Commons talk:Requests and votes

Archives 2005 - 2007 2008

Restructuring of pages

Does anyone mind if I move a few pages round here? I've never understood why Requests and votes is a subpage of Commons:Administrators, as it mixes up several different non-admin things. It includes not only requests to be made an admin but also requests to be made a 'crat, checkuser and oversighter as well as bot requests.

I would suggest some structure along these lines:

• Commons:Administrators with a subpage Commons:Administrators/Requests
• Commons:Bureaucrats with a subpage Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests
• Commons:Checkusers with a subpage Commons:Checkusers/Requests
• Commons:Oversighters with a subpage Commons:Oversighters/Requests
• Commons:Bots with a subpage Commons:Bots/Requests (for requesting bot permission, not just a flag).

with all of the transcluded individual requests being archived to respective /Archive pages.

Then, to save users having to watch the requests pages separately, transcluding all the requests together (essentially as now) on a new top-level page Commons:Requests and votes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea IMHO. Could you add the information on who is authorised to vote on these pages? Not everyone might look for that in Commons:Administrators. --Leyo 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seem like a sensible suggestion. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean Commons:Bureaucrats/Bureaucrat requests instead of Commons:Administrators/Bureaucrat requests (and likewise for the others)? If that's the case, then I suggest shortening the subpage name to simply requests, like so: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests. –Tryphon^☂ 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh yes, let me try that again (see above). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I wanted to do this a long time ago. If you're going to make Commons:Requests and votes, maybe make the subpages from there? Commons:Requests and votes/Administrators, Commons:Requests and votes/Bureaucrats, etc. Rocket000 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there are masses of subpages to Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes of course. I'm not going to break things by doing a straight move of everything over to Commons:Requests and votes, am I, leaving re-directs behind? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Move-subpages should work nicely (depending on what maximummovedpages is set to for commons.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It claims to be 100, which should be ok. Trying it now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. A moment ago it said there were 72 subpages. Now it tells me there are 603! How does one get around that? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but I didn't understand what's going to be in the "/xxx requests" subpages. Are the requests being transcluded there and then there's a new transclusion on Commons:Requests and votes? Patrícia ^msg 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the idea. Individual transclusions on the /Requests pages, then a separate transclusion of all of them to Commons:Requests and votes so that users don't need to watch the Requests pages separately. But I have come to a halt, as the system will not let me move 603 subpages. Anyone able to do that by script? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

w:User talk:Anomie has a bot that will do that, although I don't know how active he is. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I can do it if someone explains what needs doing :)  — Mike.lifeguard 01:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Just about ready to go now. Would you be able to move Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes to Commons:Requests and votes along with all the subpages (lots), please? I should be able to clean it up from there. Many thanks, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Mike.lifeguard 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. I thought the subpages were supposed to be under Commons:Administrators/Requests and not under Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes? I got that confusion, because of the new subpage format on the "hit" button (located at this page). --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you are asking there. Did you find something that didn't work? The button looks OK to me, but perhaps I missed something. For a new admin request by user xxxx, the subpage should be Commons:Administrators/Requests/xxxx. I haven't moved the old requests to the new structure as there are over 600 of them, and they are all mixed up with admin, crat, bot etc. The archives still work for those requests, though, because there are redirects. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking why the old requests weren't moved to the new page, or if there was some mixup here with the new format. I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. However shouldn't we fix the archives, despite the big numbers of archives mixed up? I can try to help out a few. --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure it's worth it as it would be a massive amount of work unless anyone can find a way to script it. And the only way people will access the old requests is through the archive pages which work fine via the redirects. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done some page-moves. Now there are some double redirects that needs to be fixed. --Kanonkas_(talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why are the pages being moved again? Rocket000 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Because they should be under their subsections. For example oversight requests goes under Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Username, while administrator requests goes under Commons:Administrators/Requests/Username. --Kanonkas_(talk) 09:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of these can probably be deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. All complete now, I think. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Bureaucratship stays for two weeks

I'm posting here because I do not agree with this change: [1]. While this might have been a bold change, I think this one needs more consensus before being adapted. My personal opinion is that I don't support RfB's to stay for two weeks, one week is enough IMO. Basically, it's long enough to give everyone time to discuss their opinion. Keeping it open for two weeks is just for the sake of keeping it open. However this is my sole opinion, I'm posting to let the community to voice their opinion about this change. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter?

Given Commons is a "hub" project (ie ignored by many) allowing more time seems sensible?

In practice Commons is rarely in need of 'crats, if it were then shorter would be better if not then see the previous comments :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks makes a lot of sense to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Herby - I think Commons is large enough, and keeping it two weeks is not of benefit, IMO. I understand for CU/OS, but not for RfB. Despite Commons not having a lot of RfBs, that does not mean we should add a two weeks requirements, to let more people add their opinion. One week is more then sufficiently enough time to voice any concern, or support one may have for a user right, as bureaucrat. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it always was two weeks. I don't remember any RfBs (or any RfX besides RfA) closing in less time. Regardless of whether or not that's a good thing, this isn't something new. Rocket000 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. I guess some were closed earlier. Maybe I was thinking of RfCUs. Rocket000 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that this is a follow-up to this discussion. I personally do not mind if these elections run for one or two weeks or if the 'crats wait until consensus is found or no additional significant votes are to be expected. But I think that it is helpful to all participants if we know beforehand how and when an election is closed. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I changed it now, while there are no ongoing elections. We have run some for two weeks and some for only one, but I think stating it's two weeks, as many other wikis do, is a good thing to get on paper. We have 250 or so admins... one week is fine. But those who want to be crats should be showing deliberatness, I think, and make sure that everyone is on board. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support (formally) extending to two weeks. I'm fairly active but sometimes I don't notice as a new RfA when I've been occupied RL for a few days, others who check in even less often than I do could still offer valuable opnions on RfB's. We have something like 2 or 3 RfB per year, and extending the voting period for these to two weeks shouldn't be much of a problem. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it worth i dislike long elections and i believe commons enough grown up to have one week elections and of course i do respect the community decision about timing of the election --Mardetanha ^talk 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Mardetanha and I'm not sure I understand why 2 weeks are felt necessary for all RfBs. If a candidate has near 100% support after 1 week, it would seem to me sensible to promote them. If there's ambiguity, crats have the discretion to extend. Bureaucrats don't deal have rights with the same sensitive/non-public data issues that checkusers/oversighters (for which the period is two weeks) have. It doesn't look to me like Commons RfBs closed in one week have lacked input and I'm not sure what problem doubling the length of the discussion is trying to solve. I do think it would have been better to have a public discussion (such as this one here) before the change was made... WJBscribe (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with WJB. I think the bureaucrat team also need to work on getting a bit more public. While talking privately over mails can be good, so is taking it publicly. I feel non-bureaucrats should have their say in discussions. If there is no reason to keep it privately, then why do so? I think keeping it secretly can do more harm then good. There might be some incidents where taking it privately may do some good, but generally it should be publicly, like in this case. --Kanonkas_(talk) 00:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just change it to say 1-2 weeks and leave up to the 'crats. This way it sets some boundaries—no less than 1 week, no more than 2 weeks. Some RfBs need longer than others. If someone's getting 90%+ support (or opposition), 1 week is good, but if someone's around 70-80%, 2 weeks is better. Commons moves at a slower rate than some projects (just look at the DRs!) and there's really no reason to hurry. It's not like there's tons of 'crat work that needs to be done. Rocket000 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Rocket I think - this is Commons after all :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't like any hard and fast rule ("no more than two weeks") as that really restricts the 'crats' discretion. Similarly, defaulting to an uncertain period ("between one and two weeks") makes the whole thing very unclear. Let's keep it at either one week or two (my preference), with the usual 'crat discretion to keep the discussion open longer if need be. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'crats would still be able to extend the time, it's just some discussion would be needed beforehand (like it is now). I was mainly reaching towards some sort of compromise. Maybe a plain 10 days would work? Rocket000 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah but what happens if the 'crats then think it should be extended ;)...

All in all I'm actually inclined to leave it to the 'crats - they should have leeway to deal with things if they see fit. Hard & fast rules are fine for some places but maybe not needed on Commons.

That said it doesn't strike me as the most important issue of the time. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a community issue, not a bureaucrat one. While the bureaucrats can give their opinion, I don't think they are the ones to make their final say in this requirement. However I agree they should deal with things as they think it may fit, or even better, propose it here if they think that's needed. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So how to move forward then? I see more voices favoring 2 than 1, and also a pretty large contingent of "don't care" ... ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should move forward too quickly. This talk page rarely has any active discussion as a matter of fact. I think we should be open for more opinions, as you never know. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure... maybe we should give it... oh, I don't know... 2 weeks? :) ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any major issue, either way (although I can honestly say I'm not sure why it needs to be 2 weeks, generally - exceptions can be made, but no need for a general rule). I do, however, not like to see the crats completely disregarding those wishes of the community because "they know better". They are elected to judge consensus, not create nor modify policy. Before a change was made, there should have been a community discussion and in it, the crats should have held no more weight than anybody else. Since Lar took it upon himself to make the change, I didn't think there was any point in undoing it, given the discussion above was/is ongoing, but lets remember not to do this sort of thing in the future. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I may be missing what you're saying... I thought the change was uncontroversial as it was codifying what we had done in the past (although not consistently) so I boldly made it. Someone reverted it and brought it here, and now we're discussing it and we'll go with the consensus. Seems pretty routine to me. Not all changes need discussion beforehand, as long as discussion happens if it is needed. See w:WP:BRD which is an interesting essay (although certainly not policy here or there). Why was there "no point in undoing it" ? ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that it already was undone, before my comment. If it hadn't been, there would be no point in doing so, as discussion was already underway and why revert back and forth during discussion? Of course BRD is a good thing, but a change like this is bound to be controversial in the eyes of some. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you revert like Kanonkas did and start the discussion. No big deal. That's how it should be. Especially on Commons where it's sometimes useless to try and discuss beforehand. Being bold is the best way to get people's attention, right? ;) When I first saw the change (before it was undone) I didn't give it a second thought. I would have thought it noncontroversial too. And judging by this discussion, I still think that. One major objector doesn't really make it controversial, it just means a little discussion is needed[Edit: Ok, with the addition of Majorly's comment it's getting closer to "controversial". Two major objectors. ;)]. They are elected to judge consensus, not create nor modify policy. True, but that doesn't mean they can't help edit them, they're just like any other user in that regard. I don't think it's relevant that Lar happens to be a 'crat.

@Kanonkas: While the bureaucrats can give their opinion, I don't think they are the ones to make their final say in this requirement. I see no indication that they were even thinking about doing that. I think we should be open for more opinions, as you never know. Yes, but I'm curious what kind of opinions you imagine others might have. It seems to me every plausible option is already on the table. 1 week, 2 weeks, somewhere in the middle, all of the above. Or did you mean you want more people to voice their preference out of those? Rocket000 (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the latter part. My bad for not being clear. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks is much too long in my opinion, and it is sad to see the bureaucrats around here yet again trying to rule the roost over how things work. Bureaucrat judge the results of these discussions, not the way the discussions are run. They are not above and beyond the community. Majorly ^talk 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly true, and I agree with you. However, what's wrong with two weeks? Frankly, I see little need for time limits or guidelines at all, so this bickering back and forth about one or two weeks seems to miss the point entirely. Sadly, I've come to expect that here.  — Mike.lifeguard 01:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would be far easier to simply take each request on a case-by-case basis. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially what I was getting at with my comment about what the crats are elected to do. I agree with Majorly, and this is a trend that needs to be stopped. Seems to be happening more and more as of late, but I suppose that this discussion doesn't really belong here, so I'll not press the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"I agree with Majorly, and this is a trend that needs to be stopped." O rly? :) Majorly ^talk 12:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New vote format

Did I miss the memo? Why did we stop using templates and are now separating supports/opposes? (And numbers, but that's been going on for longer) Rocket000 (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And why does the "Voice your opinion" link only lead to the "Support" subsection? Pruneau^talk 08:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

templates - en folk don't understand multi lingual projects ;)

separating votes - en folk do it like that...

numbering - not a clue - maybe en folk.....

ho hum --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The link just references a subsection by number, and it looks like there's a heading level missing, so it's probably meant to point to a heading one level above the support and oppose sections. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So this wasn't intentional? Just some en folk not familiar with the way things are here? They're taking over our RfAs now! Can they get enough back home? ;-) Rocket000 (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Added votes section. Is the section necessarily be hidden? Kwj2772 (msg) 14:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So can we go back to the way things were? No separating into sections, no numbering and using templates to help with multi-lingualness? WJBscribe (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal with the new format? It's much easier to keep up with the votes as it is now, and more helpful for the voters. Same goes to the numbering. The "templates" bit, is, as far as I know, optional. It is up to the voters how they choose to vote, that includes with or without a templated vote. — Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The symbols in those templates are easily understandable regardless of the language(s) you speak. Language aside, it's easier to look at the list of votes and instantly get a good idea where it's going. I hate seeing empty sections and the votes separated. Aesthetics, I guess. I also like seeing things order by date. The numbers imply it's a strictly majority thing. Votes do not fit in three categories when it comes to the voters' intent and how much weight the 'crat assigns to it. It's more like a range or a spectrum. Yes, weak opposes are still opposes, but if the case becomes borderline these are taken into account. When people change votes, they can't write their new vote next to the old one. Those things don't matter as much as the fact we simply like it that way. Let's go back to the old way. This happen by accident it seems, so there's nothing to discuss I don't think. Rocket000 (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I guess it wasn't an accident. Sorry, I changed the preloads back. Based on this discussion, things should stay the way they are unless a memo does go around and we discuss it. Rocket000 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on election analysis

We need to talk about how votes are counted. Our crat EugeneZelenko just told me on his talk page, that he usually counts "neutral" votes as "no support" which is pretty much the same as "oppose". In stewards elections "neutral" votes aren't counted at all, and that how it's supposed to be (at least IMHO).

Just have some examples:

• 60  Support, 40  Oppose, 00  Neutral → 60%
• 60  Support, 20  Oppose, 20  Neutral → 60% (Eugene), 75% (me)
• 60  Support, 00  Oppose, 40  Neutral → 60% (Eugene), 100% (me)
• 40  Support, 20  Oppose, 40  Neutral → 40% (Eugene), 66⅔% (me)

I don't whether there was any case where counting "neutral" votes as "oppose" lead to an unsuccessful request, but some day there might be, that's why I think it'd be good to discuss this topic without a special case in the background.

There was no Commons:Request for Comment so I thought I place my request at this place, at least it is closely related to "Requests for Permissions". If there's a better place for this, please let me know.

So what's your comment? a×p_de^Hello! 08:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the RfA on svwp, we realised that a change from oppose to neutral would give no effect. Therefor the neutral are not counted today. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Same on ru.wp (neutral votes do not count) if it helps--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• As far as I know, on :de "neutral" or "abstain" are not counted. --Túrelio (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral should be counted as neutral (no effect) if you're talking numbers, but technically it is a lack of support (as well as a lack of opposition) and should affect the outcome somewhat (depending on the rationale) as it indicates the voter has seen the candidate's request, considered their position, and explicitly stated they do not support (or oppose) the candidate. Emphasis on "support" here since that is what the candidate is applying for, and needs, to obtain the rights. I agree with Eugene when he's says "Neutral votes are not assumed pro or contra, but never ignored" but wouldn't tally them that way in the outcome summary. And it is true that in the European Union, abstention has an effect of a no vote for majority votes (yes or no objection for unanimity votes). So the real question comes back to how much we go by the numbers. Rocket000 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• On EN wikipedia, neutral votes are counted neither for or against a user. --Guerillero 03:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• How about judge the vote by the comment accompanying it? After all, this is more about consensus (like it should be). If the neutral leans towards support, count it as support. If it leans towards oppose, count it as oppose. No comment=null argument=no weight. --ZooFari 07:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  A vote should be a vote and no guessing game. "Neutral but leaning towards xy" is no vote pro or contra, same as "support" counts same as "strong support" (or does this count as two support votes?!?). a×p_de^Hello! 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• In borderline cases I believe the discretion is with the 'crat anyway? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment The percentages are calculated by dividing the number of supporters by the total number of voters. Someone who specifically declares a "neutral" vote is not a supporter, but is a voter. In practice this means "neutral" has the same effect as "oppose" on the percentage - but an election discussion is supposed to be a discussion, and "neutral" voters are saying that they might be swayed one way or the other by the discussion. Any remaining neutral by the end have to be counted as among those who did not support. Metaphor alert: in a real-life election, a "neutral" vote is perhaps a bit like a en:spoiled ballot. (Or is it? I'm not entirely sure.) Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. Rd232 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  Au contrair: en:Spoiled ballot#Types of spoiled vote states: "an undervote: leaving sections of the ballot blank, or marking nothing at all (though some ballots include an explicit "none of the above" option)" – that's exactly the definition of "neutral"! a×p_de^Hello! 13:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  If there's no difference between "neutral" and "oppose" in the outcome, why do we have those different votes? In German parliaments we have three different majorities:

  1. "Relative Majority": Option A has more supporters than B, C, etc. (abstentions are not counted).
  2. "Simple Majority": Option A has more supporters than B, C, etc. together (abstentions are not counted).
  3. "Absolute Majority": Option A has more supporters than 50% of eligible voters (abstentions are counted).

  Obviously the third pattern doesn't make sense, on commons there are thousands of users eligible to vote but only very few of them do vote!

  And for votings with only two options (support or oppose) the first and second pattern are exactly the same, and both don't count sbstentions! a×p_de^Hello! 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  "If there's no difference between "neutral" and "oppose" in the outcome, why do we have those different votes?" - because, as I said, "neutral" can be considered a "waiting for more information to decide" vote, whereas "oppose" is "I've got enough info". If a neutral remains at the time of closure, it's the same, but during the course of the discussion, it isn't. "Neutral" is an invitation for more information or persuasion, where "oppose" isn't. Ideally all "neutral" would always become "oppose" or "support" votes by the time of closure, but we don't live in an ideal world. Rd232 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  If a user doesn't change his "neutral" to "support" or "oppose" at the end of the voting there might be different reasons for this. Maybe this user simply doesn't care anymore. Or he still has not enough information to decide ... and he still wants to neither support nor oppose! That's why "neutral" votes shouldn't be counted at all, as they neither support nor oppose the candidate! a×p_de^Hello! 17:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  If you exclude neutral votes, you risk, in theory, ludicrous situations, like 10 support, 2 oppose, 50 neutral = pass. Bottom line, the inclusion of neutral votes doesn't usually make a difference to the outcome, but where it does, that's the best reflection of the community's overall position on whether to trust a user with a user right. Someone who makes the effort to review a user right request and can't support it should have that opinion and effort counted. Rd232 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  First of all, that situation is not "ludicrous", if there are only two users actually opposing this vote but ten are supporting, then we have a majority of votes! If 50 users are not able to make up their minds, they're not only unable to support but also unable to oppose, and this should count as well!! a×p_de^Hello! 13:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  It's ludicrous to me because admins are supposed to have the trust of the community. That is clearly not true of the situation described. If we netted out the oppose votes (as we properly should; see my comment below), this example would be 16% support minus 3% oppose = 13% net support. Doesn't that sound ludicrous as a "pass" to you? Rd232 (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  This can be fixed for instance by requiring that the total number of supporting and opposing votes should be no less that 20.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Some of the above discussion suggests two conclusions to me. (i) it should be made clear in an RFA that at closure, any neutral votes have the same effect as "oppose" (they are part of the denominator, but not part of the "support" total). (ii) 24 hours before closure, any "neutral" voters should be reminded of this (ideally by a bot, otherwise by any user using an appropriate template message). They can then either leave it as "neutral" (knowing what that means), or change to support or oppose, or strike the "neutral" (which means "no vote", so not counted). Rd232 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And my conclusion: Forbit any "neutral" votes! If someone want's to take part in a vote, (s)he has to decide between "support" or "oppose". If this user needs more input to decide, (s)he may place a  Question or a  Comment. "neutral" votes shouldn't be used at all because there are different opinions about what does "neutral" mean, thus a voter might not be aware of the consequences! a×p_de^Hello! 13:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral should mean neutral - there are benefits and also disadvantages to the candidate, and thus it should be counted as neither a support or oppose since that's what it is. If a person believes that the candidate will not make a good admin/crat, then they would be opposing. Neutrals are the same as the person not voting on the request, and really shouldn't be put on either side. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "it should be counted as neither a support or oppose " - well it isn't. But it's still counted as a vote, so it reduces the support percentage (it also reduces the oppose percentage, but that's irrelevant). Perhaps Axpde's solution is the simplest: ban neutral votes. If it's too confusing and not really helpful, then we might as well get rid of them. Rd232 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No, you are describing an opposing vote. Maybe it's different for others, but when I vote "neutral" then I would never want my vote counted against the candidate. Neutral means I don't know either way, it's kind of a way of saying that you've seen the request and put in your opinion in case anyone wants to build off of it. Perhaps my view of what a neutral vote is differs from the mainstream attitude here, but in my opinion the very easy solution to this is just to count neutral votes as they should be - not for or against the candidate, aka not counted. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • A "neutral vote" is counted precisely as described: it is neutral (neither support nor oppose, so doesn't increase the total of support or oppose votes) but it is a vote (it increases the total number of votes). As a consequence, the percentage of both support and oppose votes decreases. This only looks like "neutral=oppose" because we ignore the oppose percentage in determining the outcome of the election, because it's easy: a simple X% support is the decision criterion. Really, we should net out the oppose percentage, e.g. 80% support - 10% oppose = 70% decision criterion (and the missing 10% in the example are neutral). That way, a switch from oppose to neutral benefits the candidate just as much as a switch from neutral to support (becoming, if it's 100 votes in our example, 80% - 9% = 71%, or 81% - 10% = 71%). Rd232 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't agree with your definition of a neutral vote, and tend to think of them as not votes (under most circumstances, there are exceptions). That said, I agree with your idea of subtracting the oppose percentage from the support, since this is just as effective at making a neutral vote neutral as my idea of not counting them, while allowing the RfA process to better determine whether or not there is enough community support for a candidate. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is in line with Eugene, Rocket, and Rd. If a voter really wants to not be counted as a vote at all, just post a comment instead. If people don't like the idea that neutrals are "disadvantaging" the candidate, please clarify the wording at COM:A, rather than seeking to define a "neutral vote" as not a vote. --99of9 (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the most important thing is that people know what the meaning of a neutral vote is. The simplest thing is to add a sentence to COM:A (it may be helpful to contrast {{neutral}} with {{abstain}}). More complex would be redefining the decision criterion (as I explained above, it should really be X% support - Y% oppose = Z% decision criterion, and not just the X% level); this is trickier because we'd have to recalibrate the pass/fail levels, or else accept that the redefinition makes RFA harder to pass. Rd232 (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A Neutral vote should be neutral on the outcome of the vote not supporting, not opposing. They should not influence the outcome of the vote. If they are counted as oppose we have to change this. In the german Wikipedia, Neutral votes are not counted. We should do the same. --Neozoon (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not counted as oppose. That they have the same effect on the outcome as oppose is an artefact of the current vote totalling approach (see my comments above). Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

Let's try moving this forward by discussing actual proposals. In any case, the outcome of this discussion should lead to some clarification so that editors who write "neutral" know exactly how it's counted. In fact, I'd say clarification is more important than what's actually decided - but we have to decide something in order to clarify it. :) Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Option 1

Change how votes are totalled: subtract oppose votes from support votes. This way, a neutral vote clearly affects the outcome differently than an oppose vote. The meaning of thresholds then becomes not "X% support", but "X% net support". Possibly thresholds should be reduced, say by 5%. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support More complex, but fairer if we get the threshold right. --99of9 (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

An example would be helpful here, as I am not certain what you mean. Also, remember that we need to be able to communicate this to all of our users, so complexity might best be avoided.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Unnecessarily complex. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Philosopher. While it's a pretty good idea in theory, it is far more complex than it needs to be. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Option 2

Leave the vote totalling as it is (only the X% support level affects the decision), but make it clear that editors saying "neutral" are considered voters, so that a "neutral" vote has the same effect on the outcome as an "oppose" vote. Clarify that the logic for this is that "neutral" votes are expected to be temporary (to be changed to support or oppose after discussion), with default to "oppose" if the vote is not changed. Clarify that editors who simply comment (with or without {{comment}}) without explicitly declaring a "neutral" vote will not be counted as neutral voters - they will not be counted at all. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support, although I don't think we should say that neutral is expected to be temporary. I'm perfectly fine with people staying neutral. If they're really conflicted about an admin, it's fine for a neutral vote to eventually "count against" adminship in that particular request. --99of9 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I think it's clearer to put it this way. In this approach, there's no such thing as a "neutral" vote when the votes are totalled, so any "neutral" voting during the discussion is intrinsically temporary. Wording can make it clear that people don't have to change their neutral vote; "expected" relates to the the purpose of the vote, but people don't have to meet those expectations. Rd232 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I am not convinced that we can make it clear in 100+ languages to all of our colleagues, some of whom come here infrequently that a  Neutral will be counted as an  Oppose.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Saying that a vote is "neutral" than treating it as "oppose" is confusing. Also per Jim. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose If I wanted to oppose, I'd say oppose. When I am neutral on a candidate I would never want my comment to be counted against them. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ajr. If I want to oppose, I can use the oppose template. Automatically counting neutral votes as opposes would not be fair. Neutral votes should affect the outcome by the strenght of the argument accompaining it (if any); either supportive, either negative; if the RfA fails into a gray area; subject to the 'crat discrection. Otherwise they should not affect the outcome at all (example). Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Option 3

Simply declare "neutral" as treated the same as a "comment", i.e. not included in vote totals at all. Rd232 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose --99of9 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I believe this is the most transparent way to count votes.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support A clear, simple, and obvious way of doing things. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 07:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - Logical and that's how it's been done on the English Wikipedia and others for years, without major issues. CT Cooper · talk 22:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support This Option in my opinion covers the expectation of voters who do not read about how the votes will be counted --Neozoon (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I would never want my neutral vote counted against a candidate in any way. If I wanted to oppose, I'd oppose. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral Leave them out of the vote totals to make people happy but don't treat them any different otherwise. Rocket000 (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support This is the simplest solution in the end. The main thing is to be clear on the meaning. Rd232 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support This may work although I have a question: if we treat neutral votes are comments, will those comments affect on the outcome in case of an RFA failing in the "gray area"? Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  The closing crat "may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users"[2], so I imagine neutrals and comments would have some effect in grey-area cases. Jafeluv (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support. Neutral is clearly meant as not-support and not-oppose, so interpreting it as oppose would be madness. Jafeluv (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Option 4

We forbid the  Neutral vote, and do not count any that are placed, but allow  Abstain for those who want to be truly neutral. As for Rd232's case above, with the  Abstains overwhelming the  Supports, I would leave that to the closing 'crat, or maybe extend the voting period.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me)
•  Oppose This proposal just gives neutral a different name, and neutral is a far better description for someone who is neutral imo. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in English usage "Neutral" is a vote. "Abstain" is a comment without a vote.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

While that is true at an extremely technical level, this is more a situation for practicality in my opinion. From looking at the votes above it is pretty clear that almost everyone here votes neutral with the intention that it won't be counted for or against the candidate, so changing the word "neutral" to "abstain" seems like a solution looking for a problem - especially since not everyone on commons speaks English as a first language. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support IMO this is both the correct and common usage of the words (not just "extremely technical"). --99of9 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose: allow "abstain" to mean the same as "neutral", yes; but I see no advantage in banning "neutral" - attempting to do so will probably lead to unnecessary confusion and perhaps conflict. Rd232 (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Question Why {{abstain}} exists? If you really want to abstain, you don't vote at all. I find a bit odd to place a template {{abstain}} to say that you're abstaining... while when placing it you're not abstaining at all. It looks like a useless template for me. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  I somewhat agree that abstain votes don't make a lot of sense at RfA, though there might be other circumstances where they are appropriate. For instance at deletion requests, if someone nominated one of my uploads for deletion, I might register an  Abstain vote to acknowledge the DR but not vote in either direction, even if I had an opinion (if I didn't I would use  Neutral). CT Cooper · talk 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose close

I think it's clear at this point that Option 3 is the preferred one. So the question, is how do we best clarify that "neutral" is not counted? I suggest adding a line to Commons:Bureaucrat#Voting and Commons:Administrators#Voting:

 Neutral comments are not counted in the vote totals for the purposes of calculating pass/fail percentages. However such comments are part of the discussion, may persuade others, and contribute to the closing bureaucrat's understanding of community consensus.

Rd232 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)