Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tmorton166

Polls are evil!

Hi and thanks to anyone who has taken the time to come and comment. Anyway here is an expansion of my ideas copied from the talk page. I think it does not explain my opinion well and I will work on a revised version, in the meantime any comments / ideas! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

“ Sadly this is an important issue that will take too long to cover in an RfA, but it is something I feel strongly about. People are highly opposed to admiting to voting here on Wikipedia, instead calling it consensus. In truth no decision can be reached without a vote - not in the election context of the word but on the ideal that you have to make a decision about your opinion. For example on an AFD most people make a clear cut decision, sure it gets discussed and changed at times but it is still a choice. The fact that it can be from an almost infinite number of options (delete, dekte and merge, keep etc) doesnt detract from the fact that it is still a vote! However this is where it gets sticky. We ask for consensus - that in itelf can mean alot of things, even a majority vote (I suppose tht would even be the literal meaning). The point is that no matter how much we claim to hate them we are constantly voting in all of these things... My point I was making in the edit you mention is that it is not the actual act of voting, or making a choice that matters, it is the rationale behind it. For example your choice here only held weight with Dlohcierekim when you gave rationale for it. So the problem, in my humble opinion, is not what we call the thing but what weight an opinion carries. That is whats important. ”

Ok thanks bunchofgrapes Im glad you have taken the time to reply, I will have to concede some of your points, however:

I guess I should start with your point 4 and work back, true counting votes isn't a done thing however how many comment non-votes get counted? I dont want to suggest none as we have to trust the people who are closing them but I feel that in alot of cases only actual choices are looked at (and their ratinales weighed up). However the comments usually have pertinent information and rationale behind them which can get ignored. Peoples refusal (either through choice or by following consensus) to be seen Voting means that, IMO, information is being lost.

As to the point you make about normally only being 2 or 3 choices; I would agree in part. On an RfA for example there are really only 3 options, but look at AfD - there are plenty of combinations. I mean how many valid combines of delete, keep, merge and rename are there. To make matters more complicated we get the idea of weak or strong - does weak keep because... mean that the person making the comment has no trust in their opinion?

Ok so in theory, with lots of participation, the variation doesn't matter as over time a general consensus develops. However in practice I see it not working. Take an example where 3 people vote on an AfD for a minor personality:

• weak keep was runner up in a regional competition and several google hits
• delete and merge with the competition article
• rename and rewrite its a crap article and the persons name does not follow naming conventions

Now what does the closing admin do? he has 3 choices rename, merge or keep. Well what does he do. The keep rationale is probably not strong enough to take that choice (IMO) which means the rename is not a choice either. So merge? The truth is that could go any of 3 ways and it might not be the right one. It is still the overall choice of the closing admin. maybe this is a very infrequent example but, as the number of votes (and number of choices) rise the closing admin has a even more difficult decision to make.

THe problem is (as I see it) that AfD is suffering from a lack of positive identity. It is almost as if we had free choice on an RfA, the choice to say promote in 3 months or never promote ever. How many people would get sysoped then!

The solution on RfA is the choice of just 3 votes, no other option. Then we only have to consider the rationale for 2 sides. Same should be on AFD - 2 or 3 choices and that is the only real option (of course other solutions could be suggested inside a persons vote rationale but not used as thweir vote). That way there is just the choice of delete or not to delete!

I chose AFD as my example as it is the most common option and also the worst offender. I also dont think I have explained myself wonderfully again but I hope it is better than the first attempt! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I remain entirely confused. Your hypothetical AfD above gives a closer two very clear options: relist as not enough input, or close as "no consensus". I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with it. Maybe we should back up. You said, in the original diff I quoted, "voting is essential for concensus". What do you mean by that? It is on its face quite at odds with the general set of beliefs around here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)