Wikipedia:Adminship survey/I

(33/03/14) RfA has become a popularity contest

Points to think about :

Does RfA give credit to those who are not as prolific?
Do editors support a candidate just because they like him/her?
Should adminship instead be bestowed at the discretion of some higher authority (e.g. the bureaucrats) without extensive community vote?

Agree

With extra exclamation marks. This is a result of subcommunities of editors that !vote for the same (bad) reasons. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly. It's not about what you've done, but who you know and haven't pissed off.-- badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely. There's some severe ILIKEHIM/IDONTLIKEHIM going on - probably partly why people don't bother to look behind single diffs, they just use them to justifying opposing a candidate they don't like. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not as much as it used to be, but yes. But, I think the candidate will generally pass for the right reasons. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but what isnt? Everything that requires concensus requires a popularity contest. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but giving discretion exclusively to bureaucrats is a flawed way to handle this. While I trust bureaucrats to do this correctly, there are candidates who may apply multiple times, and if one or two people are rejecting them left and right, it appears cabal-like (even though there may be legitimate reasons for denial). Vote rationales should certainly be considered- when I stood for adminship, I had 2846 edits (which was 2-3x what some people had going for adminship). Today, people would oppose me for too few edits. Sure, AWB, VF and other automated programs add to people's edits, and should be taken into account; however, if a user has showed dedicated work toward the project and is judged to be trustworthy, there should be no real reason to oppose. Ral315 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per Badlydrawnjeff G e o. Talk to me 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is only necessary to look at any RfA to see this. There appears to be a considerable amount of canvassing, which indicates that this is a major consideration. I do not think anyone unpopular should be an admin, because the community is unlikely to be satisfied by her/his decisions. But popularity should not be the major positive factor. Quality of work should be the major factor.DGG 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jeff said it best. Just H 20:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, but as said above I think this is just a symptom of a different problem rather a an RFA problem.--BirgitteSB 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've repeated myself a lot, but basically, an RFA can degrade into the "friend of my enemy", "enemy of my enemy", or similar combination. A person's integrity isn't entirely embodied by a single diff, although the latter can occasionally indicate a lack of the former. RFA's structure enables such potentially unfair exchanges. And "I can't support you because of you-know-what" neutral comments are worrying, but understandable, because Wikipedians are human beings. Gracenotes ^T § 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Badlydrawnjeff. Yuser31415 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, per Badlydrawnjeff and NuclearZero/umpf. Αργυριου (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely and undoubtedly, I really think badlydrawnjeff put it best. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that shows in a good as well as in a bad way. Agathoclea 23:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To a certain extent, yes. Jeff's is the clasic example; people !voted against on the grounds that he's an inclusionist. So what? He's not oing to delete things that should not be deleted, and if he wheel wars he'd be desysopped. What's the risk? The real problem here is it encourages people to do the thing that makes you popular at RfA (mostly vandal fighting and !voting Delete at AfD) rather than doing what they naturally would tend to do, which might be editing articles on macrame. Maybe the macrame Wikiproject needs some admins. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I said above. Yes, It seems a candidate needs to be a celebrity, or at least be very well known be a lot of editors in order to even stand a chance in RfA. --Edokter (Talk) 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly true. The only ones who pass are cabal members, have tons of friends or virtually unknown making absolutely no presense whatsoever. — Moe 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If popularity always meant what the people in the "other" section say it does, then it would be fine. But in reality, popularity all too often comes down to "How many ~~cabals~~ Wikiprojects can you get to ~~blindly support~~ testify as to positive experiences with ~~one of their own~~ someone they have seen around. I'm scared at the number of people who think such things as "Our Wikiproject needs some admins, so you should support me!", or "Canvassing for support is okay if it's just on Wikiprojects I belong to, they deserve to know if a member is going to be an admin!" -Amarkov moo! 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA has always been a popularity contest, but what democratic system isn't? An elitist democracy, comprised of whatever users you care to mention (admins, bureaucrats, stewards), would be just as susceptible to the cult of the personality. Just look at the cliques that have formed around individuals in the admin-pool over the years if you don't believe me. Rje 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The admin system is beyond reform and should be scrapped. CalJW 00:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've written the same thing up & down this page - yes they have. If you want more, go look up there.... ;) Spawn Man 02:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a popularity contest -- it's a process that rewards policy wonks who hang out at WP:RFA and WP:AFD and talk about their vandal fighting all the time. It's important to find good admins, to delete crufty articles, and to fight vandalism -- but it's more important to build the encyclopedia in the first place. Adminship seems to be a "reward" for process participation, but nobody sees a reward for writing comprehensive, interesting articles, so people naturally turn their attention toward the admin route. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I !vote. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep... to many, it is a big deal apparently. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. Although that might not be a bad thing; editors may be popular because of their AGF, for example. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a popular candidate will be the one receiving plenty of votes, however this doesn't mean a person with a lower popularity necessarily isn't going to pass. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I cite myself as an example. Especially when I first started voting on RfAs, I would pick whatever side looked right (i.e. had more votes.) Now I make sure to look into the candidate myself and base my vote on that. However, as I used to be one who would "jump on the bandwagon", there are certainly others who do that same thing. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I wouldn't even try to become one for this reason. Grace Note 09:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, yes, despite naysayers. It's a fact that cannot be denied. Popularity plays a role in RfAs. I've seen some pass with 25 supports and others with 225 supports. However, the results are the same, but numbers do reflect upon one's popularity (or lack thereof) in the Wikipedia community. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to largely be a popularity contest, but I don't really see how it could be otherwise. If anything it's an unpopularity contest. All it takes is one or two oppose voters with some axe to grind, and the opposes will snowball like mad, based not on the incoming oppose-voters' own experiences with the candidate, but on agreement with whatever (AGF, etc.) that the original opposer raise as something important that the candidate has allegedly transgressed. It's gotten so silly, I just don't bother to participate in RfA any longer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC) There is a groupie culture which really doesn't help.[reply]
Yes, of course, and nothing could change that. Abolish WP:Canvass, allow only one vote and comment per user and RfA and make it official. The problem is not that RfA is a popularity contest, but that it still isn't recognised as such officially. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

RFA often reflects popularity, but a 20/2/2 result is the same as a 200/2/2 result. Bad votes (positive or negative) generally come up when the voter doesn't know the person--"Support because I ran into the nominator once" or "Oppose per so-and-so." Chick Bowen 18:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a lot of cases, a good administrator is one who knows what to say to improve Wikipedia. Essjay sums it up nicely. Brash words mean brash actions, and brash actions - a-la Giano, all parts - lead to drama. Someone who can say something to improve a situation and make everyone amicable to improving the encyclopaedia is better than someone who can't. The parallels between "popularity" and this kind of behaviour are obvious. Daniel.Bryant 04:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three or four months ago, I'd have voted yes. Currently, it's not. Things change. --Dweller 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

This is an odd one - Can you think of a circumstance in which you dislike someone but think they should be given the tools nonetheless? The question might be better phrased "RfA has become solely a popularity contest" - I'm not sure that's true. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely can - at least 4 admins come immediately to my mind with whom I find myself in frequent content conflict, whose personalities I think are poorly suited to content editing and talk page resolutions of disputes about content, but whom I trust to do a pretty good job of adminning, just not of article writing. Not everyone who has a deep understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is a good editor, or an agreeable person to virtually be around, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, popularity matters, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. A different way of saying "popularity" is "trust by the community." I certainly don't want to have bureaucrats appoint people who can't get along with the community. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA is not a popularity contest overall, but it's certainly clear that some nominations involve worthy candidates who are also popular. I have no qualms about supporting a good nominee who co-incidentally happens to be popular, but it bugs me when there are multiple pile-on co-nominations. In those cases, at best it certainly comes across as a popularly contest , and at worst it comes across as peer pressure or intimidation. Agent 86 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, I just look at the person's contribs, and I really don't have any problem. {Slash -|-Talk} 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity at Wikipedia isn't like popularity in high school: here it isn't earned by how much acne exists on your face or whether you dress well. It's about whether you've been an active and productive member in the community who collaborates well. That, by and large, amounts to some good reasons for sysopping. Durova^Charge! 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the point is what? Popularity here is based on your participation, demeanor and behaviour. Sounds like reasonable criteria to me. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that popular people will get a lot of support and unpopular people won't, sure. But that's not a bad thing; as above, 'popular' here usually means 'well regarded'. There are a few cases where users who specialize in deletion - especially image deletion and fair-use enforcement - get clobbered for their choice of policies to specialize in. Opabinia regalis 05:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Durova that popularity on Wikipedia isn't the high-school, "starting quarterback" type where someone is liked based on superficial things. Someone who's popular on WP is probably a good contributor and relatively active. ChazBeckett 14:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA isn't entirely a popularity contest. No doubt it does have an effect but a popular user could still fail if they have some recent bad edits. I don't think admins should be promoted purely by the crats. It would lead to distrust and they would be accused of forming a "bureaucrat cabal" who only promote for popularity reasons. James086 ^Talk 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Mcginnly (#1.) Grand master ka 08:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mcginnly gets it right. Of course it is easier to support (or oppose) someone with whom one has had previous interaction with; that is not a bad thing. It is human nature. Opposing someone because one has had no interactions with him or is senseless, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of them are (and some are judged more on merit...) but thats not automatically a bad thing. If our community holds up particular standards, and the ones who are popular are those who hold those standards, then making it a popularity contest is positive. However, non-positive standards become more popular then "popularity contests" become a negative. Right now I think it boils down to "person who breaks stuff"="unpopular person"="never become admin". Then again, I'm not particularly popular. I think my RFA was more of a result of my skills and knowledge. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I agree completely with Doug Bell's statement above. Second, while I feel that RfA does have a certain air of popularity contest, I feel that for the most part, those requests that succeed are not because the community likes the candidate, but because it trusts the candidate. -- Kicking222 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent it is, yes. --kingboyk 17:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not enough of a regular to answer. But I haven't seen a new admin who has been immediately desysoped, so it can't be a total popularity contest. We have crats to make sure of that. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]