Forum:RfA voting and reasoning

Forums: Index → Community discussions → RfA voting and reasoning | Post

I know it seems ironic that I'm bringing this up given there's an RfA currently up but I feel regardless that it is something which should be discussed.

Looking at RfAs in general, I've noticed that in the reasoning for a vote there's more emphasis on the personal views of the nominee by the one who's voting and not enough emphasis on how they would benefit from and why they would need the administrator tools.

A common reason for a support vote I've noticed is along the lines of "X deserves this", which seems to be more to do with flattering the nominee rather than focusing on the need for the tools. Adminship isn't "deserved", it's just a set of tools which the community has entrusted onto a user to extend their role on-wiki based on how they would benefit from the tools.

I do also recall another two RfAs in the past where one user was supported by another user based on not only their edits but also on personal ties while on another RfA, the same user gave a "weak support" to a user based on editcount when actually that user had roughly the same (or slightly more, I can't really remember) editcount as the nominee in the first RfA, just not as strong with personal ties to the user who voted.

The reason I bring this up is because of the concern that users are supporting each other more on personal ties than actual suitability for the administrator tools. I'd like to discuss this with the aim that RfA (and probably RfB too) votes should be more to do with voting for the user as a candidate rather than a user who "deserves the rights for being a good friend".

What's everyone's stance on this? Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:51, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Quite frankly, yes indeed the rationale provided generally is less than descriptive. However, generally speaking the nominator usually supplies the reason, and in addition, successful nominations have rarely caused any issues, and those promoted are nearly always highly active trusted people. So I believe the reasoning behind voting is largely a nonissue. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 22:42, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think that that's a problem, too, but it's hard to see how to cut down on it. Maybe, there has to be five legitimate reasons on a nomination for it to count? Hurshbr (talk) 23:07, May 3, 2013 (UTC)Hurshbr

I'm aware of this and this has been going over and over for every certain amount of time, even though we seem to have discussed about it. There's something, however, I want to know about this. What will happen if someone's vote, say, is irrelevant based on the result of our discussion here? Will their vote be simply void, or we'd hold up the vote until said user can give a more relevant reasoning? Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 15:21, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

To Hurshbr: That's a little unnecessary - we've never had problems with the amount of reasoning

To Nikel: I'd have to argue that attempting to void an argument (strike out) is wrong. It'd be pretty hard to argue that the void wasn't based on bias.

To Mathetesalexandrou: I couldn't agree more.

Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 15:49, May 11, 2013 (UTC)