RfA opinions can have a large effect if they're well-reasoned (although I admit that not all my opinions have been as high-quality as I'd ideally like people's opinions to be, in terms of persuasiveness and clearly explaining the situation). On the other hand, votes have less of an effect, especially if they're support votes (oppose votes have 3 times as much an effect in RfA and 9 times as much in RfB, or would do if 'crats closed by strict vote-count). --ais523 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I can think of at least two RfAs where the !voting was close enough that my one !vote could have swayed the result. I can also think of situations where my input, or one other editor's input, made a big difference one way or the other. Having said that, I can also think of lots of situations where my input was either cumulative to a lot of other people's, or was on the losing side. That would be true in any system, of course. Newyorkbrad17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well reasoned arguments should and do sway community opinion. The people who invest the time to do the research and/or craft said arguments are the ones who will have an effect. That is the way of the world everywhere else, and equally so here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion always matters. If my opinion is invalid (i.e. I think X should not be an admin because he/she is a member of Y political/religious/educational institution), it may not be given weight toward the RFA's passage, but it does indeed matter. Ral315 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I only participate when I have had personal on-wiki experience with the person I usually have something to say. I would hope even when my opion does not have a significant effect on the outcome it will at least matter to the canidate.--BirgitteSB 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, if I want my opinion to matter, then it will. The habit of !voting, knowing that no novel opinion or view is put forth, needs to end, even though I'm guilty of it myself. Sadly, latter may be one of the only ways for the former to currently occur. GracenotesT § 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions of established editors of this site matter. The only ones that don't are the ones who create fresh accounts to troll or disrupte on RFA. Although some reason should be given as to why an editor is being opposed/supported, it doesn't have to be expressed (although it does help). — Moe23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely participate at RFA because I like to interact with an editor down in the trenches before I form an opinion. I recently nominated an editor for the first time (what I hope will become the first of many) and was flattered to see several responses that stated my support of the editor was a factor in their decisions. DurovaCharge!01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, insofar as a well-reasoned vote will sway other voters, whereas a poorly reasoned vote will not. If my opinion is damning yet is opposed 100-1 I would expect to be "ignored", this is the fundamental nature, and flaw, of having a democratic system. Would an elitist democratic system, perhaps allowing votes only from admins, bureaucrats etc., produce "better" results? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but is that really a road we want to go down? I, for one, wouldnot want to. Rje23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my opinion or anyone's provided it is backed up and sensible can turn an RfA or at least sink it if an oppose. It depends more on what the point was than who made it (during discussion, I can't comment on the bureaucrats decision). James086Talk11:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so. I've become much more of an admin inclusionist over time and I've seen my opinion change the tide in two RfAs that I can think of right now. Grandmasterka08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loaded question. It matters when the opinion has a sound foundation. If I oppose an RFA because the sky is green, I hope it is ignored. Titoxd(?!?)23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only if I use good reasoning. I have in the past made votes based on reasoning that was proven to be incorrect and I gladly changed my vote when I realized this. CaptainpandaInvinoveritas23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mavericks are rightfully ignored at RFA unless we discover something previously unknown and relay such. While the encyclopedia would be better if I was the dictator, the encyclopedia would also not function if such were true. Hipocrite - «Talk»15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only opinions that matter are the ones that the bureaucrats think matter, and they haven't come down from their bureaucracy dome to tell me or I assume most of us other little people whether they like my opinion. Just H20:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. As I said somewhere above, in my opinion, a single opposing user with a good and valid reason should be able to overturn 100 supporting (!, of course) votes. ^demon[omg plz]23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"One man's trash is another man's treasure", per ^demon. There's room to wriggle, but 100/1 indicates that 100 people disagree with the one oppose, which may mean that the oppose is wrong/invalid/not worthy of blocking an rfA. As you can see from that, judgement is important. Daniel.Bryant04:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This title is a bit of an oxymoron & that only the "Yes" voters will be counted ;). Moving along... As I've said up there, 1 opposing vote in theory should be able to taske on an army of supporting votes. I've opposed a number of times only to see that admin go through & in my eyes be terrible. In my view RfA's are stupid at the moment until they can be fixed to a suitable standard - It's like voting against Bush & having your vote discounted if you live in a certain state... Spawn Man02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a vote. Clearly if you're in the minority, you lose, regardless that your concerns are valid. The problem is that anyone judging whether your concerns are valid is going to have to take into account the many people who don't think so, having voted the other way! Grace Note09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People think more about the opposition reasons than the support, and these have more influence. Offering higher quality support rationales might change this dynamic. GRBerry16:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry is right, though quite often, stating a well-formed reason to oppose will draw out better support rationales from the supporters. Or it will sink a candidacy which should never have been. Αργυριου(talk)22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have said it above: Abolish WP:Canvass, allow for one vote and one accompanying comment per user and RfA. Most votes are sympathy based anyway. There's no way that can be changed. Allow for any form of canvassing, forbid arguments on RfA pages and make the current numbers game official. I have seen people support "per all of the above" when there were totally compelling reasons not to "below". —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
