| Revision as of 16:10, 16 February 2007 editFish and karate (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators36,449 edits →Certain !votes deserve to be ignored outright← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:45, 16 February 2007 edit undoHipocrite (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,615 edits →Certain !votes deserve to be ignored outright: changing wordingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| === |
===Some types of !votes are less worth of consideration than others=== | ||
| Points to think about : | Points to think about : | ||
| * Should certain opinions be disregarded/invalidated by the community? | * Should certain opinions be disregarded/invalidated by the community? | ||
Revision as of 16:45, 16 February 2007
Some types of !votes are less worth 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)
- Without a doubt. Especially ones that show dishonest statements. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unless we turn RfA into a pure vote, irrelevant opinions should be ignored. Kusma (討論) 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
- As above, disqualify votes which have nothing but the word and a signature, which might discourage some people who just vote without trying to evaluate the candidate. Telling people that they may not oppose for certain reasons is ineffective, since nobody is going to actually support a candidate because their opposition reason is invalid. -Amarkov moo! 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Per Amarkov, (ironic) it's not a vote, it's a discussion. People must provide reasoning on both sides, 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)