Talk: Consensus and Voting

This is a talk page used for general discussion by Consensus and Voting.

If this Policy has other dedicated discussion areas for specific topics, see those talk pages instead.
Please remember to remain civil during all disputes.
Sign any comments you make on this page with four tildes (~~~~).

Formalizing structure of votes on new lines

I like this policy and the examples given, but just to formalize how votes should be structured, I think that the position a user takes in their response should be given in bold at the start of their bullet point. As an example:

• Support, due to reasons above.
• Oppose, for various reasons

This type of standardization makes it easier to track votes instead of having to read further into a sentence. The Support and Oppose formatting can also be given a template with icons which would make this even easier. Rman41 | Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 22:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a solid idea. Your primary suggestion has been implemented. A template with icons could be added, I suppose. If that's something you'd like to draft for us to look over, by all means. If not, we may stick to the primary format and gauge how intuitive it is for voters. Should the process be a bit challenging for them, we may end up using a template. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   23:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I seem to have misread your proposal. I do think having sub-headings for Support and Oppose where people would then place their thoughts may work better than just people writing Support and Oppose in bold under a shared sub-heading. I also think it also allows for easier determination of outcome. But I will remain amenable to further community suggestions. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   00:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the subheadings are definitely stronger and more organized. -Jessica3801 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts

1. The biggest issue I have with this policy is that it's not consensus, it's polling. It is helpful to have some system of voting, but not for cases that involve decisions that can be amended. When there are complex issues, it's better to use consensus because you can get a full range of ideas. The concept of polling is pretty apparent through this new policy, like the section name for where you can provide your support/oppose comment, but I think we should move away from that. It's helpful to have an idea where a discussion is headed (more on that in a bit) but that by no means is the same thing as consensus. We need to have the ability to discuss issues and more importantly provide different options. For example, if someone has an idea on naming conventions for Iron Man's armor, we could reach consensus on different ideas, gather those ideas into different proposals, and then get consensus on that. But it is harmful to use polling in the same way because it limits that idea to one convention. Polling is helpful to reach consensus but it is not consensus. I understand there's a discussion section, and I think that might be very helpful for the Treehouse, but consensus should always be reached in article content. there might be other decisions reached that aren't in direct support or against something, like article deletion which might end in merging the page or redirecting it
2. For a policy about consensus, this should provide information about how to reach consensus, not about discussions. Dispute resolution is actually a really important oversight that was missed when Shabook was bureaucrat, and there needs to be a page to give people information on how to reach that through a gradual process of editing and then discussion with information about how consensus is reached, where it applies (page vs. site-wide policy vs. Fandom policy, for example), and where no consensus might be reached (which is something that I think helps with the whole "not a vote" thing). For no consensus, that is mentioned on the page, just to make it clear, but it should be elaborated to cover instances like copyright violations or info about people that might not be correct
3. I'm not necessarily supportive of the idea that all discussions need to take place in a week (or two, depends on how you're counting it). I think it is completely possible to have the two occur at the same time (more on that in a bit) to make things go smoothly and because I think that things can change. discussions can become more complex and might require another week, especially if there's only two people in a discussion, someone might withdraw their proposal (which I think is something that should be added), or there might be a reason to close a discussion early like if it's a duplicate or just spam and nonsense. It might be helpful to have a minimum for some processes like page deletion but for the Treehouse I'm not sure that would help
4. This is "the bit" I was talking about: snowballing. right now, the policy is that a proposal can be closed within 3 days if it has 12 "votes" (polling), but I think this is just too arbitrary and doesn't really work. The first reason for that is that I don't think that discussions can actually even get 12 votes to begin with, let alone them all being the same and within 3 days. Wikipedia (and other sites) have what is known as a snowball clause, which states that, "If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." Wikipedia gives a specific example of undeleting pages, which should not be done if a page was deleted for the wrong reason but wouldn't pass undeletion anyway. This kind of clause is helpful when there are a lot of people giving clear consensus on something, but it's also important to give things time. A specific proposal might get a bunch of supports or rejections immediately because of editor involvement, but that might change as more ideas are suggested
5. About closing proposals, I think that we should define what different roles an editor serves and what being an admin/mod means. As Shabook showed, being an admin doesn't mean that you're going to follow through on policy or listen to other people's ideas, it's just a new toolbox you're given. I'm not sure that this tiered approach works (in some ways, it's not as simple as me believing that any editor should close any discussion lol). I think that we should generally look towards administrators for closing discussions, but it is possible that a non-admin might have some ideas, especially if the proposal is about technical information like Lua modules. We should clarify that closing editors should be uninvolved (not always easy with so few administrators, which is why I think that giving the ability to editors to determine what the consensus of everyone is might be a better idea), and of course preventing IP editors from closing discussions. If something can't be accomplished by a normal editor, it shouldn't be able to be closed by a normal editor, meaning page deletions and whatnot. About the third and fourth tiers, giving staff authority in those circumstances is not a bad idea, but we should allow non-admins or non-mods to provide input and any decision made under those tiers should be expressed transparently on some page with what the consensus (not the decision) is
6. I don't believe that "voter eligibility" is good for the site. The clear purpose is to stop sockpuppetry, which is absolutely great and we need a specific way to stop that. However, there are a lot of people (myself included) who have ideas but don't actually meet that requirement, and I think that matters as well. A policy to, say, stop IP addresses from editing, will only attract ideas from people who have registered accounts and more than 75 edits. Editing experience doesn't always mean good ideas, as Shabook showed, and a lack of editing experience (at least on the MCU wiki) doesn't mean bad ideas. Evalprime (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The following is by no means a thorough, in-depth response to address each and every one of these points. But just on the surface:

1) Policy was created using Consensus policies of other wikis as a starting basis, to get an idea of what a consensus policy should be.

2) Would you care to use your user page to draft a version of what you think the Consensus policy should look like?

3) The week or two was to give people ample time, and to not feel like you had a short window and discussions/voting had to be rushed. Two can occur at the same time, but the current policy has that apply to proposals made by Staff members. To allow more time for non-Staff members to express their thoughts before voting, another week as given as a courtesy.

4) The addition of closing a vote within three days if it had twelve or more votes for one side was a measure implemented to avoid the community having to sit on their thumbs for a week or two when everyone was more or less supporting one side. It was designed to essentially fast-track the changes the community wishes to see. This of course can be amended, but what would you suggest?

5) We already have other pages that define what an admin/mod means. Not sure where you got the idea that any editor could close a discussion? A non-admin can weigh in on technical information if they'd like, but the Tiered system exists to delineate what community can influence via final say and what they cannot. The third and fourth tiers exist to cover scenarios where community input is not required. Of course, a community member may notice a site design change and can share their thoughts on it, but admins/mods are users who have been granted special tools to administrate the wiki, and not every minor thing needs community input. That would bog the entire system down. The Tier system was a way to show, with a degree of transparency, that these decisions occur.

6) Absolutely not. Many other wikis have voter eligibilities, and we are no different. This is a prime example of a latter Tiered idea. The idea of "should we have voter eligibility?" is not something that would be determined by the verdict of a community vote, but rather a decision made by Staff. Sure, you can give your thoughts on it, but the final say in those kinds of matter lie in Staff hands. You're someone who has lots of ideas, many of which require a lot of work, sure, but the community is willingly to put in the work if needed. And in that same vein, you should be part of said community. If you wish to be eligible to vote on community decisions, you need to be an active part of said community, which goes beyond being just a reader. Editing experience does not guarantee good ideas, but someone who's met the quota of constructive edits proves they are contributing to this community and truly care to better it, and in turn they are rewarded with the ability to influence and guide said community. Also, no need to have a policy to ban IP addresses from editing, as the feature is disabled on this wiki. All editors need to have an account, meaning no IP addresses would be able to edit pages in order to cast a vote. You want to have a say, join the community, meet the requirements. Don't just make edits to meet the bare minimum requirements so you can vote and then quit editing; actually have a vested interest in contributing to this wiki. If not, fine, you're free to just toss ideas in the Treehouse or here. But voting privilege is not freely given. The eligibility requirements also prevent people who aren't a part of the community, who may be friends with someone who wishes for a certain outcome, to jump into the voting pool and swing a vote one way or another. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   10:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say that this inherently is more than just polling because staff still have the final say and users are able to leave comments supporting their votes. It can still be reasonably ascertained that if users make a decision in majority that is simply not as good as the alternative and that is clear through substantive arguments, the "consensus" can still evidently defy the votes. On Wikipedia you often see this, where editors may vote for something in majority and yet the opposition actually provides better arguments (or any arguments at all) for their position, making the consensus clearly not the same as the majority vote. As far as the dispute resolution bit goes, I think that policies against edit-warring and personal insults already prevent sidetracking or reverse response spamming without any notable contribution.

I think that voting eligibility is a good thing. I do think outside perspectives should be heard more, but ultimately if a user is not familiar enough with wikis as a whole, much less this specific wiki, why should they get a say over its content? Rman41 | Blogs - Message Wall - Guestbook 22:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Options and Clarification to Consider

Hello there. I used to edit actively on this wiki but left years ago due to some of the issues I had encountered here. I since moved on to editing the MCU articles on the English Wikipedia and am a founding member of the MCU taskforce there. As a courtesy to the good faith contributors and the current administration team of this wiki, which I still frequent as a watcher, I would like to add my two cents and shed some light on how we do things at Wikipedia, in the hope of providing further insight to consider other potential options. I am by no means here to try and force the way we do things there onto this wiki (and I have experience editing and leading other Fandom wikis), I am merely offering up some third-party perspectives from what I have seen work and not work, as I only wish the best for this wiki and seek to offer up my aid and support wherever possible.

Voting is Not Consensus

A firm and clearly laid out policy on consensus is a really good step forward for this wiki, and is admittedly the first of many. The construct of voting eligibility is good on paper, although can prove increasingly difficult to enforce when you deal with sockpuppets and anonymous contributors who do not have a clear track record. From my experience, I have seen that opening up these discussions to different involved and especially uninvolved parties can prove useful in determining a general agreement, although, of course, not all parties will see things eye-to-eye. That is why I suggest a few things that I have seen work elsewhere. On Wikipedia, when discussions or proposals hit a stalemate, it is strongly advised that editors cease any repeated editing to fit their preference (or "edit warring") and seek resolution on the talk page. I think this part should especially be laid out.

During a discussion, the "Support" and "Oppose" !votes are useful (either at the start of a message or part of sub-headers; I have found either way works so long all parties can respond with valid points), although a key point of contention with anyone being able to !vote is the level of consideration or thought that is put into a rationale. Something such as "I oppose this because I don't like it" or "I support this because I think it's cool" are not viable explanations, and as these ought to be civil and constructive conversations among contributors all seeking to do what they believe is right, each discussion should be laid out with adequate points (typically backed up with evidence and details). From a variety of in-person and online debates I have been involved with, I have found letting each party present their case and then engage in a "point-counterpoint" procedure to be a good fit in constructive feedback and constructive criticism. You cannot have one without the other, and both are essential in leading a discussion.

A key point I would suggest is having an outside party (preferably an uninvolved staff member or someone designated to meditate these discussions; similar to a mediator in a debate), would read through the points (not basing a decision by the !vote stacks alone) as voting is not a form of determining community consensus but rather a tool to measure statistics. The true data stems from the points in the discussions themselves. Ideally, a second stage would eventuate in going back through the discussion process and summarizing the key points with an uninvolved staffer. Consensus is not "majority rules", as I have been involved in and seen debates where the opposing side wins after exhausting all options because they made a more convincing argument, even if they had less !votes of support. It is crucial that these discussions be thoroughly vetted.

A third option I would propose for any mediators is seeking dispute resolution and reaching a compromise between parties to work with them, either one-on-one or collectively, to figure out and determine what would suit their desires and quell any of their concerns, though not all can be met in a compromise. I find that there is always a compromise to be had in any shape or form, and regardless of how minimal it may be, it is far better than nothing. I am in favor of the status quo approach when there is no clear consensus. I highly encourage others to read through the Wikipedia pages for their Consensus policy and consensus description for any potential ideas.

Sourcing

I also want to add on my concerns in regards to sourcing, which was a key factor in why I left years ago. I have found that, at least in the past, this wiki relied heavily on whatever sources (ie Twitter "scoopers", random blogs such as Giant Freakin Robot, The GWW, HN Entertainment, etc.) which had no verifiability, proven track record, or editorial oversight to their names, simply because they suited whatever interest the top-two ex-admins had. As a thorough researcher and journalism buff, I do not see the validity in placing such internet rumors so highly, even in a passing mention, and I believe this wiki could truly benefit from analyzing these frequently questionable sources and vetting their credibility through a select committee to determine when/how to use them or not. Facts should take precedent over rumors put out there by anyone on the internet. Blogs and Twitter handles are not true journalists or news reporters. I have catalogued a tentative list of unreliable and decently reliable sources I've encountered in my years of editing, particularly related to this MCU topic, that can be found here on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration, Cheers! Trailblazer101 🔥 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppets voting is precisely why there is a ruling on who can and cannot vote. So that is laid out in the policy. As for the sourcing, I do not see why that is on this specific talk page. But to answer, those sources should never have been on the wiki and I do not believe they ever were. If they were, they were likely (hopefully, I should say) removed right away. - Raff • Message Wall • Contributions 04:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we never accepted rumors/leakers/scoopers as sources. A few did get through due to a choice by the previous administration (Evan Peters and Charlie Cox's return in "No Way Home") but in general the policy and practice was never to allow them. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   10:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that you are the second person to bring up "voting isn't consensus" I will be looking at Wikipedia's article on Consensus to gauge what amendments I can make. Anonymous contributing is disabled for the wiki, and CheckUser can identify sockpuppets unless they're IP hopping. Even then, the eligibility requirements deters most autoconfirmed sockpuppets because they wouldn't have met the criteria on each alt. account to cast a vote. "When discussions or proposals hit a stalemate, it is strongly advised that editors cease any repeated editing to fit their preference (or "edit warring") and seek resolution on the talk page. I think this part should especially be laid out." That is indeed the practice, and I will be adding that wording to the policy. Each party will be allowed to present their case and go back-and-forth, hence why the Support/Oppose thing is added by Staff after seven days have passed. And for the next seven days later, people are free to cast votes while also continuing to add their thoughts on the matter. These debates/discussions are useful for major changes. We do not have an outside party to mediate, and such tasks will fall in the hands of a bureaucrat or admin, to whom the task of finding a compromise that can suit both parties falls to. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The policy has been slightly reworded to address the "consensus does not equal voting" and has also been renamed to the Consensus and Voting Policy. •   MJLogan95 | Message Wall • Contributions   12:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)