Forum:Refining consensus

It has come to the attention of many users since Redskin-26's successful RfA that the process of deciding if a vote is successful or unsuccessful is essentially left up to the bureaucrat making the decision. Users have complained that the bureaucrats taking these votes into account are completely disregarding votes that don't quite explain themselves, when in reality our policy on voting does not include a clause for that.

I see two possible solutions to this problem, and both include adding a clause to the voting policy:
 * 1) Establish that users definitely do not need to explain themselves when voting, and that their reasoning should be regarded as sound (unless it is something clearly out of place, like "I don't like him").
 * 2) Proclaim that users do need to explain themselves in order for their vote to count in any consensus.

Unless somebody else has a better idea to meet in the middle, I don't see a way around this. I'm not a particular proponent of purely number-based vote outcomes (and neither is our policy system, yet we can come close to it with option #1), but we definitely need to establish a new standard based on all your opinions. Please leave your detailed input so we may come to a complete conclusion. Shotrocket6 01:11, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Not every user can put what they think/feel down easily. Users don't need to put down a reason. If we vote, all votes should be counted (as long as the user meets voting requirments). If we don't do that, and B'crats just say their side won because the other side "doesn't have valid reasons," that creates a biased, top-heavy system. Conqueror of all Zombies
 * I was thinking along the lines of that, but that eliminates the ability to root out corrupted votes. Shotrocket6 01:20, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I also think that in RfAs neutral votes should be classed as an oppose vote in the overall totals, since a neutral vote indicates the user is not fully convinced of the candidate. 01:26, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's called "neutral" because it means "neutral," not "oppose." Shotrocket6 01:31, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * So? By going "neutral", it shows you don't fully believe that the candidate is capable of using the tools. That in itself is an oppose in its own right. 01:35, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * It also shows that you don't fully believe that the candidate is incapable of using the tools. That's called a neutral opinion. Shotrocket6 01:37, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then there's no point in pointing out your opinion in the first place. 01:39, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're participating in a vote, you either support a candidate or you don't. If you abstain you abstain. Participating isn't exactly abstaining. 01:45, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought neutral votes were meant to mean that the person was sitting on the fence regarding a candidate, not necessarily that they "don't fully believe that the candidate is capable of using the tools"? Sgt. S.S. 17:14, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Users need to vote with a reason. Otherwise it ceases to be a discussion. We determine outcome via consensus. Consensus requires discussion. It's the only logical system. Otherwise consensus cannot ever be determined. 01:29, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * So, should the "Per X" votes be dismissed? Because we had that idea a while ago, and almost everyone opposed it.-01:31, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * If we ditch the "Per X" votes, then we'll just have the same reasoning over and over and over again, to the point of redundancy. Conqueror of all Zombies 01:42, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. What exactly is the issue? Is it the people who decide who's point is not good enough? Or irs it the people that leave their opinion? TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 08:35, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Option 2 is the only logical option. However, "per X" votes should still be allowed, IMO — repeating what someone else just said is just silly. Sgt. S.S. 10:40, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Option 2. Also, while "per x" votes are usually good, I've come to notice that sometimes "per all" is just another synonym for "I don't want you to become an admin even though I don't have a good reason". 14:23, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with "per all"? If you don't want someone to become admin, aren't you allowed to vote against them? What if it's just a gut feeling you have? 1358  (Talk)  16:56, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone shouldn't become an admin just because you have this itchy feeling that says 'no'? Usually arguments need reasoning. MLGisNot4Me talk 06:05, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Option 2. Giving reasons to votes avoids unfair ones. Opposite votes with no said reason would unbalance both sides, because anyone could vote without a valid reason. 15:15, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I think Option 2 makes more sense. Redundant reasons are better than unfair votes. 16:53, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Their are Users who use "Per X" because their reasons could be very similar to another's or they're just plain lazy. 17:19, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'd support option 1, but I fear then people who would normally put reasoning would stop because it was no longer required. The problem with option 2, however, is then people will just copy and paste whatever the user above them posted as their reason. 21:07, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'd propose Option 3, keep it as it is. Both option 1 & 2 present different problems. Option 1 presents us with the danger of only a few users bothering to give reasoning, which would be damaging as sometimes we need reasoning. Option 2 has a different problem, it will just result in copy and paste constantly. And while this isn't disastersous in itself, its really not needed. "Per all" presents a problemperhaps there is a solution for all. Insteaust "per all", why not cite the user or users you are iluding to. That way it removes pointless copy and paste and also gives a clarity which sometimes is not always around when voting. TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 23:03, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

(off on a tangent here) I find that the problem with most consensuses (or is it consensi?) is that some people are only supporting a person or opposing since they like or dislike a person. For example, on Redskin's RfA, he had almost 25 votes, and many of them were chatters who knew him well and liked the idea of him being an admin, not really knowing the gravity of the position. (back on topic) The "Per all" vote is definitely something that needs to be changed; a lot of people use it as an excuse to simply vote without thinking about a legit reason. So I was thinking of a "per all, because..." vote, where a user would have to explain WHY they agree with such an action or reasoning. 23:51, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

What's with all this "Option 2 means no per X allowed" nonsense? "Per X" is an explanation. One will assume that if you put "per X" as you reason, you have the same argument as X. That's an explanation. 00:18, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * By that argument wouldn't Redskin's RfA have failed? 01:34, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Callofduty4 in that consensus does require discussion and that option #2 is likely best for our purposes. If others would like, we can start a vote. Shotrocket6 09:09, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also, we will likely have to vote at a later stage whether to include "per all" votes as fair reasoning. Shotrocket6 20:57, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

I think another thing we need to talk about is the fact that because Redskin's RfA succeeded with only a little over 60% consensus, then other votes might've passed too, including Bohater's RfA. 22:29, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Option 1 - Users Do Not Need To Explain Themselves

 * TIL opinions only matter if they're explained. 17:55, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, otherwise we cannot determine consensus. 18:05, March 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * per all 18:01, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Option 2 - Users Do Need To Explain Themselves

 * I'm going to avoid the irony. Some reasoning is key to decisions in terms of consensus. User do need to explain. ("Per X" does count as explanation, providing it is clear which specific users they wish to quote.) TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 16:06, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Doc. And 1337 above. 16:08, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's simple, users should have to explain themselves, on both supports and opposes. Also, I agree with Doc on how "Per X" is used. 16:10, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * The only logical option available, and I agree with Doc in regards to "per X" votes. Sgt. S.S. 17:15, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a logical plan. 17:16, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Per X" should be allowed, but not "Per All" seeing as it seems as if they're voting for the sake of it. 17:27, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per all. It's a useful tool but people should provide some reasoning while they're voting. I think that this would improve the quality of votes and I'd agree with everyone else's proposals. 19:24, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this option. Additionally, I don't see a way around letting users say "per all," so I motion we allow that. Shotrocket6 19:28, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * per all 22:01, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with letting users say "per all", but I personally agree with this option due to better explanation. 22:28, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Only feasible option to allow the determination of consensus. 22:46, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that when a vote is cast a user should try to explain themselves a bit. I see nothing wrong with "Pers" if the person they are 'Per-ing' has got a good amount of content. 22:55, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Doc.Richtofen, MLGisNot4Me, Damac1214, Sgt. S.S., KATANAGOD, Phillycj, YellowRiolu, Shotrocket6, N7, DarkMetroid567, Callofduty4, Crazy sam10, Xd1358. 1358  (Talk)  18:07, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Comment
I'd oppose to option #2, but I'm not sure if it would be counted in the final consensus or be disregarded. 22:38, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * War Room is not place for silliness. Keep it serious. You know very well that it will count. 22:45, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the correct response would be to ask TWC whether he supports option #1 or another option instead of simply insulting him. War Room threads have had tangents of silliness, and sometimes whole threads are dedicated to silliness, like Kony 2012. Because TWC was part of the opposition to Redskin's RfA, I sympathize with what I assume is his feeling of being disregarded because he disagreed with the people in power. 01:40, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Callofduty4's reply was perfectly acceptable. The original comment was there only to bait and not be constructive. That's something that can't be allowed within the War Room. Also, Kony2012 isn't silliness. I'm not saying we should have acted on it, but it wasn't silliness. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 07:25, March 20, 2012 (UTC)