NSWiki talk:Admin nominations
Heh. Thanks ^_^;;;; - Knoot 08:44, 4 Oct 2004 (GMT)
Definition of consensus?
I had a rather difficult time making up my mind on the Pacitalia bureacrat nomination because of the high number of "neutral" votes. In the future, how do others think I should handle votes with lots of neutrals? --Goobergunch|? 22:40, 8 January 2006 (GMT)
- That gets tricky because many people use neutral to mean mild dissent, while some use it to mean "no vote", as it probably should be used. I'd say to count them as a half-vote in either direction, so Pacitalia would have had 4 - 2 (2/0/4), which would be 67%. This differs from not counting them at all, which would give 100% for. This means that they give more support then an oppose but less than a support. Of course, my math might be screwy, I'm tired today. :) → Ceo \ squawk 01:20, 9 January 2006 (GMT)
- I was voting neutral. Not half-for, not half-against. I just didn't know enough about it initially, and once I had found out, didn't see any pressing need. But, Paci, is a great sysop, so there's no reason to oppose. I really was neutral.
- As to the larger question, I think it has to be a judgement call. Most people who vote neutral substantiate with a comment as to how they could be swung in favour. If it's clear are voting neutral because of minor niggles, then I'd say consensus may be there. If people are voting neutral to avoid hurting the nominee's feelings, then not. I really don't think there'll be many hard-and-fast rules: simply extend the vote and, if there's still a lot of neutrals, then just have to make a guesstimation of which way the overall count is leading. (However, I think at least a couple of definite supports would be needed for a neutral-heavy vote to go in favour.) Gruen2alk 01:53, 9 January 2006 (GMT)
- Hmmmm. I was probably looking at it from too mathematical of a perspective, in retrospect. (Wow. Two "spect" roots in one sentence.) → Ceo \ squawk 02:05, 9 January 2006 (GMT)
- Yeah, a major factor in my decision was that none of the "neutral" votes here signaled clear opposition. The problem is that some of them could be construed as saying that we didn't need an additional bureaucrat, which should count against (on Wikipedia, it's not uncommon to have votes against bureaucrats because the voters like the nominee but don't think a new bureaucrat is needed). And of course, using hard-and-fast math on a consensus vote is just a bad idea, especially with the low vote counts we get here. --Goobergunch|? 04:34, 9 January 2006 (GMT)