Forum:Omitting the voting procedure and clarifying consensus in RfA/RfBs

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Omitting the voting procedure and clarifying consensus in RfA/RfBs | Post

So with regards to the confusion over how consensus is interpreted with RfA and RfB, I feel a modest change to the system would help us overcome this and make things more clear.

I'd like to propose that we omit the voting procedure that takes place with RfA and RfB if consensus isn't clear from the discussion. From what I remember, the voting procedure was primarily implemented as a compromise to us needing the system yet the community didn't quite want to do away with voting completely. The discussion-based system has been mostly successful for us and determining whether or not a nomination needs to progress to a vote is often rather confusing and frankly the vote itself doesn't really make things any clearer.

With this, I'd like for us to clarify that consensus in these discussions is meant to be a general agreement on promoting a user and that a rough consensus of two-thirds (66%) is needed for a promotion to take place. This eliminates the situation of one being confused as into whether or not there is a consensus as it would be a case of either there is a favourable consensus to promote the nominee, in which case the RfA/RfB is successful, or there isn't and therefore it's unsuccessful, so we wouldn't have to worry about things being split 50/50 or whatever.

While it may seem like I'm looking for the easy way out, I feel this move would solve a lot of the confusion regarding RfX consensus and would ultimately make the process a lot clearer.

Note that I'm not proposing we close down RfA/RfB while we discuss this, as this isn't a major overhaul, but any RfAs or RfBs that take place while this is being discussed should use the current system as it stands.

Please discuss below. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:39, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Support. Voting really doesn't get a nomination anywhere. If the community clearly disagrees with the promotion, a vote isn't going to change that. K6ka (talk | contribs) 14:20, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Removing the voting process from requests with no support whatsoever in the request seems to be our best bet here. I'm all for it. Beds ^{(parlare - da leggere)} 15:21, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I support. I think K6ka hit the nail on the head - if there's consensus for a candidate, then we shouldn't need to resort to a formal vote. If consensus is lacking, then a vote is already redundant. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 19:00, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Although I do support removing the voting process from determining consensus, I'm not sure how the community would be able to interpret the results of the discussion. As it's in paragraph-form, it can be a bit unclear what is the commenter's the ultimate decision in relation to supporting or opposing a request. As well, it could be difficult to put all the results of the comments into a strict support or lack of support. However, The Sims Wiki mightn't even need a system to really solve this, as there are not often issues with rights requests. --Bleeh^{(talk!) (edits)} 03:06, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

It isn't really necessary to weigh whether a particular comment is in support or oppose... the text of the comment would generally illustrate how they feel about a particular nominee without needing to explicitly state so. For a hypothetical example, let's say you were applying for administrator and I was commenting on the RfA discussion; I could say something like this:

I feel that Bleeh is a highly-productive user that is very active. She is helpful to users and very knowledgable. -

In that example you'll note that I never specifically stated whether or not I supported her, but the meaning of what I say makes it clear that I do. For another example:

Bleeh does not always act in the best interests of the community and doesn't seem to be very helpful with other users. -

Again, in this example it's pretty clear how I feel about the applicant without explicitly stating my opposition. But, it seems that we often do state whether we support or oppose in our comment, so it's ultimately pretty easy to tell how a user generally feels about an applicant.

As for the overall results... the idea of consensus is that the community reaches a general agreement about some sort of decision. That means you don't really need to rank people up strictly on a support/doesn't support basis, as the general tone of the discussion should make it pretty apparent whether or not enough people agree. For instance, if you were to look at this discussion, while removing any explicit mentions of support, you could still determine that (presently) there is consensus for this decision. That's where "strength of argument" comes into play - a person commenting should do more than simply say 'support' or 'oppose'; in order to really help forge a consensus, their comments should be more detailed in their reasons for support or opposition. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 04:20, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Fairly often in rights requests users will discuss both sides of the argument for promoting the user. Although, it is true and the general stance is more often than not apparent without a strict support or no support. As well, I don't think voting is really the best system to deal with confusion with rights requests anyway. So I do support omitting the voting procedure, although if there were to be a discussion about possible substitutions ever I'd contribute. I'm not 100% sure that it's necessary, but just in case, I suppose. --Bleeh^{(talk!) (edits)} 04:21, February 9, 2014 (UTC)