User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Discussion

Replying to oppose and neutral votes (Archive 64)

Is it in bad taste to tell a user on their talkpage that you responded to their concerns? I see wikipedians raise valid points on my RfA, then I reply, then I get no answer. I get the feeling they forgot about it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really think that's in bad taste, provided you don't end up badgering them about it. Go for it, methinks. :) RandyWang 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably very polite to do so, as long as you remain civil and the other party is cooperative. If things get heavy, disengage. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so long as you avoid being pushy, I doubt anyone will regard it as a problem. Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One more comment I tried to post from my phone... I watchlist the RfAs I take part in, so I'd know if you responded there. The talk pages are the official way of contacting someone, so they shouldn't take offence, but I'd rather have the entire discussion on the RfA so everyone can see it. Stephen B Streater 18:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. Cool.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably even ok to be pushy, because RFA is a consensus gathering process. If someone is unwilling to take the effort explain or discuss their opinion or work towards compromise, then why should we take the effort of taking that opinion into account? (note that this is not a recommendation to be pushy, but rather it establishes the outer limit of what's ok. Preferably you should be polite and non-confrontational, of course. :-) ) Kim Bruning 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem as long as it's not just to argue, but I do often see others then opposing "per the user being confrontational", so don't overdo it, I'd answer only if there's something that really needs to be addressed. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is quite polite to do so. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as someone politley points that you have responded on the rfa that's fine, and often helpful. However be careful not to move dissucsion off rfa and on to user talk pages. Benon 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. Reply on the RfA itself, then tell the user on his/her talk page that you've replied to the concerns brought up. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are times when it is inappropriate to reply to neutral and oppose voters, an example being an "oppose per Foo" where the RfA candidate or supporter then responds with - "please see my response to Foo" which appears to assume that the second opposer has not understood the response and so seems incivil to me. MLA 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you with one exception. If the "response to Foo" was written after the "oppose per Foo" then Bar wouldn't have had an opportunity to read much less understand the response. This is one of those times where reading the time signatures becomes important so that you don't make false assumptions. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that position and it's more appropriate than when editors simply repeat the same comment multiple times or tell many other editors to see above/elsewhere - yours was within the scope of reasonability in my opinion though it was on a very small sample of possible comments for commenting on. I'd suggest that a reply encompassing different responses might be more effective than a reminder to editors to see elsewhere as I for one don't like to be told that I haven't read or understood something though I'll concede there may be times when that's an appropriate comment. For instance, I did read the time stamps in WAVegetarian's RfA and took that into consideration. This does link with the voting issue as if it's just a vote then there may be a feeling that each voter needs to be persuaded. My stance is based on my belief that RfA is a discussion with a set of independent recommendations then rather than a pure tally so a continued refutation of each similar response shouldn't be necessary. MLA 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

People not discussing their positions when challenged. (Archive 66)

I just checked back on rmrfstars rfa again, and to my dismay, many people didn't answer my questions to them. I don't have much to do with what kelly martin was trying by the way, although she did have some point. I was asking people for their opinions and standards and why they hold them, and how they reached their conclusions.

The failure to answer questions is not a good sign. If you're going to state an opinion, please show some commitment to it and defend your position when someone asks you about it. Holding your position against all logic does not seem very conducive to consensus to me (be it support or oppose). The point is to come to a consensus, and to do that, you do have to respond to other peoples concerns, of course.

Is that logical, or am I going crazy here? :-)

Kim Bruning 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One hundred percent reasonable. I also don't like when people say that asking questions or responding to oppose voters makes one confrontational. If this is really not a !vote, that kind of thing ought to be acceptable, and to some degree, encouraged (as long as it doesn't become excessive). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with asking a question if you're actually seeking an answer. If an oppose comment says "Does not meet my standards", it's reasonable to ask him what his standards are. However, if someone is asking a question in order to discredit an opposer's opinion, that's inappropriate. For example, Kelly Martin's comments on Rmrfstar's RfA were quite obviously not meant to solicit an answer. Aren't I Obscure? 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As you say, confrontation of a voter in a challenging matter is highly offensive. Sometimes these border on a personal attack when challenging the value of the oppose reason. Sometimes they read as though they are trying to change a vote. Voters are not obligated to change a vote just because someone else dislikes the reason. Oppose voters are not obligated to to justify their rationale. They do, however, need to make it clear.

One purpose of the RfA is too advise the candidate on how to improve. Clarifying or explaning, or even just stating a rationale is needed for the candidate to understand how to improve. I try to leave a link to my standards if I don't leave a more instructive note with the vote. They are on my userpage for all to read. They are also on the RfA standards page. I think the people who just write, "per my standards," expect people to dig them out of the Standards page. I don't know how long it was before I figured out where it is. It is not very easy to read or make sense of.

To make a long story short, seeking understanding is great. Seeking to brow beat a vote change, or unleashing one's anger because the RfA is going badly , is not. Hope that helps.  :) Dlohcierekim 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Kim. If you leave a sincere message in an effort to help improve consensus and the project and the person is not willing to respond to back their opinion, then they can't count on their opinion carrying quite the same weight in the consensus, assuming there is enough time left to respond to the inquiry. Now we do have to be very careful with that because browbeating and pestering a voter to change their opinion is not acceptable. I'm not saying you did that, but others efforts may end up closer to the unacceptable that others have pointed out above. But lets all remember we're here at RfA to build consensus on who should have admin tools, so discussions approach that while drive by votes are not as helpful. - Taxman ^Talk 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there are limits. Browbeating and being exceptionally repetitive is exactly the kind of excessive I was talking about. And that's just not from the candidate, but !voters as well. They need to make sure they're not browbeating or being exceptionally repetitive with their discussion either. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are reasonable limits but challenging votes and not counting those from people who do not even bother to read that challenge would go a long way to get rid of the disturbing and blatantly harmful trend of drive by voting. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 01:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's generally agreed that "drive-by" voting isn't especially useful to RfA. However, things get rather complicated when we actually attempt to define what a drive-by vote is and what should be done about them. For starters, what about support votes? The focus of criticism is usually on oppose votes, but opposers usually provide more of a reason than supporters. If the supporter provides no rationale (only a signature), is that a drive-by vote? What if the reason is something vague such as "good user"? Should we discount support votes that don't provide enough reasons for supporting? If we're going to talk about ignoring or giving less weight to certain opinions, we need to look on both sides of the fence. Aren't I Obscure? 02:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the presumption is that people should be admins as long as there isn't a substantial opposition, ie no consensus. Also supports are more or less agreeing with the nominator, so they don't need as much expanded reasoning. Opposes are disagreeing with the nominator and supporters, so they require better reasoning to establish why, and that's ok. But of course you're more than welcome to politely ask a supporter for clarification too. - Taxman ^Talk 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The RFA in my opinion is not the place to discuss issues. As the comments are about the vote it self not what you voted. RFA are vote counts. If the user in question wants to know why they could contact the voters after the election. I'm particullarly annoyed when users asks for an explaintion during a vote. As it simply makes the page very messy, when a link to the users own talkpage will do. While it's conviable to convince a person to change their votes during an election. Such conversations should be on the talkpage. Personally once I vote, I prefer not to change my vote once my vote is cast. --Masssiveego 08:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Masssive: first, the votes on RfAs are an attempt to establish community consensus, seeing them as an absolute "vote" is unproductive. Second, not changing one's vote after one has made it runs afoul (at least in my mind) of the entire principle of a Wiki- there is nothing wrong with editing it if one's opinion changes and it should. Third, while everyone says that adminship should be no big deal the notion that we discuss things less or in an out of the way location because doing otherwise "simply makes the page very messy" seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what priorities should be. JoshuaZ 13:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that comment by JoshuaZ. Tyrenius 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. RfA is not a vote.--Stephan Schulz 14:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the place to discuss general issues, but it very much is the place to discuss whether the candidate is suitable for adminship. Thus polite requests for clarification are very suitable to developing the best consensus. You may be annoyed at someone asking for clarification, but better would be to change your expectations to this being a consensus gathering exercise. Again, if you don't wan't to respond to polite good faith requests for clarification you can't expect your opinion to have as much weight in the consensus. - Taxman ^Talk 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ and Taxman. On my RFA, several people opposing changed their opinion after I responded to their concerns. IMO, people opposing are doing so to help the community. Often the person opposing is a stranger to you and makes a judgment based on limited information. I respect the opinion people opposing even if I do not agree.

JoshuaZ's response (several other people chimed in as well) to another oppose on my RFA was helpful. It was worded politely but still forcefully countered the opinion. There was some back and forth discussion. I do not know what JoshuaZ thought because we did not discuss it but I did not think the particular person opposing would change their opinion. The point was more to clarify the situation for other people that did not know me as well as JoshuaZ did. FloNight ^talk 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Noticing how many paragraphs a single RFA produces with Alphachimp response. It adds to the difficulty of finding where to place the votes, and more scrolling. After a point the discussion becomes a full page article in itself about the RFA in question, and interferes with the vote after a certain point.

My refusing to vote change is mostly so I do not find myself being forced to accept another persons opinion which if find very faulty. I prefer length explainations and arguements after the RFA upon the user in questions request. --Masssiveego 05:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To Kim Bruning's original comment: If you believe that someone has misapplied their rationale/criteria to the specific user, it is appropriate to address that with a comment on the RFA itself. But if you are objecting to the rationale/criteria in and of itself I find it highly inappropriate (and rather rude). In those cases, take it to the talk pages - a user should not gunk up some random person's RFA because they have a philosophical disagreement with someone's decision making process. We should always try to remember that by participating in WP:RFA a user is sacrificing their time and energy to try to improve the project, I find far too many users get into snits over opinions that don't match theirs, and this may be something we should try to guard against. Themindset 06:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project that is run by consensus. Your explanation seems rational, until you realise that the objective is to reach consensus, rather than to avoid conflict altogether. Conflicts occur naturally, and you need to resolve them as amicably as possible, true. However, this should not go so far as to avoid conflict altogether to the detriment of consensus-finding. Hiding from problems won't make them go away. If there's some conflict, you need to discuss it, else you'll never reach consensus. Kim Bruning 06:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion and feeding the trolls. Too much conflict in my opinion is disruptive, and counterproductive. --Masssiveego 05:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is great, Kim. But there's a line between searching for consensus and badgering. And, especially in RfAs, it's probably better to tread softly and keep the challenging rhetoric to the talk pages. Themindset 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain the reasoning behind that? Kim Bruning 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning? That an RFA is about the nominee, not about the fact that you don't agree with someone else about 1FA, or some such. I believe that this should be rather self-evident. Themindset 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You both seem to be talking to different points. Kim is right and you are right. "The objective is to reach consensus, rather than to avoid conflict altogether." and "there's a line between searching for consensus and badgering." It is possible to ask for expanded reasoning and or clarification about someone's reasoning without badgering. It is not ok to badger them repeatedly and rudely. Polite requests for clarification deserve an answer and while you can choose not to, if you do, you can't expect your position to carry as much weight in the consensus. It should then end there. No major conflict, but we still get what we need to help develop consensus. - Taxman ^Talk 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think see Themindset's point here. To ask about someone's reasonings for an oppose is fine, but to ask about their criteria should be taken to a talk page. That about it? --Kbdank71 19:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly it. One is relevant to the specific RFA in progress, and the other is not. Point finale. Themindset 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think everything to do with the candidate and your opinion of them has to do with the RFA in progress. I don't accept excuses of "because it's policy" anywhere, as you're personally responsible for your actions. Why should I accept "because it happens to be my criterion" ? Kim Bruning 22:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I just read "point finale"? This is the RfA talk page. The day a large issue reaches point finale here I'll eat my keyboard. Marskell 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I think we'll need it, but as a point of curiosity, would you prefer the peppermint sauce, the mushroom sauce, or the hot and spicy sauce to go with that? O:-) Kim Bruning 08:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)