Agree, per LV. I feel that it's becoming too much like AfD, in which a simple majority can overrule the more obvious answer. --^demon18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any voting is pernicious, it is a playing ground for trolls and fraudsters. Also leads to frantic campaigning by non-native speakers in their national wikipedias. --Ghirla | talk18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and this should work both ways. it seems some vote against for frivolous reasons. some also vote for as a matter of course. some reasonable indication of the vote rationale should be given for a vote either way. otherwise, i assume that the voter is not really informed about the matter. i particularly dislike positive votes because "it's no big deal". bullshit, it actually is in practice. Derex18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defenently. People should as a bare minimum explain why they oppose or support a candidate, and unless good reasons to oppose is given mechanical vote count should not disqualify a otherwise qualified candidate. Conversely clear proof of a "bad attitude" or past a history of disruptive behaviour should count for more than any number of "he's a cool guy" type support statements. --Sherool(talk)19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I'd like appointed admins, but I don't see a possibility of this happening. Sooner or later we will have to deal with the increasing problem of non-acculturated editors making it to adminship. It's a bit of a time bomb. --Tony Sidaway|Talk20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "I've bee persauded by the comments of Users X, Y, & Z above" ought to be an acceptable rationale. No reason to force people to parrot. DES(talk)21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. I have seen excellent editors being scared away from Wikipedia after a failed RfA in which editors voted alongside a political or religious POV. ≈ jossi ≈t • @22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, so long as people's comments are still grouped under "support", "oppose" or "neutral" headers because I fear making it even more difficult for bureaucrats to close these things up. -- Francs200000:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since voting by itself does not lend to a discussion atmosphere. Discussions are good, it lets someone see if the person really is qualified to be an admin or not.--Toffile21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with this. To use my own RfA as an example, most of the votes I recieved were either just flat-out support votes or repeated what others had already said. While I realize that there's not much to say after a certain point, I think it's just as helpful for the person being discussed as much as it is for the bcrat (I can't spell that word) closing the discussion to hear why or why not they should or shouldn't be an admin. Mo0[talk] 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Voting doesn't cause discussion; just "Support." means nothing. Also, will stop antagonizing those who disagree with a popular RfA, hopefully. Sometimes, you have to go "per X" since there are so many people, and everything you want to say has been said, but if you're among the first and you're just saying "Per nom" or something... I don't know, I'd just like to see more. (Maybe it's just that I'm new and don't understand yet.) -- Jjjsixsix(talk)/(contribs) @ 01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The voting seems seriously flawed to me because there is an element of discussion, which changes the basis upon which earlier votes are cast. To my mind a more effective process would have participants contributing only additional information about their perception of the candidate. A bureaucrat could then appoint when the discussion had reached a conclusion. Essentially, the discussion would consit only of statements along the lines of "I think this person would/would not make an effective admin because of <this quality not already mentioned>." and counterarguments against such statements. —Theo(Talk)12:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. Voting only takes into consideration the individuals (treated only as a percent) who choose to vote. A dicussion brings up any and all related issues which is on what the decision should be based. -- Krash (Talk) 17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RFA is broken. I had 3 rfars so far (none passed) and some comments I had as "opposes" had nothing to do with adminship such as:
(RfA1)threats to leave wikipedia if I were adminised: Such comments did not came from random one time "vote" accounts but from existing admins who later lectured me on civility on RfA3.
(RfA2)Suggesting SPUI was a better candidate than me. Hence My RfA2 was not as fascinating either. (on My rfa1 and rfa2 I had my stalkers generating 3 automatic opose votes, on one ocasion one of them voted oppose before the nominator quoting "Not admin material").
(RFA3)Opposed for being a "Turkish nationalistic" also was lectured about civility from a person who is going to leave wikipedia if I am going to be adminised.
I sincerely believe Adminship should not be a big deal. People made it a big deal on my RFA1 and RFA2 and when I made it a big deal on RfA3 some people wore a different hat. --Cool CatTalk|@19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, mere vote counts lead to arbitrary and political decisions, rather than meritorious ones, and one in which a simple majority can overrule the unbiased meritorious conclusion. If an admin doesn't have time to state the reasons for his vote, he doesn't have time to do the necessary research to form a competent vote in the first place, and his vote should be discarded.
A vote reflect the opinions expressed not the other way around. It allows for accountablity of nomination with % for and against as well as an easier divide of opinions (pro or con) for those voting. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can always ask users to provide reasoning, but there's no getting around the simple reality that at the end of the day, every RfA is a vote, which the nominee either wins or loses. --Aaron19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most support is based on a broad history of good behavior, rather than any specific good deeds that can be highlighted and talked about, I don't see any workable way to make it less of a process of endorsements and disendorsements without seriously reducing its ability to guage community sentiment. The current process is objective and fair (i.e. consistently applied), even if not everyone agrees with the results. Maybe if there were a specific proposal here someone could convince me that it could work, but in terms of the nebulous concept that we should discuss more and vote less on RFAs, I really don't see how to implement that in a way that is likely to make things better. Dragons flight19:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This allows too much wiggle room for the closing admin to decide whether he or she wants to delete based on their own preferences. And why do I get "agree" when I click on edit next to "disagree"? User:Zoe|(talk)00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the 'agree' thing happened because section=X was no longer true between the time you viewed the page, and clicked the edit link... I've gotten it before in really busy pages. -- nae'blis(talk)04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note my disagreement with that view. One of the neat things about WP is that it is NOT a democracy, but not a dictatorship either. Consensus is the wiki way. We have "rough" consensus because strict didn't scale to our size, but we still don't just let bare majorities rule. Democracy means 51% can oppress 49% and that's just not good. IMHO. Sorry for commenting on a comment but I feel rather strongly about that. ++Lar: t/c04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Errr...what? Consensus is orthagonal to voting; polling is a way to gauge support/opposition to a consensus idea, but the idea of winners & losers is what consensus is (ideally) supposed to avoid. Reducing it to bare numbers makes it a very different creature. -- nae'blis(talk)04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dragons flight. Additionally, the RfA's I've seen have been pretty good discussions, which come much closer to the consensus ideal than AfD. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk]03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. In honesty, I dont think the RFA system is that flawed. Good people usually get in, bad people usually stay out. I have sometimes been swayed by arguments of others, and others have sometimes been swayed by my arguments. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it tastes fine to me! It would be nice to see more arguments with votes, but you cant really make that a rule... If anything this topic is a matter for discussion rather than voting! The Minister of War(Peace)08:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has been here for a period of time is bound to have both friends and enemies. Votes are sometimes difficult as it is when certain individuals come to vote for no reason than to support a friend, regardless of their suitability for the job, or even when they come to vote against them in spite of their ability to do the job, simply because of a grudge. Reaching a consensus would be nigh-on impossible. The existing system, while flawed, is the best solution. JamyskisWhisper, Contribs12:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it's a good idea in theory, there really can't be much meaningful discussion about support votes. If you agree with the nominator and think a user would make a good admin, I don't think parroting everyone else or coming up with new ways of kissing someone's ass is very constructive. Only way real discussion can happen is if people oppose with good reasons and others comment on those reasons, which is exactly what happens now. - Bobet17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried this would cause RFAs to become bogged down over one minor or moderate "negative" issue, while a mountain of good deeds may become buried. Could skew RFAs. --tomf688{talk}23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So after everyone's opinions are in... who decides whether or not the user should be an admin? Pretty hard to say if you're judging "reasons". A hard vote count (though maybe forcing people to justify their votes) with a set-in-stone % threshold is probably the best way to do it. Matt Yeager00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I do truly enjoy the irony of people voting to end voting. Truth is we don't let the community vote, we're just letting a Bureaucrat vote in everyones place. I'ld rather have tyranny of 75% than tyranny of 1. And of course, votes don't rule out discussion in any way (though I'm not pro-tyranny). Bad faith, or reason-free votes can be tossed anyhow. --Rob07:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how focusing on discussion improves the process. The vote is an objective result coming from discussion (both in the RfA, and in the users contributions). - RoyBoy80009:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to suggest that people shouldn't discuss the RfA, nor that it would be a bad thing if there was more discussion. But it is useful to have a clear vote which in most cases does demonstrate whether or not there is consensus to create an administrator. If it doesn't, then the closing bureaucrat can examine the discussion in more detail. Warofdreamstalk16:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is important here because at least there is a clear mathematical process. Having it as a discussion, as with AfD, means that the closing bureaucrat may as well have the veto. Stifle16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't have time to have ~7 conversations a week regarding admin nominees. The amount of time for that many conversations would be overwhelming. With the current voting system, I can devote 10 minutes to a nominee and then go forward. Kingturtle06:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on RfA tends to come from the opposition. An RfA that is more focused on discussion would be more hostile and less effective. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently users are supposed to choose a position and support it. Discussion just reverses the order--providing supporting evidence and then choosing a position--and takes longer to generate consensus. "Votes" in the current system can always be changed if new evidence is subsequently presented. ~MDD469602:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per BlankVerse. I'd always like to see more discussion than just "support --~~~~", but I believe there is room for a quantitative read on sup/opp/neu votes. --Syrthiss18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I have enough idealism left to think that anything can be done about this issue without moveing power away from the community something I do not view as acceptable.Geni19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per BlankVerse. I feel many votes on WP need more discussion, I'd prefer a system of the RFA being open (say) for 5 days of comment and questions and then 2 days of voting, I also feel that people with valid points are sometimes put off by seeing a large support and that some will possibly just vote and then never see the comments of others which might impact their final conclusion. Having comments up front would help people see a broader picture of the candidate prior to voting. --pgk(talk)20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the evidence of TonySidaway's "increasing problem of non-acculturated editors making it to adminship". While it's a valid potential problem, I'm not sure it's something that currently exists. If it does, I want to know about it even more. -- nae'blis(talk)20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reponse to that, I should point out that Wikipedia Culture by its very nature is evolving, and that such effects traditionally cause confusion or dismay for older contributors. They may consider new people "non-acculturated" when in fact culture has changed and they themselves have lost their "acculturation". For that precise reason it would be a bad idea to have appointed admins, because it cultivates stagnation. Radiant_>|<20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's both a discussion and a vote. Ultimately, admins are promoted based on numbers of votes, but those numbers can (and should) shift based on reasoning presented in the discussion. The discussion, however, is the heart of the process. Antandrus (talk)02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be a popularity contest and have nothing to do with anything remotely to do with adminship, no matter what we do. I prefer Talrias' proposal, which several users opopsed his rfa for. (wtf?) --Phroziac. o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the German version, which is closer to a straight vote with occasional comments, is less contentious than en (in part because people don't feel the need to challenge every oppose vote). The Italian version is very similar to en and has very similar problems, but once again, the lack of a necessity to comment on an oppose vote seems like a good thing. The arbcom elections here, which were more of a straight vote, were less contentious. I think we probably need to tweak the system, but I suspect that requiring comments is just going to produce more sheer text and hence more opportunities for ill will. Chick Bowen05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think elements from both should be included in the RfA process. We need voting to include some measure of objectivity, as evil as voting is, but we also need some subjective leeway as a last resort -- checks and balances, if you will. (Disclaimer: WP:NOT a real democratic government.) Johnleemk | Talk12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need both; votes should not be counted unless they're accompanied by some discussion. The "vote" should just be clarifying the for/againstness of the discussion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish15:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what anyone would wish to discuss, there isn't much to be discussed about the fact that a candidate hasn't been problematic in the past. (Besides, if he has been, the fact will be brought up anyway.) Pilatus17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those in favor of blind counting should check out Rl's RFA, where multiple oppose votes from people who clearly misunderstood his responses to the questions (which were both honest and showed a clear grasp of wiki concepts and procedures) led to a denial, and him leaving. - BanyanTree18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per BlankVerse. Significantly more discussion should occur than does now, but only the vote count should be considered by bureaucrats. Transparent, deterministic use of bureaucrat power is necessary to prevent despotism. ~~ N (t/c) 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be more or less of a discussion. People are allowed to air opinions, so they do, therefore to a degree it is a discussion. But if it's considered too much of a "discussion" it becomes impossible to understand what the numbers are like. Mangojuice21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about having some fixed discussion period (several days, with no voting) followed by a voting period (with discussion still allowed)? Conscious10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've seen several get elected despite substantial well-founded opposition; in arbcom people seem to give more thought (and candidates drop out more readily if there is much opposition). If serious and valid concerns are raised, it's fair that admin powers should not be granted. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FAs are more discussion-based so that problems can be removed. Problems with admin candidates aren't "removed" in the same way. Essentially, few objections would be "actionable". A strawpoll is a good solution. – Quadell(talk) (bounties)15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the current system of voting and a discussion, however I feel there needs to be much more discussion than what currently takes place. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably happy with the current system but I think promotion should be the result of endorsement from the community and not consensus. There have been several promotions recently with some substantial objections voiced and oppose votes well into the double figures, yet they were deemed 'successful'. I've also seen admins who are quite clueless about even some of the most basic things on Wikipedia (how to write a good article even, in some cases), about CSD, about other processes; I think in some cases people who were promoted because they were popular and not because they showed any suitability for the role of admin. No names, of course. --kingboyk12:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ready Aim Fire! 19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
12:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)