Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Inquiry: re |
→Plain support votes at RfX: thoughts |
||
Line 105:
:::Yes - that being said "less" is non null. I weigh every single statement, keeping in mind the "not a vote" principal (and same for opposition comments). — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 11:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
:::Another thing I keep in mind with generalizations (such as in the guides) is that any "per X" statement is dependent. A "per nom" argument itself won't be any stronger than the "nom" (we see this in XfD all the time) - and we shouldn't presume that every RfA nomination will be strong. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 12:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I can see the attraction of clarifying/codifying unwritten rules, in terms of promoting clarity and certainty (although it also risks building bureaucracy given the sprawl of ever lengthier policy pages). On the other hand, the risk is that we soon find that there is little consensus on these issues. I don't think we (the Wikipedia community) or indeed we (the bureaucrats) are all on the same page as how much weight a "bare support" should get. My understanding is along the following lines:
#There is a pretty broad consensus that oppose comments ought to be given less/limited weight. Rationales explaining the reason for opposition (even if just identifying another opposing comments with which one concurs) are strongly encouraged, the onus being on those opposing to make their case.
#There is a (less widespread) consensus that this rule does not apply as strictly to support comments, which are to be taken as support for the nomination or simply confirmation that candidate is found competent overall.
#However, there is also a consensus that support comments are more persuasive if accompanied by a rationale and especially rebuttal of arguments deployed in opposition.
I accept that the above views are far from universally held... I suppose you could distill that as a matter of emphasis:
#An oppose comment is weakened by the absence of a sensible rationale.
#A support comment is strengthened by the presence of a sensible rationale, but not weakened by its absence.
It should be remembered that, given the level of support the community expects nominations to have to succeed, all other things being equal, the RfA system gives more weight to oppose comments than support comments in any event. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 13:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
| |||