back on a majority decision. --Tango 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In a way, I like that suggestion, BUT... here is the problem I see. Basically, "per somebody" becomes pro forma. At least with supports, I've always assumed that any "vote" without elaboration had an implied "per nom." at the end. Making folks type those six letters in order to have their opinion "count" seems like empty formalism to me. What we would all like is for every participant to think hard about every nomination they "vote" in -- and written words don't always correlate with that, for many different reasons. Xoloz 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA should be about determining whether or not the community has come to a consensus to promote the candidate; while in a utopian world we could require everyone to give reasons, the fact is that the current system works fine. If people support the candidate, they can do so, and optionally provide reasons why; if they don't, they can do so as well, and optionally provide reasons against the nomination. We trust our bureaucrats to make the right call. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but supplying reasons is much more valuable towards reaching the valued consensus than not supplying them, particularly for oppose votes, since supports can simply be taken as agreeing with what has already been said in the nomination. Polite requests for expanded reasoning on a vote should be filled, but that's just common courtesy. Refusing to expand on reasons could be indication the vote doesn't have reasonable backing, and is up to the bureaucrat to interpret based on the limited information given. Only with reasoning supplied can you expect a bureaucrat to fully fully apply the "vote" towards determining what the consensus is. While I agree we shouldn't require explanation, again, it is certainly more helpful to give it. - Taxman ^Talk 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that fact fully and completely: reasons are much more preferred and optimal than simple "votes" without explanation or comment, especially for opposition. However, eliminating support votes makes the RfA job hard and burdensome; it's difficult to judge community support when... well, no support is expressed. (Does that make sense?) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm with you there, I thought that was implied :). And I was mostly agreeing with what you were saying anyway, just expanding. - Taxman ^Talk 00:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)