 | Essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
,If you were on the jury in a clear case of theft, would you vote 'not guilty' just because the accused seemed to be a nice guy?'
- I think this beside the point ... RFA candidates are not on trial. RFA voters are not a jury - votes are not punitive but simply expression of individual subjective opinions. Vote for or against simply will give people a few buttons more or less. ChristopheT (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not besides the point, Christoph, because it is an analogy. Votes should never be subjective, that's one of the main problems with the process. Votes should always be objective and only made when the voter has made his/her own research. If voters express themselves in an appropriate manner, their comments can never be punitive. Our effort at RfA is to help voters, particularly new ones and new editors, to understand that RfA is not a battlefield. Even if a candidate is unlikely to pass, we should try to let them down lightly. Otherwise we'll lose them just as we lost a very valued and mature editor two months ago. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have voted for ArbCom for quite a few years but I never voted for RfA so I looked at this today. What a way to dissuade people from voting! Serious overkill, not only with the example of a "jury" but repetitive explanations and a tone that comes close to scolding the reader. "Don't just vote the way other people do." Does an adult need to be reminded of that?
- I wonder if the policy of NOT requiring x years and y edits to be a voter is what compelled the team (?) who wrote this to concoct so many "thou shalt nots". And what do you think will happen when newbies are discouraged from voting? Yeah, a handful of the same old people will make the "democratic" decision via a method reminiscent of a Laotian election ("you may vote yes or no, but the number of candidates is limited to the number of vacancies"). Martindo (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Traffic edit
Created in September 2013. Page stats are only availble from 2015. In the 3 years preceding 30 April 2019, the page has been visited 6,000 times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)