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)
 * Yeah, you could've at least put the support or oppose template up. It's kind of hard to view old war room threads due to the archived discussions being edited by bots and admins every now and then. 21:24, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't voting yet. 21:57, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you at least state what your opinion was? 23:35, January 11, 2012 (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)
 * It's really easy to game the system with oppose votes. A user could simply say the user up for nomination violated CoD: DDD and say they were mean to them. And it's not as simple as striking that vote out because their evidence could be that that user was mean to them in one situation when they were on opposite sides of a discussion. Would you let this one instance stop that user from becoming UotM? 21:21, January 11, 2012 (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)
 * That doesn't make any sense. If a user is up for UotM, what are you going to critique them on? "Sorry, but you're not good enough even though you're the only one nominated." 21:21, January 11, 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)
 * As I said before, I can see why you think so because of a person, but we should be allowed to hate an article and oppose it so it doesn't get FA when it's clearly bad. DarkMetroid567 02:14, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

If we implement oppose votes, how do we know which article succeeded? Would it be support votes minus oppose votes or would it be support votes divided by total votes? 02:44, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Same way we did it before. DarkMetroid567 03:40, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like your way of saying you have no idea, because before oppose votes were removed the victor was always based on how the user making the new UotM template counted the votes. 22:09, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * The "way we did it before" was broken. That's why we changed it. In fact, if I recall correctly, what prompted the change was that UotM was given to the wrong "winner" by an admin. It was a system that did not clarify whether the winner was based on the overall number of positive votes, the net total of votes, etc. This thread was my original criticism of the old system, for further reading. --Scottie theNerd 06:33, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Regarding UotM
As the current UotM format was (more or less) my idea, allow me to clarify why we abolished Oppose votes.

One of the core problems of the old UotM was that was identical to a Request for Adminship. The "criteria" for earning UotM was treated by the community as the same for RfA, to the point that UotM winners could be guaranteed a successful RfA (if they weren't already admins). As a result of this misconception, users opposed UotM candidates for reasons that would otherwise belong on an RfA.

User of the Month is meant to recognise users for their efforts on the wiki. It is not meant to be a critique of a user's "worthiness". A user who does not do anything to merit a UotM should not be nominated in the first place. As such, all nominees are deserving and it is up to the community to select who they think is most deserving of the award.

I don't understand where opposing comes in.

If a user does not think a nominee deserves the award, they can either abstain, or otherwise nominate or vote for someone else.

I do not know of any award system in which the judging panel can oppose someone on the shortlist. There are no such things as "negative votes" when handing out awards.

What I think is happening is that the community is confusing a award recipient picked from a shortlist with an application for a single person. A real life example would be someone winning the Nobel Prize as opposed to someone applying for a job.

In addition, Oppose votes complicated the vote count, because the issue arose over whether a nominee won based on net total of votes or percentage of votes.

The removal of Oppose votes in UotM was in no way meant to prevent "hurting" users' feelings. However, UotM is not the place to judge the pros and cons of a user.

I don't work with Featured Articles, so some of these factors may not apply. However, I strongly disagree with introducing negative votes into a community initiative introduced to recognise users for their work.

Sincerely, --Scottie theNerd 21:57, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to "What if a nominee violates policy?", again, the onus is on the community to not nominate users who did so. However, violating policy may not be relevant as far as UotM criteria is concerned. As in real life, you can still win awards even if you made racist comments. It is important to separate the person's work from the person when looking at an award like UotM. So, if N7 did a phenomenal job of uploading images, was active in the CODference and wrote several articles, would him calling someone a dickhead be of any real relevance?


 * If violation of policy is a real issue in UotM nominations, then we should introduce a clause in UotM that disqualifies users. They should either not be nominated or have their nomination struck out. Hence, there is no need to oppose a user or their nomination for that reason. --Scottie theNerd 22:06, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll add that clause to the UotM page now. Shotrocket6 22:10, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, see my point above. A change would require community consensus. --Scottie theNerd 22:12, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * What purpose would that clause serve anyways? Don't tell me you're trying to avoid a change that might happen. DarkMetroid567 16:06, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "change" you are referring to. The clause deals with the problem of users "opposing" a nominee because of a violation of wiki policy (though, specifically, I believe the issue concerns users who are blocked rather than violating policy). In the discussion above, some users wanted to implement negative votes to "oppose" a user with a history of violations. If that is the problem, then we should explicitly disallow users who are blocked from being nominated instead of implement a counter-intuitive voting system. As far as I can tell, that is the only reason why anyone would want to "oppose" a UotM nomination. --Scottie theNerd 04:12, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

The Issue in Simple Terms
Whenever we have a vote, we are asking a question. Some of us may be so engrossed in sharing opinions that they forget why the vote is taking place.

For an RfA, the questions is "Should this person be an admin?", in which the community can reply "Yes" or "No" (in CODWiki terms, Support and Oppose).

For UotM, the question is "Which of these users most deserves this award?". "Yes" and "No" are not valid answers to that question.

For FA's, it depends on how we run it. If we organise it along the lines of the second type of question ("Which of these articles should be the Featured Article?"), there is little to no room for opposition. The question should be, for our purposes, "Should this article be a Featured Article?", and that is where Support/Oppose comes in. Articles that get majority support can be listed as FA and updated on the main page as time allows.

As far as I understand, the current FA system is an undefined mix of the above. --Scottie theNerd 22:20, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Scottie. You took my thoughts and shaped them into words. 00:07, January 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think currently the FA system is based on the first question ("Which of the articles...") as multiple articles are competing to be that month's FA. If they could all be FA's of that month, then the second question ("Should this article be..."). 21:23, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal
When opposes were removed the logic to doing so was sound, now however it's not the case. Our current community if they believe something doesn't deserve UOTM or FA will find a way oppose even if it's indirectly.

FA examples A/B/C

These 1/2/3 are examples within UOTMs.

The comment section within a UOTM or FA practically is the oppose section and that's a common use for them now. Maybe way back when that was not the case but it definitely is now. Despite how hard we try to make them our current community does not simply look at UOTM votes as "Which of these users most deserves this award?" or "Should this article be a Featured Article?". They look at nominations as a vote and a discussion. I say it again, when opposes were first removed the community may not have acted this way but our current community does. Carb 0Stop Censorship SOPA'd 00:19, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the problem is the community, not the system. If it requires a PSA to inform people what the spirit of something like User of the Month is, then so be it. An RfA is distinctly unique from UotM, as it is more of a community referendum. 01:34, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * (As I told you already) If you really want to do a PSA, i'd halt this discussion to see if it works. Carb 0Stop Censorship SOPA'd 01:52, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to reintroduce oppose votes, we might as well scrap UotM because it is no longer an award. While we're at it, how about we ban nominees who end up with more negative votes than positives ones? Clearly, those people aren't the sort users we want on the wiki. Seriously, think about what's being proposed and why we have UotM in the first place. --Scottie theNerd 10:02, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it not an award if people can oppose someone when they've done something wrong? Just because you can when an award even if you made racist comments, doesn't mean you should. People keep claiming it's against "the spirit" yet clearly users are still going to do it regardless if they're allowed to or not. If we're seriously going to start acting on it being against "the spirit" then either start removing the psuedo-opposes (since according to others, the wrongdoings of a possible UOTM aren't relevant) or add a clause allowing nominations to be invalidated if they are that serious. Carb 0Stop Censorship SOPA'd 03:35, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you giving the award for then? UotM is meant to recognise the contributions of a user over the course of the month. It is not meant to be a personal critique of that user. The problem with the old UotM was that nominees were being judged over the course of their entire time on the wiki. If the community decides that violation of COD:UTP invalidates a nomination, so be it! Stop the nomination instead of introducing an unworkable voting mechanic. --Scottie theNerd 09:00, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll re-iterate another point: under what circumstances would there be a valid oppose vote? We've already covered issues with behaviour or violations (firstly because the award is for contributions, not personality and attitude; and a clause can be added for violations/bans). Why else would someone oppose a vote instead of voting for someone else or abstaining? --Scottie theNerd 09:03, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is User of the Month, not public censuring of editors. When you were in elementary school, and the class was asked to decide upon a class representative/president, did people cast votes in opposition to candidates, or in support of them? 20:24, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Allow opposes in both

 * 1) As proposer. Carb 0Stop Censorship SOPA'd 00:29, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Carb's reasoning above.  00:32, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Carb  01:34, January 23, 2012 (UTC) After re-reading the whole forum, I have to change my vote.
 * 4) Per all (aka Per Carb).  Dr Brew   Talk  00:28, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Per all ( mostly Carb 0) Qw3rty! 01:41, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per all (tl;dr Per Carb) I'm Commander Shepard and I should go 01:55, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) It's a damn sight better than having to nominate something else in the hope it gets chosen over what I wanted to oppose in the first place. 21:06, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Carb. Delta_icon.png Frohman Sitrep United States Army logo.png 10:49, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Per Carb.   DarkMetroid567 lol 12   22:45, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Carbohydrate :3 23:14, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I feel an oppose could come in handy should a user have or course a reason to not get UOTM, but without a user having to support someone else. This months UOTM probably serves as an example.. 23:58, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Continue to disallow opposes in both FAs and UOTMs

 * 1) It is against the spirit of both these processes to have "oppose" votes. The voting question is, and always has been, "which of these do you want for User of the Month/Featured Article?" not "Dwight Schrute: yes or no?" 02:07, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree, It's not a matter of voting, it's a matter of choosing. 04:02, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my explanation above. UotM and FA is a selection process, not a vetting process. There is no situation in which there can be a valid Oppose vote. --Scottie theNerd 09:47, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * "The article is shit." 20:51, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per all. Shotrocket6 10:16, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Bovell. Sgt. S.S. 20:12, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) ...What Bovell said 01:34, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Most of the reasoning in this forum, which is summed up rather well by Bovell. 03:30, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Scottie is too persuasive Scottie's reasoning is sound to me; if there is reason to oppose a UotM or FA, then it should be invalid to receive the award or another candidate would be more suitable.  11:55, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Why we would oppose on an award is beyond me. 01:04, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) If we want to oppose such a nomination can't we just abstain? It's there for a user and I can whip up with ease if this passes. But really, who can't?  17:44, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Bovell.
 * 9) Per Le Bov. 21:21, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) It's not really that hard to leave a comment pointing out how/why a user/page doesn't deserve UotM/FA? Conqueror of all Zombies 03:35, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean something along the lines of  19:05, January 28, 2012 (UTC)?

Allow opposes in FAs only

 * 1) The only time a UoTM nomination is invalid is when the user in question has broken a policy. That's what the comments in Carb's examples were pointing out. Shotrocket6 01:31, January 23, 2012 (UTC) This was a tough decision in the first place. Shotrocket6 10:16, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Comments
But it's kind of irrelevant whether or not oppose votes are allowed if people are still allowed to raise damning points against users and articles, what difference does it make whether an "oppose" is prefixed before the point? 12:48, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point raised by Bovell. In the implementation of UotM, comments were actually discouraged during voting, but the community at large wants to add their two cents whenever they can. --Scottie theNerd 14:13, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

@Supporters: So far, everyone is saying "per Carb". The only scenario Carb has presented is if a user as violated UTP or otherwise warranted a ban -- in which case, based on community consensus, we can introduce a clause to disqualify/invalidate those nominations instead of having a flimsy oppose count. Any problems with weak nominations are meant to be dealt with before voting commences. I truly cannot see where this "middle ground" is. Remember, it's just an award to recognise good work, not a political campaign. If you really want to take a shot at someone, why do it on UotM? I ask that all voters who stated "per Carb" please clarify their point, as I have rebutted it in the above discussion. --Scottie theNerd 02:11, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Compromise
Since both Option One and Two are fairly evenly supported, we won't be able to come to a consensus unless a compromise is reached.

There are two parts to my proposal, each concerning their respective programs. Please discuss what you think of this compromise. Are there any changes you would like to see? Shotrocket6 21:11, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * For UoTM, I propose we disallow oppose votes, but also introduce a clause that nullifies the nomination if the user in question had broken a policy within that month.
 * For FA, I propose to introduce a different system: on each nomination, a poll will exist, asking users to rate the article's quality 1 to 10. If an article's average score is 5 or lower by the end of the nomination period (this would also require putting a time limit on nominations, similar to UoTM), then the article will automatically be ineligible for FA. The time limit for nominating an article for FA would be the 23rd of each month, but an article may be nominated at any point before that. After the articles with a score of 5 or lower have been crossed out, the remaining articles would be voted on as they are now. This would ensure that low-quality articles are immediately marked ineligible. See new proposal below. Shotrocket6 03:41, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * FA thing looks rather complicated/like it could take a lot of time, however. 21:18, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why there will be a time limit on the nominations and scoring. After that point, any articles still left will be voted on. Shotrocket6 21:19, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a great idea for FA. I mean, barely anyone puts an article as it is, normally one article wins in a landslide victory, often because it's the only one put forward until it's too late to suggest something else. I'm just thinking that adding an extra step to the proceedings are unnecessary as it will probably never be used anyway. 21:22, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right. If more people were active in it, however, do you think it would work? Shotrocket6 21:23, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, your idea is pretty sound. Maybe we should suggest if there's more than x amount of nominations, the scheme should be put in place, so we almost have rounds to the voting (If you get what I'm saying).AdvancedRookieSig2.png 21:25, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Agree with UoTM instant disqualification criteria, though maybe very minor infractions can be waived if deemed appropriate. 21:37, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * That decision should be left to an administrator. Shotrocket6 21:42, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

The UotM clause is a sensible one, and it addresses the only reason put forward for an "oppose" vote. The FA proposal, however, sounds ridiculously complex. It sounds like it's pretty much the same thing as what we have, but instead of "Supports" and "Opposes", we have an arbitrary 1-to-10 system. --Scottie theNerd 05:03, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

UotM I actually like. However, while I think Oppose on FA should be allowed, instead of a overly-complex idea. Opposes don't work either; how would we decide who won? Support - Oppose? And if we allow Oppose in FA, users would simply oppose every article other than the one they vote for. Even limiting to 1 Oppose vote wouldn't work, as users can use it to make another article lose.

I would suggest using Comments as a way to address the issue of a nominated article. It addresses the flaw, but does not directly decrease the chances of the article's success, like an Oppose. 05:22, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

So for UOTM if a user breaches DBAD once by making a slightly offensive joke they can't get it? That's what come across to me. I think that for the FA there should be articles nominated then there be a final starting the 23rd, deciding which article will reign supreme. All articles that dominate over the others go into the final where needed, well it can be worked on. 22:05, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

UOTM and FA are direct voting processes not consensus, therefore it would be pointless to allow opposes. If you don't support them, simply don't vote for them. If others have supported then they must be doing something right. Also, one may just oppose all other nominations in order to rally support for their own. 03:30, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

New FA compromise
Since my previous idea was found to be too complicated (I completely agree), I have come up with a new, much simpler proposal: tighten up the qualifications for nominating an article. Articles not meeting these qualifications would be disqualified immediately. Tighter qualifications would ensure that an even higher standard of quality must be attained before an article can even be nominated, making it difficult for bad articles to be nominated at all. Oppose votes would continue to be disallowed. Let me know if you would support this proposal as it is, and if not, what changes you would make. Shotrocket6 03:41, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Article must be written in third person and must be completely unbiased, containing no impersonal "you"s and retaining consistent use of italics and bold.
 * Article must contain at least three high-quality images (excluding icons), unless the topic is one that does not have any available images.
 * Article must have seven paragraphs of factual, unbiased information, preferably more.
 * Article must be properly categorized and sources must be provided when facts cannot be proven in-game.
 * Templates used in the article must be identical to templates used in pages of the same category (for example, using the Weapon Infobox template correctly).
 * Article cannot have been featured previously. (No change)
 * Article is not in the Improvement Drive. (No change)

Sounds simple enough. I'd approve. I'm Commander Shepard and I should go 03:50, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of restrictions. That way an article can't be opposed since it meets the requirements. Also, it means unworthy articles are by default excluded. (fucking editor messed up these 2 sentences 3 times.) 03:53, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I really like this proposal. Tighter restrictions make it so that you don't have to need to oppose it. 04:02, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, but have a few things I'd like to point out: Other then those two things, I'd have to say I agree with all the points. Conqueror of all Zombies 04:05, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's very many FA worthy articles on the wiki that don't have at least one impersonal you in it.
 * In most articles, you'll have some biased info in any given paragraph.
 * Well then the nominator can comb through the article before nomination. The point of it is to present the best articles, after all. Shotrocket6 04:07, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is, why make the user comb through the article for a few impersonal 'you's when the rest of the article is fine? Conqueror of all Zombies 04:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they aren't allowed. Shotrocket6 04:13, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know they're not allowed, but just because there's a few of them in an amaizing article, doesn't mean that the whole thing shouldn't be allowed to be a FA. Conqueror of all Zombies 04:37, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but if it only takes one edit to get rid of them, it shouldn't be that big an issue, and it'll make the article that much prettier. Shotrocket6 04:40, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but it would take countless hours to check and recheck the articles. It needs to be reworded. One impersonal you won't kill the article, and it still should be able to be nominated with it. Conqueror of all Zombies 04:43, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hours? It takes ten seconds to Ctrl+F "you" when editing an article. Shotrocket6 04:46, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn edit conflict...CoaZ stole my thunder "Combing through articles." Isn't that a tad bit too much effort to just nominate an article? Why can't we just nominate articles and see which ones fit the pre-reqs best? The requirements don't have to be THAT strict that one impersonal you would kill the nomination. 04:46, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'll support this. 04:33, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

7 paragraphs? There are some really good short articles out there, tbh. How about we use COD:IAR in that case, cite the policy where needed I guess. 12:31, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Shotrocket6 16:13, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear cut and face-to-figure rules like that should never have to be ignored. If we're so willing to ignore them, then we shouldn't need to have them at all. 19:14, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * After reconsidering, I'll have to agree. Shotrocket6 19:56, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with YR on this, and I agree with the overall proposal as well. 16:29, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, I also think that we shouldn't have a featured article every month and just vote for new ones when we see fit (a la wookieepedia) 16:32, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

This has become insanely complicated for what should be a very simple process:


 * 1) User finds article
 * 2) User likes this article, thinks it should be put up to be voted on
 * 3) Article is voted on
 * 4) The end

The discussion regardless is about opposing FAs and UOTMs. In fact, that's the title of the forum. Do not derail forums into other discussions, please. 19:12, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a compromise because the title of the forum hints at two options, none of which the community wholly agrees on. We are on-topic. Shotrocket6 19:56, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been explained that oppose votes are irrelevant to the FA and UotM processes. If you think that a nominated article should not be made FA, then nominate another article. If an article meets FA submission criteria, there is no reason for oppose votes. The same goes for UotM; take issue with the requirements for submission if there is a perceived "problem" with "bad FA/UotM" nominations. 20:22, January 28, 2012 (UTC)