User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Neutral

Neutral Opposition. Stop it. (Archive 71)
Stop weaseling! This whole neutral section is usually full of insidious negativity, and it needs to go. If you are not supporting you are opposing. The following are examples of what gets placed under Neutral. If they were placed under Oppose where they belong we would have a clearer picture of what is going on here. Jim182 22:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "you need broader experience"
 * "doesn't have the project wide experience just yet"
 * "Great contributions, just needs more experience"
 * "Neutral - Sorry you just dont meet my criteria for edit summarys"
 * "Just need more experience"
 * "the answers to the questions above don't reveal a requirement for admin tools on this Wiki at this time"
 * "neutral because edit summary use is really quite necessary, and answers aren't that strong"
 * "needs a few more enwiki edits and better summary use"
 * You have a point. But do you mean that the de jure neutrals that are de facto opposes should be placed in the more accurate column to begin with, while keeping the neutral section, or do you mean that we should do away with the neutral section altogether? I don't quite understand your proposal. Picaroon9288 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Sometimes, answers are vague and a greater explanation is needed.  A user may not feel inclined to support a candidate, yet he may also not feel an oppose is essential. Michael 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What about "neutral leaning support" or "neutral leaning oppose"? A user may not feel strong enough on a topic to decisively support or oppose. Michael 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of people use the neutral section to avoid dog-piling a newbie candidate whom they are sure will lose, so that they don't feel bad. It's also used a lot to ask questions, or simply because they don't feel strongly enough or know enough about the candidate to give them full opposition. Also, your claim "If you are not supporting you are opposing." is false, as is its counterpart "If you are not opposing you are supporting." It's not technically a vote, so options other than a simple for or against are permitted. --tjstrf 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps the neutral section should be removed - anyone that wants to say something without "voting" can do so in the comments section. --Tango 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I hardly think this is important, it has the same effect either way, so just leave it as it is. If someone wants to vote neutral, it doesn't make them a weasle, it just means that they firmly believe the candidate is not ready - but would not be a threat to the project with the tools (at least, that's what I mean when I vote neutral). Themindset 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree with most of the comments except for Themindset. I occasionally vote neutral myself.  I want to be clear that my comments should not be taken by the closing bureaucrat to be either a support or an oppose.  Simply adding a "comment" may not make this as clear, and a comment is more passive.  By voting neutral I am saying "I explicitly do not want to my vote to determine the outcome of this vote, but I do have concerns that could sway my vote one way or another if new evidence comes to light."  I do this usually because there is a single issue that is preventing me from supporting, but that I don't believe it severe enough to block.  I will list my concerns about the user, but that doesn't mean that I won't go along with consensus either way.  My concerns are therefore not sufficient to make a binding conclusion.  I have at times waited as a neutral vote until more evidence has come to light to sway me one way or another. -- RM 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral choices cannot be eliminated. I sometimes vote neutral with some comments.--Jusjih 13:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Neutral comments, although often negative, are comments that someone feels they need to present, but that don't sway them sufficiently to make it into a support or oppose vote. I think we should respect that, even when they are downright negative - if they are that bad, then other people will oppose on those grounds. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's good to give constructive criticism without piling on oppose. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim   21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And an RfA is not the classic "if-you're-not-with-us-then-you're-against-us" sort of thing. One should be allowed to straddle the fence. And I agree with Dlohcierekim's comment above. --physicq210 07:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a silly proposal. Next thing, they'll be telling us that we're not allowed to comment on any current RfA. &mdash; Werdna talk criticism 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere on this page, there is a complaint about drive by voting or not doing sufficeint research before voting. I dig around until I feel comfortable voting one way or another. I also trust the community to catch anything I might miss. Since RfA is not and never was a vote-- it is a concensus buidling/seeking process-- I believe I owe it to the 'crats and the rest of the community to give some sort of rationale. If I'm going to not support, I believe I owe it to the nom's to help them better themselves. Oppose reasons should not be a form of bullying or punishment. They should be a learning tool. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim   15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Being "Neutral" (Archive 74)
I have a question: the RfA is not supposed to be a vote, so it is fair to add that the count alone should not determine the outcome. Bureaucrats need to be vigilant about bad-faith opposes, etc. So shouldn't the "Neutral" people get some sort of weight in the final decision, even if it is very low. For example, Mr. X's nomination has 5-6 neutrals who feel positive, but uncertain. And it comes down to the wire with 74-75% support. Given that consensus is a grey area, shouldn't the bureaucrat feel some freedom in assessing the neutral arguments? Is it a good idea to allow 4 neutral-positives to make 1 support, as every oppose is worth 4 supports?

Basically, my question is if its not a vote and tallies aren't the end-all, then why not involve the neutrals a bit more with some weightage? Rama's arrow 03:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sometimes people are neutral but not entirely positive. For RfA/Ramsquire2, Siva1979 voted neutral specifically to avoid piling on another negative vote, while Husond and (aeropagitica)'s neutrals were of the "not so much with the support" variety. I think that, in very close situations like the one you listed, any bureaucrat should most certainly consider the merits of all neutral votes, but giving them undue weight would be dangerous. EVula 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'm not saying that a hard-fast guideline can be made. And definitely, neutral-tending-oppose must also receive weightage. But I'd like to discuss the role and importance of "neutrals" in a non-vote process like RfA. Perhaps "bureaucratic discretion," etc. A safe way is perhaps if a nom has 76% and the bureaucrat is unsure about promotion, wants to discuss at BN. Its fine, but perhaps a good bunch of positive-neutrals should also be accounted for. Rama's arrow  03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm definitely not trying to suggest that neutral-positives be counted as unofficial "supports" or neutral-negatives be "opposes," - no. A neutral is out of the count, but I just feel we should be clear about whether or not this can be useful in a non-vote process, a discussion/consensus-based process where the count is not the final decision-maker. Rama's arrow  03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And not to say that "neutral" weightage will make any difference on most of the nominations. But its one of those things we might like to discuss and be sure about with the future in mind. Rama's arrow  03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think Neutrals are not counted in the decision when the outcome is close? That's been current practice, if largely undocumented... -- nae'blis 17:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)