Wikipedia:Adminship survey/E

(46/07/09) Some types of !votes are less worthy of consideration than others

Points to think about :

Should certain opinions be disregarded/invalidated by the community?
Would disallowing certain "reasonings" behind votes simply encourage voters to lie about their reasons?

Agree

B's should use reasonable discresion to ignore votes not grounded in WP:ENC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without a doubt. Especially ones that show dishonest statements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we turn RfA into a pure vote, irrelevant opinions should be ignored. Kusma (討論) 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree. These aren't votes so therefore there's no problem in weighting the strong arguments more heavily than the weak. MLA 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, only so long as it remains up to b-crat discretion as Hipocrite mentioned. Attempting to set some sort of definition of a 'valid' vote is more unneeded instruction creep. Might as well replace everything with a Digg style automated voting. It won't make a better project, but it would satisfy wonkists who want an IF/OR/ELSE loop on everything. In the end, is our goal a better project, or satisfying those people? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I trust the bureaucrats to use appropriate discretion; I've yet to see a case where they discounted votes that should not have been discounted. Ral315 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Most definitely. ST47Talk 18:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've seen many votes that gave reasons that really didn't have to do with the criteria of RFA. Also, I've also seen many Ad hominem attacks on people running, i.e. "this person would be a bully as an admin" or "you've made no worthwhile contributions". GhostPirate 18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes supported by no evidence should be ignored entirely, and merely stating your agreement with someone else is no evidence. The consideration should not be the number of individuals, but the number and weight of the good arguments. Negative votes expressed over a dispute on a single article--unless the matter was so enormously bad that several people mention it, should not count for much. Opinions based upon multiple major conflicts are another matter entirely, for they show the inability to learn from mistakes. DGG 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. True, and invoked regularly, at AFD, why not RFA? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some reasons are definately less worthy. Disallowing certain reasons is a bad idea. However, challenging these reasons is often done poorly with much heat. This is an area where b'crats could step in and do better IMHO.--BirgitteSB 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to turn !vote-based into discussion-based, where an RFA can nearly be a discussion between a candidate and voters. Piling on "I agree!" doesn't help anyone, although both supporters and opposers do it, so I'm not sure about fixing this. Gracenotes ^T § 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Opinions such as, "editor AfD'd the article for my favourite band, I hate him", should be discounted. Yuser31415 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. What matters is the quality of the argument, a crap argument carries no weight. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much per all of above. However, discretion must be used. I honestly think that just because someone's an anon doesn't mean they should be automatically discounted as having an invalid opinion. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote Agathoclea 23:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If there is anything wrong with the process (and I think there is little wrong), it is that bureaucrat's don't exercise the same discretion in evaluating reasons that is done in XfD discussions. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I think certain arguments should be 'scored'. Meaningfull arguments should get more points then nonsense arguments. --Edokter (Talk) 23:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Socks, trolls, etc. should not be counted and legit editors should. This is common sense. — Moe 23:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The question about lying looks like a red herring: good reasoning carries its own force and impact. Superficial or cursory statements get addressed within the current discussion format. So if an editor makes something up that can't be substantiated, it gets questioned and disproven. If an editor states something their own heart isn't behind, but that's legitimate and sways other opinions, then its own cogency legitimates it. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense. Daniel.Bryant 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. The really dumb ones already get filtered out, but - see my comment in the first section of this survey - I believe that discussion of particular rationales, in any section, should be encouraged, in contrast to the current 'don't badger the opposers' meme. Not only would good rationales be more thoroughly discussed, but a bit of natural selection could be applied to consistently bad ones. Explicitly disallowing certain positions is a terrible idea, as is requiring/expecting every supporter to post his own reasons when he only means 'I agree with the nominator'. Opabinia regalis 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: This is basically the way RfA already works. Someone who opposes because the candidate has only been editing for 364 days won't have their argument taken very seriously. However, I'm strongly opposed to setting any guidelines for which types of reasoning are valid. ChazBeckett 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. A !vote saying that a user is regularly incivil when no-one else can find any evidence should not hold much weight. !votes with diffs convince me more than general opposes. However as per ChazBeckett, I don't think setting strict standards on what is valid is a good idea. James086 ^Talk 14:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (and support) votes that have no comment should be disregarded and striked using <s>vote</s>. "Per nom" would be acceptable. Votes that accuse someone of something falsely should be stricken also. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 19:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By their very nature, some votes are of more merit than others (an oppose vote for vandalism is of far greater import than an oppose vote for not having enough Portal edits., for example. The issue here is how this should be taken into account. Generally speaking, I trust the bureaucrats to use their common sense on this issue. Although I would perhaps like to see bureaucrats giving a short justification for their decisions in close cases. Rje 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the following: "Oppose. Needs better use of edit summaries." The candidate in question had 94% edit summary usage. When asked, the voter said that he or she would not support any candidate with less than 100% edit summary usage. If that doesn't show how worthless some RFA votes can be, I have no idea what could demonstrate it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This user hates America. Grand master ka 08:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, there are one or two editors currently voting who come up with ridiculous reasoning to oppose, the danger is though they sometimes create pile on votes. Normally these however are picked up by the bureaucrats. ^Khukri 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't votes, they are contributions to the debate, some contributions will be wise others folly.--Doc^g 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not all !votes are equal. If they were, they'd be votes, not !votes. We are not a democracy -- reasoning must trump public relations campaigns. --N Shar 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes such as a simple "Oppose" or "Support" without any reasoning are worthless. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't disregard certain "reasons" then it becomes nothing more than a vote, which it shouldn't be.
Doesn't this reflect current practice? Titoxd^(?!?) 23:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't have "votes" on wikipedia we gotta judge the arguments. No two arguments are ever equal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Just to name a few - blatant trolling, sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting, personal attacks, retaliation, false accusations... The list goes on. Crystallina 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a small problem with "[support/oppose] per [above user]" !votes. I have a big problem with stupid reasoning, such as the oppose !vote (I don't remember by whom) in an RfA (I believe Kelly's) because the candidate was a woman, or because a candidate's log is tarnished by one out-of-process block when it's clear that the candidate did nothing wrong. In general (though not always), I trust the discretion of B-crats in weighing the opinions of all !voters. -- Kicking222 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes that contain no reasoning should definitely be given much less weight. Bureaucrats should have the power to judge the validity of the reasoning behind a vote.--Danaman5 08:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many votes give no reasons or ridiculous reasons. These vote should have less weight than votes that people do research on the candidate and explain their reasoning. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes, either for or against, which provide no reasoning, or use reasoning which violates Wikipedia guidelines should be weighted less in considering a decision. --Haemo 02:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, this is true; however, framing this principle firmly in words may invite pointless debate regarding where the line should be drawn. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! I've seen far too many AfD votes in specific that fall down to "I like it" and far too many that are essentially, "I dislike it" and it's permutations, "this is disgusting/unfit for a serious encyclopedia/offends me" It's the same in all discussions. There are also innumerable 'tag on' votes, 'per soandso' that really add nothing to the discourse. Votes of this nature, without substantitive argument to or from a wikipedia policy should be utterly discounted. Someone who puts forth strong rhetoric tied to the core policies, past practices and guidelines of wikipedia should be given more weight than a !vote that simply tags onto another's position. In the same way with admin discussion, a vote considering all factors should be weightier than someone simply saying "this diff says he was once almost rude to someone who started a revert war against his changes." Wintermut3 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without doubt. Editcountitis, "as per user X", no reasons given and similar "shallow" !votes simply should not count. They provide no real reason or explanation for why a user should or should not be given the mop. Vassyana 17:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC) It isn't a vote. Bureaucrat discretion is pretty strong in this area.[reply]
Unless we move to a system of just counting numbers (which isn't entirely without merit of course), this is a total non-brainer. If consensus isn't about numbers it automatically follows that some statements bear less weight than others. --kingboyk 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the answer to that question is obvious. Especially if one person gets in one dispute once 6 months back with another person and that person (who refuses to believe that this person could ever change even though they probably have) wines enough about admin abuse in wikipedia... -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. A vote that is well explained is better than 'just a vote'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

A fruitless exercise. People will put whatever they want to put. RFA votes (let's stop with the patronising "!") seldom reflect the true feeling of the voter. I wonder how often someone decides they dislike another editor, and votes to oppose but makes up something to provide as a reason other than "I think this user is a prick". Proto ► 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the opinions should be considered and less weight given to the weaker ones (Isn't this how it's supposed to work anyway). Can't see the problem with people supporting or opposing per X, if X reveals an issue people feel strongly about I can't see why they would all need to try and reword it. --pgk 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the condition that I get to pick the standards. Heck no, on the condition that I get to pick the votes that count! More seriously, all the suggestions for discounting vote standards I've seen so far are silly. "Per X" means that X wrote a well reasoned 15 sentence argument that I investigated and agree with, but don't feel like retyping word for word. 1FA is at least a theoretically reasonable criterion (which I wouldn't meet ... yet!) showing the admin seriously knows what good editing is, and has been through the whole process. Mainspace edits, talk page edits, etc., means the admin has participated in that part of the process, which I think is the most important part of being an admin. All these and others are at least potentially as reasonable as any others, and should not be discounted. Maybe discount "blatant troll" opinions, but it's hard to define those. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, mostly. I think that some !voters should be ignored - sock puppets, SPAs, brand new !voters, trolls. But anyone who is a reasonable contributer otherwise ought to have their opinion count, no matter how tersely worded or apparently irrelevant it is. "I think he'd be a bully" is a perfectly valid reason to oppose someone's nomination. Αργυριου (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Ignoring some oppose votes is a bad idea. Some support votes are not smarter. You can achieve any outcome if you pick and choose. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will not solve the problem. The only way to get around this, is to overhaul the entire RfA system. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silly. People will simply use "approved" reasons for votes. Grace Note 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Non-qualified votes (ie. just support or even perhaps support per xyz) should be disqualified - even if we get 100 votes that all say "support" because candidate is a saintlike wikipedian, lets make it a little harder to vote than just pushing a button. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with support per xyz should be disqualified, there is typically a limited number of arguments than can be made during an discussion. Otherwise you would see a significant increase of text being written that is merely a repeat over and over again of what has been said before. And we need less of that. Mathmo ^Talk 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above, disqualify votes which have nothing but the word and a signature (only oppose votes though, as below), which might discourage some people who just vote without trying to evaluate the candidate. Telling people that certain reasons for opposition are worth less is ineffective, since nobody will be willing to have their opposition reason count for less, they'll just come up other reasons that are considered valid. -Amarkov moo! 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Amarkov, (ironic) it's not a vote, it's a discussion. People must provide reasoning on the opposing side, and relevant reasoning too. Since it is not a vote, someone's comment can be commented on as much as necessary, and it shouldn't be moved to the talk page. It's a discussion. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a candidate should pass by default, therefore support rationales are not necessary. Kusma (討論) 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Updated my comment. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in theory, no in practice. Often there isn't anything better to say when supporting than 'no obvious problems'. Attempts to control the quality of votes lead to trouble (WP:QAV), but a system in which addressing opposition reasons is more important than vanilla support votes also has problems (Wikipedia:RFA as RFC). The ability of a comment to get other people to change their mind may be a large step in the right direction; luckily that exists in the current process at the moment. --ais523 17:17, 16 February 2007 (U T C)
All opinions are worthy of consideration, it's how those opinions are considered that is the issue. The real question is what weight ought to be given to those opinions, and in the proper context. That analysis is part of the discretion that is delegated to bureaucrats. Part of what people are being asked is whether or not they trust a nominee, which is in many ways a very personal matter. You can't tell someone to trust another by saying certain criteria make it so, or that someone is untrustworthy by other criteria. People are entitled to their opinion, and it's not always correct to say an opinion is true or not. It's the facts underlying the basis of the opinion and the rationale of the analysis of those facts that help determine whether or not the opinion ought to carry much weight. I don't think it's fair to disregard an opinion out of hand because it falls any particular category of response. Obviously, with some votes (opinions), it will not take much thought at all as to whether or not the opinion expressed ought to carry any weight or not. Again, this is an exercise of discretion based on the discussion. Agent 86 17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly in the abstract. But the community should do the weighing not the 'crats. This means that all (excluding anons, socks, and joke votes) should count more or less equally in determining community consensus, but not all votes are equally persuasive when a perspectiveparticipant reviews the RfA. In particular, votes with no (or an evasive) rationale or useful neither to the nominee or other participants (whereas per whomever votes show that certain veiws are widely shared which may be very useful. I just dont think they should be arbitrarily excluded from determining the outcome. Eluchil404 05:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on votes should be discounted. RfA's are too much of a popularity contest as it is & we don't need this filth. A pile on of votes also drowns out the cries of good opposing votes which are discounted because of the sheer number of supporting votes... Spawn Man 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't care either way. What bothers me on this topic is that currently, it's not sufficiently clear to !voters, especially newbies. Whatever the decision, it must be crystal clear to all. --Dweller 10:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. I'd much prefer it if the weight of evaluating the quality and weight of all the votes were not on one b'crats shoulders. What about oppose per XXX's arguments/concerns etc? It takes a magician to effectively sort through that mess. - I have mentioned it above in this survey and will try my best to give my opinion even more undue weight: WP:CANVASS should be abandoned, so that the comment accompanying the vote is there solely for other users' consideration, including a rule that forbids arguing around in RfAs. One user may only give her/his vote and a comment, and others support or oppose for whatever reasons they think are important. That's what is currently unoffically happening, anyway, and I believe the only remedy could be to make accomodations to the process which take into account that by far the most votes are based on sympathies. Nothing will change that. Down with WP:CANVASS, it's the grossest bullshit policy on WP, it favours established circles of friends who routinely give each other quick notes via e-mail while at the same time it discriminates everyone else. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]