Login
Login

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Extraordinary Writ#Panini's neutral

{{RfA talk header}}

Panini's neutral

{{atop|Everyone says RfA is toxic, and we need to be less toxic. Jumping on every vote with this sort of comment thread is what makes RfA toxic. If anyone wants to actually discuss the merits of a neutral vote (which as mentioned, has no real impact on the RfA) please start a subsection here. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)}}

  1. Neutral. I've never seen this user before and I'm too in a rush to look into all of this at the moment. I like the username, though. Panini! • 🥪 15:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. :So you're saying that your !vote is an uninformed one? This surely means it should be disregarded. Shall I simply strike it? — kashmīrī TALK 21:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. ::It's one neutral vote in an RfA that has seen no opposition thus far ({{User:Tamzin/kinehore}}). There's no need to press for a strike. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. :::The reason to strike it is to reinforce the norm that people shouldn't make worthless votes. JBL (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  5. :::: Striking one vote isn't going to reinforce that. Further, the vote can be read as a placeholder, pending their further review. Leave it. It won't affect the outcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  6. :::::??? There is a choice: either we as a community accept/encourage worthless votes, or we as a community reject/discourage worthless votes. This choice is reinforced every single time we are collectively faced with a worthless vote; rather than being independent of the individual decisions, it cannot be separated from them. Making a vote "pending review" is a waste of the time of every single person who reads it, and I think it's sad that anyone would bother to defend it. (Whether such votes will effect the outcome of this particular RfA is completely irrelevant.) JBL (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  7. :::::: If you want to think my defending it is sad, that's your business. I'm sorry you feel that way. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

{{abot}}

=Whoops! (Discussion) =

I was not aware that votes on the basis of lack of knowledge are considered worthless. I apologize for that and I will no longer do it. I'll strike my vote if that's the preferred option.

I'm not trying to throw attention away from my mistake with this, but I agree with Primefac; there's not much point in persecuting every decision that's disagreeable, especially harshly. Primefac suggested a subsection to discuss (as civil gentlemen and gentleladies) whether or not this should be struck, so I set this up and I leave the floor open. Panini! • 🥪 15:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

:For what it's worth, a "neutral" vote is numerically "worthless" because it does not impact the final percent by which the 'crats will use to determine if it is a pass, fail, or requires a 'crat chat. However, neutral votes (like #2 in this particular RfA) still give some thoughts and context as to why the editor is neutral (and could potentially influence other voters). On the other hand, your vote said nothing more than "I haven't done any work, I have no other input", which isn't even useful for those who might also be on the fence. So not only is it numerically worthless, it is not useful as a metric for other voters to opine upon.

:At the moment, bureaucrats do not have a remit to strike this type of vote (and I am not sure I would want it anyway), though obviously you are welcome to do so yourself, and others are welcome to start a broader discussion about what they view as "worthless votes" and how/if they should be dealt with - even though I personally suspect they will waste time and effort for something that cannot be resolved (if WP:RFA2021 was any indication). Primefac (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

::Personally I don't find votes* that offer no input on the candidate to be particularly helpful; however, I feel that the reaction to Panini's vote was waaaaaay out of proportion.

::* Opposes / neutrals in particular, since supports are assumed to be "per nom". –FlyingAce✈hello 17:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)