User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Vote vs !vote

Discuss or vote (Archive 64)

Does anyone know why we are being invited to "Vote here" on current RfAs for Ikiroid, Firsfron, ERcheck, Wickethewok, Pegasus1138, and "Discuss here" for WAvegetarian, Yanksox, CheNuevara? Tyrenius 03:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably someone changed the wording on the template from discuss to vote. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The template was changed.....there's a big debate about it (see above on this talkpage). Basically, you should choose a side and give a variety of good reasons. But supports are often one-word posts because theoretically one should assume good faith unless there is a good reason. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifically this is the diff where the change was made. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So W.marsh has decided we're officially voting instead of discussing? Do we have a reason for this, let alone a consensus? Tyrenius 03:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think we should use "!vote" officially. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because all the cool admin candidates are doing it....I rather like "opine" as the verb describing the giving of one's opinion. This is what mine used to say.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why everyone wants to call everything votes on wikipedia - to me it's always been providing a recommendation not a vote. MLA 06:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer discuss to vote. Alternatively Express your opinion. Stephen B Streater 11:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anons may not vote in RfAs, but they may discuss and are welcome to express their opinions. It is hard to formulate this distinction if we use the same word for everything. Kusma (討論) 12:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Using words like "discuss" or "express your opinion" has led to confusion in the RfA headers and instructions before. While I am against political correctness in general, I do like the "suggest" or "recommend" words, similar to what's currently being used at AfD. This has the additional benefit that suggest or recommend is a clear action, differentiating it from "comment". This lead to confusion in various versions of the RfA headers stating that all users (including anonymous users) are allowed to comment, while only registered users are allowed to discuss/express your opinion/comment. Voting, !voting, suggesting, or recommending are clearly different verbs to commenting. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just say Build Consensus or something, since that's what RfA is about, last I checked.--digital_m e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So we click on a link to "Build consensus", and all users are allowed to comment, while only registered users are allowed to build consensus? Sounds confusing. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Meh. "Discuss here" seemed to be fine..."Express your opinion here" is slightly wordier, but more permissive. -- nae'blis 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) It is the practice to strike IP comments anyway. Tyrenius 20:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I darn well hope not! Kim Bruning 11:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Polls are evil (Archive 64)

Someone cited m:Polls are evil today, and in re-reading that essay, it occurs to me that it describes the RfA of today. People are complaining that there's too much groupthink, that it encourages a raw count over consensus, or the opinions of the person who closes it over consensus, and even this gem:

When the vote is strongly unbalanced, those on the "losing" side feel marginalized, and those on the "winning" side will sometimes feel as though the results of the poll give them license to do as they wish without taking into account the views of the minority, though nothing has been resolved.

It just occurs to me that this essay is talking about RfA as we have it set up today. And contrary to apparently popular belief, changing the word "vote" to "discuss" doesn't improve anything. In fact it makes it even more confusing to newcomers. In general, the idea that we can just fix RfA by making the wording politically correct is counterproductive. --W.marsh 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you say, but I take it in a different direction. Encouraging the vote aspect while at the same time disagreeing with it strays close to WP:POINT, in that you are trying to push the discussions so far that way in order for it to break down to illustrate your own view. It's akin to allowing unliscensed, non-seasonal hunts in order to show why there should be wildlife management. I've once again changed vote to discuss, and hope we can work out something here. -M^ask

05:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not WP:POINT... I am not like that. Like I've said, simply calling it a discussion to be politically correct and still treating it like a vote/poll is much worse than simply calling it a poll. There's this attitude that if we bury our head in the sand that there won't be a problem, and I admit that if I was just trying to rub the problem in everyone's face, it would be WP:POINT. But like I've said elsewhere on this page, with 100+ people commenting, any reading of consensus that ignores the raw numbers is going to be hopelessly subjective, and people who get their opinion ignored are going to feel marginalized. I really see this "it's not a vote, but it is" doublespeak as being at the root of a lot of the frustrations with RfA.

Polls may have been evil when we had 5 people commenting in every RfA... but we don't have that luxury any more. And changing the wording around doesn't make it 2003 again, it makes it 2006 with a system that denies what it is, and frustrates a lot of people because of that. Also I point out that we had the "vote" wording for a long time, and though other factors were at play, it seems like those days are the ones people point to as when RfA wasn't nearly as venemous as it is now. --W.marsh 13:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote, period. Simply by drawing a couple of people into discussion you can often shift consensus around a bit. I wasn't even doing anything at the CheNuevra RFA, just requesting further information from certain people. Can you imagine what would happen if people actually try to ... hold a discussion? ;-) (And yes, it's entirely permitted, it's not rude, and have fun with it! :-) Kim Bruning 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA is a discussion, we should never lose sight of that, but it's also closed basically with a head count. We can emphasize the discussion elements, having a 2-3 day discussion period before the vote seems like a good way to discourage the "herd mentality" we see so often in RfA, for example, and also prevents stubborn early voters from locking themselves into a vote they don't end up agreeing with, or checking back to see. But this attitude that we're just interpreting consensus, and no voting at all is going on... that's patronizing to people who fail. They failed because they didn't get enough votes... which is probably a consequence of the quality of debate, but not always. --W.marsh 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually that just shows that RfA has gotten screwed up, because people haven't been paying attention. It's supposed to be a hybrid discussion / poll. Once roughly everyone agrees (called rough consensus? ;-) ) to promote, the bureaucrat proceeds to do so. Hence the odd percentages that people observed and then somehow thought was a rule.Kim Bruning 16:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue of polls is tricky and contentious. My view on it is this: the outcome of an RFA (or AFD, or whatever) is not supposed to represent what the closer thinks is common-sense, reasonable, etc. It is supposed to reflect what the community thinks, because bureaucrats (and admins) are supposed to have no additional authority, only additional power. To gauge what the community thinks, we'd ideally want a real poll, with only a random cross-section of Wikipedians (skewed if you like, perhaps by picking registered-user edits off RC at random) "voting". As we have it now, the system is very susceptible to vote-stacking — a while back I observed an RFA where I basically had proof positive that someone waged an e-mail campaign to influence the outcome, and quite possibly succeeded.

So anyway. I would say that ideally the closing bureaucrat should, based on the poll, estimate the level of community support (not just voter support) for the adminship, and close it accordingly. Given the difficulty of distinguishing between the community and the voters under the present system, the current rules used by bureaucrats are sound. Votes should absolutely not be discounted just because they "don't present a valid reason" or the like — the closer may not agree with the reason, but that doesn't make it invalid.

Of course, none of this is meant to dis discussion. I think a few days of pre-vote discussion are a good idea. But the final say should rest with the community, not the bureaucrat. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by the last sentence, that the bureaucrat cannot apply discretion and must instead count !votes made by the community, that any member of the community can decide whether the candidate becomes an admin, or something else? --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That the bureaucrat should basically just count votes, not use discretion (the conventional system of discretion in the narrow band between 75 and 80% is fine). The community is what should have discretion, not the individual bureaucrat who happens to close the vote. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple RFA proposal (Archive 68)

For an RFA put up a person's name, a tally, a support, an oppose and a neutral. Nothing else. (no sections headers either they are a pain.) NO other crap, no edit counts, no gushy noms, no questions, nothing. This way, if you know the person you can make an intelligent entry on the RFA. If you don't, you have to go research their qualifications on your own, and can't just sheep onto the info regurgitated for you by other editors. Anyone who comments "support, this guy is kewl!" will look like an idiot and it will be immediatley obvious who didn't do their homework. Let the info come out in the wash and people's comments. (OMG a *real* discussion!) Make it simple and FORCE PEOPLE TO THINK FOR ONCE. pschemp | talk 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This makes way too much sense to ever work. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Too easy to get around. People will just put up a lot of "oppose per" and "support per" and/or will just spend the few seconds it takes to get the edit counts. The current system for its problems is working well. JoshuaZ 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, that's exactly what they do now. How would this make that worse? I think the current system is too full of crap one must wade through. pschemp | talk 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea, but I think if three people oppose in the beginning, most others will follow in suit instead of doing research for themselves. Michael 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, they do that now anyway. This can't stop people from being idiots totally, but at least people won't have to wade through paragraphs of crap to see it. pschemp | talk 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That is true. Michael 01:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA is not a vote, it's a discussion. Simply posting votes is anti-Wikipedian culture. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic? Michael 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposal was to not include anything but votes, obviously. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not if you read it. I didn't even use the word votes. Discussion happens in comments. pschemp | talk 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. And if you simply posted a comment without an attached discussion you'd look silly. This moves the discussion to the comments, and lets it form there, rather than having the discussion pre-digested and written for you in all of the other stuff. It promotes discussion, whereas now you just read the crap and say something, you don't even have to think. Its a simple and elegant way to organize and force discussion. pschemp | talk 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does your proposal say anything about posting to the Talk page? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, nor did I say it did. An "attached discussion" goes in the comment (what you are calling "votes"). the point is that when you make your comment in support or whichever, you support it with a discussion of your reasons right there. This makes listing edit counts, etc not needed as discussion takes place in the comments people post.pschemp | talk 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If this change were made, people would be forced to discuss rather than have everything laid out for them. Michael 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And Zoe, people usually discuss on the RfA itself. Michael 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal makes absolutely no mention of discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what is meant by "intelligent entry". One with reasons and facts attached to it. That is a discussion. pschemp | talk 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zoe here, the proposal makes this sound like turning RfA into a blatant vote/poll with no mention of discussion (we were just supposed to assume that part?) Anyway, if someone doesn't discuss on the talk page, do we strike their uh... comment? If they don't discuss "enough" do we do the same? Who determines this? Are the b'crats (who'd be the most likely people to enforce this) even interested in this extra work, which would be considerable? Proposal leaves a lot of questions unanswered. And getting snarky with objecters doesn't help. --W.marsh 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting snarky. Sorry if you think I am. To me "intelligent entry" means one with a discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I absolutely oppose just recording a support/oppose nuetral without a discussion attached to it. The purpose of throwing out this idea is not play semantics with the words I wrote, but discuss an alternative method of doing things. Agian, my definition of "intelligent entry" is one that includes a discussion and reasoning. You also are confused as I never proposed putting anything on a talk page, but instead a comment would say (for example) Support - This user deserves to be an admin because of blah blah blah and I looked at this contrib and I think he shows a good attitude here and so on and so forth. This creates no more work than what is already there. pschemp | talk 02:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with pschemp here. The present system may encourage the candidate to make lengthy statements, partly to avoid being accused of "not needing the tools" or having "poor answers to questions". The nomination could become a joint enterprise, ie the nominator and the candidate fill in a form (template) together (no self-noms), using an adaptation of the current three-questions format, then other editors support oppose or neutral, with brief evidenced reasons. Anything beyond a few words, and any additional questions and discussion should go on the discussion page, and should be strongly encouraged. Keeping the !votes and the discussion separate will aid clarity, and insisting on reasoned !votes will aid collegiality. Of course you will still have the problem of "per nom" or "per xxx" contributions. They could, I suppose, be marked as endorsements below the nom or the other user's !vote. --Guinnog 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal says, For an RFA put up a person's name, a tally, a support, an oppose and a neutral. Nothing else.. Where does all of this talk of opposing support/oppose/neutral without a discussion, "intelligent" or otherwise, come from? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

People put their explanations beside their support/oppose/neutral. Michael 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up. Both you and pschemp are trying to force us to discuss something that you are not proposing. Until you actually propose something that you claim you are proposing, there is no point in further discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp proposed it, and we clarified the idea. It's an idea for a proposal. You had questions. Michael 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't clarified anything. You're both talking around the subject by trying to claim that you are proposing something which you are not proposing. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an idea for a proposal. What, specifically, has not been answered? Michael 03:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is my last posting on the subject until the "proposal" is rewritten. pschemp's proposal said that there should be nothing on the RfA but a support, oppose, neutral. When I, then W.marsh objected, you and he both suddenly started saying, "no, that isn't what the proposal says, we said there should be discussion on the Talk page." No, that is what the proposal says, and you are not addressing my objections, you're merely attacking me for not being able to read your minds. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that refers to the physical format of the RFA when it is put on the page. It doesn't mean that's the end of the process. Then people add their comments in the appropriate section with their discussion/reasoning. (That's an intelligent entry). I'm not attacking you for anything. pschemp | talk 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is attacking you, and what was said was that voters include the discussion beside their vote of support/oppose/neutral as it is now (i.e. Support - great vandal fighter). That's the type of discussion, and as you know, people may also make discussions. The proposal was mainly to do away with the listing of the edit count, standardized questions, nominations, etc. Michael 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, this is a discussion about an idea, not a vote on the exact wording of something. Since when was I not allowed to clarify what I meant? I'll try again to help you understand. When an RFA is listed, the only headers put on the page are "Name, tally, support, oppose, neutral." Then, when people add their name under a header, they include a discussion of why they voted that way, right after their choice of Support, Oppose or Neutral. Each entry then looks something like: Support - This user deserves to be an admin because of blah blah blah and I looked at this contrib and I think he shows a good attitude here and so on and so forth. None of the questions or edit counts or any of the other info we currently plaster all over the page is included. This way, to make the Support/oppose reasons and discussion they type in the Support/Oppose/Neutral section right after the word Support/Oppose/Neutral be a real, intelligent, thought out reason, they will have to go look up the information themselves. All the extraneous info is not there for people just to copy. They must hunt it down themselves, so that when they post their vote/comment/disscussion in the appropriate section, it becomes a real discussion and not just a regurgitation of the other info listed on the page like we have now. pschemp | talk 03:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Michael 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even simpler version. Rfa is just like it is now, but no noms, questions or statistics are included and when people make a "vote" (which isn't a vote, its a comment) they add an original, reasoned discussion right after the word Support/Oppose/Neutral - using that entry as a discussion of the candidate. This way people have to do their own research before they vote so they will have something to say and because no other info about the candidate is provided. pschemp | talk 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would comments in the vein of "support per so-and-so" be prohibited? Are there really enough possible "original, reasoned" justifications to go around? Also, I'm afraid that under this system, users would still vote without research, but this time simply follow the crowd and make entirely uninformed votes, rather than drawing on the (admittedly limited) information about the user in the nomination and whatnot. — Dan | talk 04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But some users would do research, and those that do not may have a lesser desire to vote if they don't have something right in front of them that then requires little thought in deciding one's vote. Michael 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal sounds like a good idea. The whole "nomination" culture here is ~~crap~~ suboptimal anyway (it gives the false impression that sysophood is something like an award, which it isn't). Anything that helps moving to a more discussion like style on RfA's would be good. There should be more of a culture for working towards consensus, which means that panelists should think about all statements made by others and rethink their position if points are brought up by others. We need to benefit of the brain power of the whole group of panelists. We can't expect everyone to do a complete perfect deep scrutinity of their own. I generally fear that a lot of people never move their positions because they think it makes them looking imperfect: being bound forever to what one has said in the past ("I shall not be moved"). This is not a evaluation of all arguments. --Ligulem 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is not a vote (Archive 68)

New (proposed) policy by User:Tony Sidaway. Looks like redundant staff to me abakharev 09:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed compromise to stop the edit war over "RFA is not a vote" (Archive 68)

Hi,

I have not been happy with the "RFA is not a vote" text that Tony Sidaway et al have composed and inserted into the article. However, I been waiting to see what the reaction of other Wikipedians was before expressing my opinion.

I'm even less happy that the change was composed in a separate sandbox that was not widely advertised thus resulting in a change to the description of policy that was composed by a handful of admittedly highly respected Wikipedians but nonetheless a handful. I think this smacks of cabalism and, whether such behavior was intentional or not, even the appearance of cabalism is detrimental to the Wikipedia community.

That said, the result of this lack of transparency is that there is now a budding edit war over this text. The edit war over the "Please update the (vote)-tallies" text is just a proxy for a dispute about whether or not RFA is a vote.

Edit wars are never good but a high-profile one such as this is very bad.

I propose the following compromise (variations of which I have advocated earlier in this discussion)...

"The RFA process includes a non-binding vote to determine the level of support for an adminship candidate. Bureaucrats give significant weight to the reasoned opinions of respected Wikipedians that are expressed during the non-binding vote. However, the vote serves more as a vehicle for discussion rather than as a simple up-or-down vote."

--Richard 14:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks fair to me. --WikiCats 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute over whether or not RfA is a vote. RfA isn't a vote. It is wrong if people hold that opinion, and it's dangerous if these pages give them that impression.

So, while I appreciate your efforts at compromise, I am unhappy with any text that suggests RfA is a vote. We should be encouraging people not just to 'vote' support, oppose or neutral but to explain their reasons and engage in discussion. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a vote is a matter of semantics, since it clearly contains votes, by the normal definition of vote. But it is not just a collection of votes, it is also a collection of comments, all leading to consensus and as such the compromise sounds good to me. I strongly protest to changing the article without adequate discussion and probably a vote, considering how contentious this is. Actually, I agree that this compromise is inadequate for the reasons just stated. It doesn't even mention consensus! I like the original text on the article page better. -- RM 14:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is only to the people like you that just pay lip service to the idea that RFA isn't a vote and that voting on everything is evil that the concept is just semantics. It is not semantics whether it is a vote or not. RFA won't stop being a vote until people stop claiming and believing it is. Intentional or not, dismissing the argument as semantics means you are favoring including the harmful word "vote," and that's no small thing. Calling it a non-binding vote, still encourages people to, well, vote, disrupting the consensus-building process. I had to read through your comment three times before deciding that your calling for a vote on the matter wasn't sarcasm. Voting on this, just like RfA and almost anything, is a terrible idea. RfA is not, never was, and never will be intended to be a vote. Erm, you want us to vote on that? You are correct on one thing, the wording should mention consensus, but only that. Dmcdevit·t 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Take it down a notch, please, Dmcdevit. Statements like "people like you that just pay lip service", etc, don't in any way contribute to Wikipedia. Also, a statement like "RfA is not, never was, and never will be intended to be a vote" ignores the early RFAs, where comments like "Can I vote on RFAs?" Were replied with, "Yes, you can vote"-type answers. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, why does my opinion not in any way contribute to Wikipedia? In any case, your point is a redherring. The fact that people have treated RfA as a vote does not mean that that is good or that that is the intent of RfA. If so, I wouldn't need to be commenting here at all. This is why I worded that statement the way I did. Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. How do you determine whether or not there is a consensus and what that consensus opinion is without taking a vote?

Wikipedia has its own special definition of "consensus" which means "as long as nobody raises an objection that the powers that be consider valid enough to overturn a developing consensus". First you gotta see where the majority of people stand and then you have to evaluate whether any of the minority "voters" have raised an objection worth overturning the majority.

At the end of the day, there is a "vote" to determine where the majority opinion is. It's a "non-binding vote" because the "powers that be" are not obliged to follow the dictates of the majority EVEN if it is a supermajority. Nor are they obligated to follow the dictates of the minority even if the minority is so large as to reduce the majority to a simple majority.

NB: This "non-binding vote" is also called a "straw poll" in some Wikipedia policy and guideline documents.

--Richard 18:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple: if you need to take a vote, consensus does not exist. Just ask any Quaker :-) Guy 18:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whew! Really? I think the above description means "Someone makes a proposal and if no one objects, there is a consensus. If anybody objects, then by definition, there is no consensus."

Applying this to RFA, we could just dispense with the support votes altogether. Just nominate the poor guy and if anyone objects with a compelling reason, he fails. Support votes are irrelevant, we assume they are there. If you object with a reasoned explanation, your vote counts towards the absence of a consensus. If there are enough objections, the RFA fails.

Personally, I don't think this approach will ever fly here at Wikipedia but it's an interesting concept.

--Richard 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You probably need to add a little bit to the end. Something like:

"The RFA process includes a non-binding vote to determine the level of support for an adminship candidate. Bureaucrats give significant weight to the reasoned opinions of respected Wikipedians that are expressed during the non-binding vote. However, the vote serves more as a vehicle for discussion rather than as a simple up-or-down vote. Notwithstanding that arbitrary upper and lower limits exists and should any Bureacrat use their judgement and make a decision which differs from these limits some users will carp on and on and on and on about it venting their spleen while avoiding any effort to actually contribute to the Encyclopediac aspects of the project."

ALR

LOL... Thanks for the second good chuckle of the morning. The first one can be found here. --Richard 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

More food for thought (Archive 69)

Since our current RFA system is a hybrid, I'm going to list both extremes as a thought experiment. Comments welcome. Please don't assume that either extreme is my actual opinion; this is just brainstorming. Also, please don't be offended if the language seems harsh, they're called extremes for a reason, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, bureaucrat or otherwise. Radiant! 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, though I prefer to describe what it is, rather than what we think it should be. I used to think that RFA was a vote but on observing how recent RFAs were handled I decided that it isn't, even if it once was.

On the argument that RFA must be a vote, I don't think it's reasonable. For instance we would not want to force a bureaucrat to consider a ridiculous reason, even if it was genuinely held. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA must be a vote

The basic definition of an admin is someone who can be trusted to not abuse the tools, and RFA serves to gauge the trust our community places in the candidate. Trust is, by definition, a subjective issue, and very personal. While most people can explain quite reasonably why they do or do not trust someone, other people can understand the reasoning fully and yet disagree equally reasonably. No editor can rightfully claim that another editor is wrong on this or that his trust (or lack thereof) is invalid.

As such, it is impossible for any third party, such as a bureaucrat, to accurately interpret community consensus based on arguments - doing so will inevitably lead to the bureaucrat counting or discounting reasons based on his personal opinion, which, because of human nature, isn't any better or worse than anyone else's opinion. Thus, any RFA that is interpreted by a bureaucrat in any such subjective way, is by definition biased.

The only fair way to judge an RFA is to make it an actual vote, discounting sockpuppets, of course, but nobody else even if their reasoning seems spurious. We should create a strict limit of two-thirds or three-quarters of the participants, and use that as an absolute divider between who passes and who fails. The role of a bureaucrat is a strictly formal one (which gives them more time for renaming users, checking bots, and writing articles). Incidentally, this system is in use in most other-language Wikipedias that have a formal adminship system, and it works fine there. Most dissent on RFA is because of its vagueness; a strict borderline may be somewhat arbitrary, but at least it is open, egalitarian, and fair. Nothing else is.

>Radiant< 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA must not be a vote

The basic definition of an admin is someone who can be trusted not to abuse the tools, and RFA serves to gauge the trust our community places in the candidate. Trust is, by definition, a subjective issue - however, there are certain reasons that are more valid than other reasons. A candidate who was a hostile edit warrior in the past or escalated a dispute by handling it wrongly is likely unsuited for adminship; a candidate who has a limited field of interest perceived as trivial or ludicrous, or who is in disagreement about an issue important in the real world but unrelated to adminship, would likely be a good candidate.

Many Wikipedians are quite capable of judging other people rationally, and estimating their efficacy in adminship based on past actions. However, several editors are less rational, and can be seen to hold a grudge against a candidate, or to oppose for reasons of principle, or to support because of reasons that may be laudable but have no bearing on adminship whatsoever.

The only fair way to judge an RFA is to consider the given arguments (both support and oppose) on their merit, and discount all that have no bearing on adminship. This is a difficult task, but that's what we elect bureaucrats for. RFA should not resemble anything like a vote; instead, a few people should make brief, sourced arguments on why the candidate may or may not be suitable. People who have nothing to say but "me too" or "support per that user" should stay away, they're not contributing to the process. Also, comments should not be signed - it's the argument that count, not the person who makes it.

After some flexible amount of time, several bureaucrats should discuss with one another whether there are, in their best judgment, any compelling reasons not to promote the candidate - and if not, perform the promotion. No single bureaucrat should make this decision, if only for the sake of perceived fairness. To ensure accountability to the community, bureaucrats should serve terms of up to one year. Depending on bureaucrat judgment may be somewhat subjective, but at least it ensures that people are promoted or demoted for a good reason, which is only fair. Nothing else is.

>Radiant< 09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This last paragraph about bureaucrats consulting with one another is not directly related to the "is a / is not a vote" dichotomy. I would urge you to remove/strike it out in order to avoid confusing the issue. The last paragraph converts the "not a vote" decision into a "a vote by bureaucrats" decision. Whether one bureaucrat decides or a group of bureaucrats decides is a second-order question. The primary question that you seem to be asking is: "Is RFA a vote among all interested Wikipedians?"

--Richard 16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another way to present RFA as a vote. (Archive 70)

This is a bit more complicated, but perhaps more fair way to approach RFA:

The tally at the top would be removed.
Each RFA would have one support section, and an oppose section for each objection.
Each oppose section would be considered seperately with the single support section, with the current discretionary process, as if each oppose section combined with the single support section constitutes a single RFA "discussion"
If none of the objections are strong enough, when considered individually against the supports, the RFA succeeds.

The net effect of this is that objections most of us would consider trivial will have little impact, as they won't gather enough consensus to override the supports, but strong objections should prevail.

Any thoughts on this one? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like this proposal. — Werdna talk criticism 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I worry that doing this could skew the process in favor of the unthinking and careless by giving even trivial objections undue prominence. For instance someone could object that someone had performed fewer than 100 edits in project space (which is really a pretty fatuous objection) but under this scheme the objection would get its own section. --Tony Sidaway 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But would such a trivial objection as this get enough "votes" to override the supports when considered with the total weight of the supports? If only say, 4 people share a particular objection, against say 60 supports, that objection is effectively nullified. If on the other hand 30 people were to oppose versus 60 support, it would be a different story. I still think this helps turn aside the more trivial objections, even though it would give them more visibility. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that if enough weight is given to a trivial objection it may acquire a spurious legitimacy over time. I don't see the advantage of doing it this way, in any case. We're not supposed to be into voting, so why would we want to go out of our way to make RFA into a vote? --Tony Sidaway 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the gist of what Steph's going into here is that each objection has a little miniature straw poll associated with it — and if an important enough objection stands up to a straw poll, then it can preclude them from adminship. I also think that opposing an objection should distinguish between Oppose as invalid concern and Oppose as irrelevant to adminship. — Werdna talk criticism 08:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I agree that it shouldn't be a vote, but like most "discussions", they attain the de-facto status of being a vote. I don't like it, but if that's what its going to be, lets at least fix the process so that frivolous concerns aren't given any weight. This would do that I think, because the supports would apply to the entire RFA - you would need a single objection to endorsed by enough users that they offset the supports, going by current standards by at least 20%, possibly by as much as 40%. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 08:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideological concerns about whether voting is evil or not should not be the issue here. It is quite possible that a "pure voting"-style RfA would do a good job at weeding out unsuitable candidates, while not turning into a rehashing of old arguments or a general policy discussion like current RfAs do. Most of the unpleasantness of current RfAs comes from the discussions, I think. It is quite possible that we lose good candidates who are not interested in this ordeal. Kusma (討論) 09:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree discussions can be unnecessarily hostile, but I think most people use the discussion to help form their view. Also, a pure vote could be gamed too easily. Stephen B Streater 09:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Many other language Wikipedias have pure votes, and their suffrage requirements seem to prevent gaming of the system. Kusma (討論) 10:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification:

The tally at the top would be removed.
Each RFA would have a single support section.
Objections could be raised, each in their own section, each consisting of a statement of why the RFA should not succeed. (Each objection could raise one or more reasons)
Each objection raised could be endorsed by one or more users.
At the conclusion of the RFA, each objection is seperately weighed against the total weight of the support "votes". If any objection can stand on its own with enough endorsements to counter the support votes, the RFA fails.

The net effect of this is that the burden to oppose is a lot higher. You need one objection that is strong enough on its own to turn down the user for adminship. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 08:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a lot more like consensus in some ways (at least the way I teach it), in that once an objection is made, it becomes up to the group to decide whether or not that particular objection is enough to block the proposal from moving forward. It doesn't "belong" to that one user anymore. (In the current system, we're very susceptible to "object per above", where the opinions above include valid, invalid, and insane reasons for opposing). That said, I'm not sure this is a good idea in toto, but it does make me want to revisit the "Discuss for a few days, then !vote for a few days" idea that got discarded when Discussions for adminship sank this spring. -- nae'blis 15:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The tendency with these proposals seems to be leading towards a process we already have; each successive proposal looks more and more like Requests for Comment. Perhaps we have the adminship method we need already? --ais523 07:47, 25 September 2006 (U T C)

I think we do. RFC is a better model, and a model that we could strengthen for dealing with other issues as well. It may even be a valid model for sorting out this mess, as I recall policy can be RFC'd - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 06:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)