User talk:Filll/Peaceful Polling Pledge

Sorry, but the wording makes it look one would support the idea that unjustified oppose votes are justified and legit, and I'm completely against that. If you want to vote, justify your vote. If you don't want to justify your vote, then don't vote. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So your position is, if one cannot or will not or is unwilling to justify their vote, they should not vote. And what if a person does not want to engage in an argument that goes on for 50 posts? They should not vote? They should withdraw their vote? They should never vote? They should anticipate a potential argument over their vote and therefore not vote? Do I have that roughly correct?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If one cannot justify his or her vote, then that vote is worthless. WP:Ilikeit and WP:Idontlikeit are applied everywhere on Wikipedia and I certainly don't see why it shouldn't be applied here. If one is capable but unwilling to justify his or her vote, then his or her vote becomes indistinguishable from an unjustified vote, and is therefore worthless to the community, as no one can judge if the vote is sane. If one is not willing to debate his vote, then one is giving free room to the community to decide if his vote still is valid after replies have been made to it, and the vote will rely solely on how well-argued the initial justification was and how relevant it is. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. But as you know, these polls are not really votes. And bureaucrats are under no obligation to count any particular vote, with or without an explanation etc.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sure feels like it's a vote and that the bureaucrats don't bother checking what votes "counts". Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So maybe we should have a vote tally that is something like (Support votes with explanation|Support votes with no explanation|Oppose votes with explanation|Oppose votes with no explanation|Neutral with explanation|Neutral with no explanation).--Filll (talk | wpc ) 23:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tally should be Substantiated support, substantiated neutral, substantiated opposed, the rest being thrown away as they are not helpful votes.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe we should. I do not know. But that is an interesting idea.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb and Filll, I follow with interest your discussion of unexplained votes. There is a difference between an unexplained vote arriving before or after some discussion has started in an RfA. Once discussion has started WP:AGF means we assume a voter is paying attention to the point(s) made. Headbomb's tally proposal seems to seek to distinguish between such contrived example "votes" as Headbomb is right/wrong and Headbomb has made some points with which I agree/disagree. The difference between those example responses is insubstantial, apart from what some may consider PC or etiquette. However neither vote is "worthless". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting the right answer is important.
I agree participants should not be harassed or badgered, but asking them to explain themselves is pretty reasonable, I think. RFA should be about getting the right answer, and whatever helps us get there is a good thing. Anyway, I realize that there are some real problems this is aimed at, but it can be taken too far, also. Friday (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. And I think it is worth thinking about how far is too far. Where should the line be drawn? Are threats for voting the "wrong way" ok? Revenge? Attacks of various kinds? Should a person voting "oppose" have to answer 1 question? 10? 50? 100? more? What about name calling? Uncivil posts on RfA pages? As I note, in the Big RfA a few weeks ago, about 1 percent of those participating withdrew completely because of harassment. Is this not a sign of a problem? If 1 out of 100 feel compelled to withdraw, how many are not voting at all? How many are having their votes affected? And by badgering those who vote oppose, is the candidate being helped? Or hurt? These are all interesting questions to ponder. And I invite you to do so.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I might also ask, "How do we know that our current system is getting us to the 'right answer'"?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The pledge is an interesting idea, and a step in the right direction, but I couldn't sign it as written. The phrasing of the pledge is itself, to a large extent, inherently vague, subject to interpretation and confirmation bias. If editors have a bad interaction, is it unfair revenge to oppose later because of that interaction? Or is it possible that the interaction highlighted a legitimate concern? What does "badgering" mean? I've seen editors become offended when someone asks something like "Could you explain why?" And what if the person saying "Could you explain why?" meant it in the tone of a good friend, at a bar after work perhaps, who is intrigued by something you said and curious to know why you feel that way? Or someone struggling to make up their own mind? Does it somehow make our discourse more civilized to disallow (or become offended) by someone sincerely asking why? In order for this pledge to be effective, I think it would benefit from a clearer explication of what sort of behavior it is aiming to prevent.--JayHenry (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think these are all good points. The "PPP" was just a simple concept I wrote up to see how people felt. It probably should be rewritten to address your concerns. As it stands now, it is meant to encourage discussion and thought on these issues.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like breaking down the proposal to take it bit by bit. I agree with 1, 2 (although good standing might be a bit murky), and 6.
 * With (3): In the context of RFA, how would one identify an unfair attack or insult? At RFA, for example, almost all candidates believe they would be good administrators.  The candidate is likely to feel insulted from any oppose, and feel attacked by many others.  Similarly, I think almost no opposer deliberately makes opposes that they believe to be unfair.  Anyone who deliberately does this, of course, would have no qualms about disingenuously signing the pledge.
 * With (4): I'm very concerned. Taken too literally it would mean that any candidate I ever opposed on RFA could not oppose me if I chose to run.  Of course it doesn't mean that, but what does it mean?  If someone has a view about something on Wikipedia that I find dismaying (and vice-versa) would it not generally follow as a result of our differing philosophies that we might oppose each other?  Say an editor who believes that NPOV means we should include Kevin Trudeau as a source on AIDS, cancer, etc.  If I get in a dispute and remove Kevin Trudeau from these articles, am I also retaliating if months later I oppose his RFA?  He and his supporters would likely consider it retaliation.  What if it's less clear?  What if he's adding Dani Rodrik to many of the articles related to international trade?  How about all the articles related to trade?
 * With (5): I'm also very concerned.  If I have been unclear, then I want the chance to explain myself.  If someone misunderstands, I want them to ask me questions, so they can at least see I'm willing to try to explain it more clearly, even if we ultimately disagree.  The problem here is that I have seen other editors say "stop harassing me" to the exact sort of questions that I want to be asked.  I almost feel that this point implies that an editor like myself who welcomes discussion of my opinion is enabling harassment.  So I'm concerned with this because I've seen so many Wikipedians say "he is harassing me about X" when I would use a term like "we disagree about X".
 * So those are my thoughts. It's not semantics so much that I worry the ideas in (3-5) are themselves inherently vague, subject to interpretation and confirmation bias. --JayHenry (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I removed the word "unfair" from (3).

In (4), I am suggesting that no one should take revenge for how you voted in an RfA 6 months ago. Of course, people will still do things in retaliation, but it would be nice if they wouldn't. I would personally like to discourage people who state "you voted for X on poll Y a year ago, and so therefore I have the right to get even now by doing bad thing Z to you". That sort of dialogue I think is just not conducive to a reasonable editing environment and makes it unnecessarily unpleasant. At the very least, I would like to see people get automatic warnings for such "uncivil" statements. For a community that is so ultra sensitive about civility, these strike me as outrageously uncivil. Another example, which I have seen, is someone who says "I am going to take revenge on you later by doing bad thing Q to you because you voted in such and such a way on this RfA 8 months ago". That is quite uncivil, frankly and I am shocked that no one else seems to agree with me.

On (5), not everyone has to agree with me. That is why I separated the pledge into 6 separate statements. I have no problem with people who are willing to explain. But some do not want to explain. And pestering people who do not want to explain does not create a good atmosphere. Also bothering people who some believe have given inadequate reasons probably does not help the candidate particularly.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, if anyone said comments exactly like those you describe above, of course no-one would deny that is uncivil, and immature. The thing is there's usually a backstory- a group of people turn up and vote x for reason y, and it is their reason for doing so to which people usually object I like to think, rather than the vote itself.  But even that is immature, really.  How about- we allow people with sufficient edits to vote, anonymously, like we do for board members etc?  Then have a discussion page where anyone who wishes can explain why they voted for the person, or didn't.  If these arguments were convincing they would of course effect the number of votes, so they would automatically count for more.  People could be encouraged to read the page prior to voting, and there needs to be a facility for people to be able to change their vote if they feel they have to as the debate progresses. Sticky Parkin 01:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Peaceful Polling Pledge idea
It is unclear to whom is the PPP to be addressed (if anyone). Are we just being invited to endorse "this is a nice idea" - if so when does the pledging start?

Would a breach of a pledged behaviour be any better or worse than the same behaviour by a user who has made no pledge? If not, there can be little value in making such a pledge, apart from constructing a new kind of wiki-elite.

On specific pledges
 * (1) I would like to foster a friendlier, less tense environment around RfAs and similar polls.

That's nice but it's a wish not a pledge. The closer one looks at the words the vaguer they get. Ultimately tenseness and friendliness are experiences that YOU are at least 50% responsible for, and something is going wrong with WP:NPOV if they distort what you post in Wikipedia.


 * (2) Every Wikipedian in good standing should be welcome to vote at RfAs and similar polls.

Every Wikipedian who is not actually blocked is allowed to respond at an RfA. So why invent a category "in good standing" whatever that is to be defined? Why expect neutral information always to be welcome, for example to a candidate who winds up being rejected? Why encourage voting that if devoid of discussion reduces an issue to a sterile counting of heads (actually not heads, just anons.)?

BTW I will support some minimum qualification for involvement in RfA's such as:
 * Administrators cannot vote (but they may comment)
 * A person with an unresolved Request for Arbitration cannot stand as candidate in an RfA. This is to avoid ongoing arbitration issues biassing the RfA process. This may also reduce the likelihood of anyone of the Mediation Committee censoring questions to a candidate, which has occurred.


 * (3) These polls should not be used as excuses to attack or insult the candidates or the voters.

This says no more than WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF* already say. Besides being for that reason superfluous, this naive "pledge" ignores the reality that a candidate has asserted "I am suited to adminship" and that assertion is legitimately open to critical questions. No aspect of what the candidate has posted in Wikipedia may be out of bounds. While not encouraging gratuitous insults, they do have the value of showing how the candidate handles them, which an administrator will have to do.


 * (4) No one should be the target of retaliation later for a position they took on a given RfA or a similar poll.

An important Wiki function is that past posts are kept accessible to all. If one cannot post something without taking responsibility for it later (even under a made-up name) then one should not post at all. Wikipedia is not the place for secret ballots.


 * (5) If participants do not want to explain their votes on a poll for whatever reason, they should not be harassed for not giving an explanation.

If someone wants only to contribute to an anonymous head count without explaning then they can stand being told that does not promote discussion. To call that harassment is to make a mountain out of a molehill; what you are calling harassment is actually encouragement to take part in an equitable discussion.


 * (6) A very negative atmosphere is created by charges of cabalism,...

As with charges of cannibalism, cacodemonry, cacoethes, callousness or cajolery if there is evidence or calumny to be heard then NOW (in the AfD) is the time to speak or forever hold one's peace. The consensus may turn out to be negative to the candidate's request. That's why it is called an RfA.

"If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives." This statement applies correctly to articles and talk pages. However an RfA displays the candidate's motive, to become an admin, and the issue in debate is whether that would be good or harmful to Wikipedia's mission. Inevitably a negative response to an RfA implicitly accuses the candidate of having a motivation that is harmful (the candidate need not be convinced of this). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A lead statement from WP:AGF needs some qualification:


 * Thanks for your input. Clearly, the main point of the PPP is to encourage people to think about these issues. Which it appears that you have done, so it fulfilled its purpose in this instance.


 * Ultimately tenseness and friendliness are experiences that YOU are at least 50% responsible for, and something is going wrong with WP:NPOV if they distort what you post in Wikipedia. I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding of NPOV. And just because a person wants to participate in RfA or other polls does not mean they should be held responsible for assorted attacks and aggressive behavior by others.


 * In good standing means those that are not blocked or banned.


 * NPA, AGF and CIVIL should be even more important at RfA than they are on the rest of WP.


 * Wikimedia foundation does have secret ballots for various positions. And it seems to work well. Just to say "if you can't take threats, don't vote" is ridiculous. Supppose it was clearly stated that "If you vote oppose on this candidate's RfA, a checkuser will obtain your IP address and post it openly, or use it to "out" you. Suppose that it was stated that if you vote oppose on this candidate's RfA, your employer will be contacted. Suppose that it was stated that if you vote oppose on this candidate's RfA, you will be put on thousands of junk email and regular post mailing lists. Suppose that it was stated that if you vote oppose on this candidate's RfA, you will be the target of identity theft, and your credit ruined. Suppose that it was stated that if you vote oppose on this candidate's RfA, we will send child pornography to your neighbors by "accident", identifying you as the person requesting it. Suppose that it was stated that if you vote oppose on this candidate's RfA, we will kill your child. Suppose that it was stated that if you vote oppose on this RfA, we will rape your wife. Suppose that it was stated that if you vote oppose' on this RfA, we will kill your dog, kill you, burn your house, torch your car, etc. Does that sound reasonable? What about stating six months or a year after an RfA, since you voted oppose to a candidate, in revenge you will be outed, or subject to a lawsuit on some other matter, or dragged into an RfAr proceeding, or banned over some other trivial violation, or be the target of an RfC, or stalking. Does that sound reasonable? Is that permissable? Is that the kind of environment we want to foster? Because things like this are happening, or are well on their way to happening if we continue down our current path.


 * If someone wants only to contribute to an anonymous head count without explaning then they can stand being told that does not promote discussion. To call that harassment is to make a mountain out of a molehill; what you are calling harassment is actually encouragement to take part in an equitable discussion. Discussion is fine. What about threats? Attacks? Revenge? What about pestering an oppose voter with demands that go on for many kilobytes? What about arguing with an oppose voter and insulting him with 10 posts? 50 posts? 100 posts? 500 posts? Is that suitable? --Filll (talk |  wpc ) 12:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. No. No. No. No comment.(x3) Not my problem.(x5) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)