Forum:Opposing FAs and UotMs

I think it's a bit silly we can't oppose User of the Month and Featured Articles. There are and have been situations where opposing either would've been justified and I feel like as long as a user has a valid reason to oppose, they should be allowed to do so.

Not reasons like "I don't like Smuff so I oppose his UotM" or "World at War was the worst COD evar so I oppose." Discuss. Carb 0Stop Censorship 02:29, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I agree. 02:30, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES-I mean, yeah. If there aren't any good articles nominated, we can't oppose them. I hate the argument "opposing UotM hurts their feelings". If it hurts their feelings, why do we allow opposes on Requests for Adminship?

Overall, I completely agree with everything you said. DarkMetroid567 02:31, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

You need oppose votes. It just doesn't work otherwise. It's fair to say that we made a mistake in deciding to abolish oppose votes in UoTMs, whenever we did. 02:34, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I always found it a bit strange that we can oppose a RfA but we can't oppose a FA/UotM. 02:35, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I think that Featured Articles should be able to be opposed on, for many reasons, such as somebody having done several clean-up edits on it recently, and not thinking it's been long enough since for it to be featured. However, UotM's are a little different, I understand that we are all supposed to not call out on people, but that an oppose to a user may hurt their feelings in a way. Or, if say, X user doesn't like Y user, even though Y user up for UotM and deserves it, X user could call on something that is viable for opposition, but not fair. So I say yes on opposing Featured Articles, but no on UotMs. 02:39, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why do we allow opposes on RfAs if they hurt feelings? "X user could call on something that is viable for opposition, but not fair." It is completely fair. If there's something viable for opposition, that's fine. If not valid, then yeah, we can just cross out that oppose. Deserving it or not, if they have a flaw, it can be pointed out by one with a grudge. DarkMetroid567 02:41, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't give criticism in a UoTM, then what's the point in having it around if all it's there to do is to praise another user? It's not benefiting anybody that way. -- 02:44, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Feelings being hurt isn't what were going for, but a user is going to have to deal with that, to be brutally honest. If said user ever intended to do an RFA, they would have to incur opposes, and UOTM is a perfect way to monitor that. 02:46, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to call this example out in particular, but like in FB's UOTM nomination (before it was closed) some people believed some of the points/reasons given on why he should be UOTM where irrevilant, this would be a good example of when someone would want to use the Oppose in a UOTM, not to hurt there feelings, but to get a point/opinion across. 02:45, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but first off, you can't really compare RfAs with UotMs, they are just completely different. An oppose on an RfA is to oppose a person getting special tools, UotM has nothing to do with stuff like that. And when I say an unfair valid reason, I mean something that say, was a minor mistake, such as some bad information on a page, it's valid grounds for opposition, but completely unfair. 02:49, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * "it's valid grounds for opposition, but completely unfair." your contradicting yourself there. And the RFA/UOTM comparison is the idea of needing to face rejection. 02:55, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * While RFA and UOTM are not the same thing as you stated, one is to gain rights and one is to award a user for outstanding work, they are comparable in many ways. 02:59, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * If Smuff was up for Uotm and he had violated UTP or some other policy, do you really think it's fair that no one could oppose his Uotm based on that? And another thing, even in RFAs most opposes are not meant to hurt anyones feelings. Carb 0Stop Censorship 06:55, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ 19:30, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COD4 and IW FTW. 02:42, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COD4 and IW FTW. Argorrath 02:42 December 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * way to copy and paste 02:50, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, although for opposing UotMs, I think that nominees shouldn't be able to oppose others obviously. 07:41, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominees aren't allowed to vote in the first place... DarkMetroid567 09:01, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is why he is stating in addition if this where to pass, they could not vote oppose either. 19:44, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

So long as it's fair, I'll be happy for it. 13:09, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks as if this is gonna go through, but there is one issue I would like to bring up, what are the vote limits? Say on a certain nomination, can a user vote Support or Oppose or Support and Oppose (on different nominations, of course)?

My personal idea is that each user voting should be entitled to vote one Support and one Oppose, no more. 21:31, December 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think users should get one vote, and they can use that to either oppose something or support something, not both. 18:39, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be bad for relations between users if you oppose. You could just not vote or vote for another nominee if you don't want that user to be UOTM. If there is no other nominee, nominate another user. If there is only one nominee and you can't think of a better uotm, and you don't want him to be uotm, you should indeed be able to oppose, but still, in any other case I think opposing is bad. 10:35, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, this doesn't apply to FA of course. 10:38, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

I thought that in a UotM, if you didn't think one candidate was suitable, you just voted for another candidate? Sgt. S.S. 10:37, December 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well lets say Smuff and N7 are up for user of the month, and Smuff broke UTP and I don't think N7 worked hard enough to deserve it. I don't want to vote support to N7 just because I oppose Smuff. This is the advantage the ability to Oppose would give voters. (<3 you Smuff & N7) 19:48, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * But in that case, wouldn't the other alternative be to just not vote at all? Sgt. S.S. 20:34, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why do we have Oppose at all? 21:58, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * "not vote at all" you have to be joking. :| 00:49, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * So by voting Oppose for Smuff, you'd let N7 win by default. On the same token, only voting Support for N7 would also grant him victory. It is the same outcome either way. Shotrocket6 07:48, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

Per my opinion in the February thread. 00:57, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * which one?Carb 0Stop Censorship 21:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care about UOTM, but it is silly not to be able to oppose FAs. The goal of the FA process is to expose parts of the nominated article that needs fixing.  bibliomaniac 1  5  08:23, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's ID you're talking about. 22:16, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because the FA voting process is supposed to be a part of the article fixing process.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:53, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when an article is nominated to FA, I'm assuming that the nominator would have fixed anything he would see before the nomination. Look at it this way: why would anyone nominate an article for FA if it had something that needed (it always can be improved, but it necessarily doesn't need it) fixing? 21:46, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

How about we set it up where a Oppose vote can only be cast in the case of opposing the nomination not the candidate. A oppose vote could be counted against a nomination if they see that the user has broke a policy or see's the nomination invalid, and if enough oppose votes are cast, then the nomination will be closed. INSTEAD of using a oppose vote as saying you think one user deserves it more then another alike what Shot explained above. 22:43, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

We can't let oppose votes be reinstated. Unlike the ID and RfA's, each month must have a UotM and an FA. If somebody opposes something, then they should simply nominate or support something else. This could also give users multiple votes, as people could oppose every opponent to the thing they support. 23:04, December 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Mhm that is true. 00:56, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need UotMs, if nobody is nominated then nobody gets the award. 21:55, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was definitely told we didn't have to have either each month, if no one does anything notable that month no one gets the award. But If a nominee is up for Uotm, why shouldn't we be allowed to oppose it if they violated a policy that same month? And as I said earlier, only opposes that have a valid reason would be accepted. Not some half assed "i dont liek Smuff so NOU." Carbonite 0 21:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Carb. 23:11, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Carb, however it should be noted that people can very easily disguise their dislike of a user through a load of bullshit reasons.AdvancedRookieSig2.png 23:17, December 29, 2011
 * Surely any neutral or smart editor would be able to realise that and strike such an invalid vote out, AR? Sometimes the UotM can seem like a popularity contest/ego trip despite any such intervention in my opinion. 22:37, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bringing up Smilular's comment, "X user could call on something that is viable for opposition, but not fair. If something is viable for opposition, it is completely fair. If it isn't, we simply strike it out. DarkMetroid567 23:51, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * What? This forum was made to completely oppose the idea to "simply nominate or support something else". Why shouldn't we be able to give constructive critism? If a user up for nomination isn't quite worthy yet, or an article is crap, why shouldn't we be able to oppose? DarkMetroid567 23:51, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per DM, a user should be able to receieve constructive critique, especially when they don't seem fit for UotM. 04:02, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

I sort of agree with this, but if an FA nominated article was bad or a UOTM nominee wasn't deserving, people just wouldn't vote for the article or person. In a way, it wouldn't be needed. 03:09, January 2, 2012 (UTC)