Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2022-09/Meaning of consensus for discussions other than formal votes created at Wiktionary:Votes

Problems with the vote

• 1) The option to define "consensus" to mean "plain majority" is a violation of the common meaning of the word "consensus". If Wiktionary wants to be deciding by plain majority going forward, it can, but it should not be called "consensus" any more.
• 2) Some argued that "consensus" should in some indeterminate way take the strength of arguments into account. By contrast, this vote assumes the result is based on mere tallying. I can live with that, but those others hardly so.
• 3) I argued that for matters of mere preference rather than accuracy or correctness, 60% should often be enough for a pass, but not to be called "consensus". Having a single threshold for all matters no matter how serious or cosmetic/subjective seems inadvisable.
• 4) Forbidding voters to vote in both options is not how we set up these kinds of votes. People need to be free to vote separately on the proposals if they so wish, e.g. opposing both. Later: My mistake, only voting support for both was forbidden. But even that does not have to be: if someone is fine with both outcomes, they should be able to support both. Similarly designed votes in the past usually did not prohibit voters from treating the two options as independent votes.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think it is acceptable to define what is meant by "consensus" in the Wiktionary context.
• Yes, I was going to point out that the two options are inconsistent. It makes no sense for an editor to support both of them. But an editor is free to oppose both options if they wish. That is why I specifically mentioned "support". I have reworded it to make clear that opposing both options is allowed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Sgconlaw Again, one can accept, or be fine with, both options. What do you need this rule for? In which other vote did you see that rule? One should not invent vote-specific rules unless necessary; or else you need a vote on vote and so on, not good. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

    @Dan Polansky: the rule reduces the chance of a tied vote, which then brings us back to square one and does not resolve the matter. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

    The probability of a tied vote is minuscule. Not worth making up rules. In which vote did you see that rule? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

    The vote is likely to fail anyway given the failed RFD threshold vote and the recent RFD closure discussions in Beer parlour. I would be very surprised if any of the options passed, but let's see; it's your vote. If the plain majority option passes, the strength-of-the-argument pushers will look like fools. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussions with very few participants

I notice that the proposal does not mention any minimum number of participants that must be involved in a discussion for "consensus" to be established. I have sometimes seen posts seeking consensus at WT:BP receive zero responses, meaning the only opinion given is that of the initiating editor. Perhaps I am ungraciously doubting the reasonableness of future editors, but would there be anything to stop an editor who received no responses (or perhaps one response that did not explicitly disagree with theirs) from implementing whatever they were proposing, and (technically correctly) claiming they had consensus backing up their actions?

On the other hand there is WT:RFM, where a post may wait for years to get its first response, and it seems reasonable to me to close a discussion with only two participants if they agree and others have had plenty of time to respond. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 18:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@ExcarnateSojourner: I see your point. Any suggestion on what a minimum number of participants should be? Three? Five? (I am, though, rather reluctant to introduce too many new requirements since this may detract from resolving the main point, which is what should be regarded as a consensus for ordinary discussions. In any case, any discussion can be reopened.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This real problem has no one size fits all solution. In RFD, you sometimes want to be able to close 3:0 or even 2:0 as consensus for deletion: if an item sat in RFD for months without anyone opposing, too bad for them. 2:0 would be fine especially in English RFD, which is quite frequented. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw I would say two or three participants, in order to allow the closing of the kind of discussions Dan mentions. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 20:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

But what do you do with a BP discussion that has two supports for a change affecting many entries, say 100,000, a discussion that hardly anyone noticed? Should one argue that people should have noticed? A single RFD affects a single entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

BP discussion vs. formal vote and plain majority

If plain majority were approved for BP discussions, this would de factor render all formal votes superfluous in so far as anyone who would want to have anything passed would do better to go via a poll in Beer parlour. They could even call it a "vote": as long as it would not be on the vote page, it would not be a "formal vote". I submit that the plain majority option is absurd for this reason alone.

One would still not be able to edit CFI without a vote, but a subsequent natural step would be to BP-edit the rule that CFI change requires a vote to say that CFI change requires consensus in BP discussion. One could even do that via a formal vote if there is a general agreement now that plain majority is the way to make decisions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"Wiktionary:Voting policy" and this current proposal are clear that to alter a policy requires a two-thirds vote. The latter can only be changed through a formal vote at "WT:VOTES" and not at any other venue. The current proposal only seeks to clarify what threshold is required in situations other than a formal vote at "WT:VOTES". — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, and why should one not reach consensus via BP to no longer strictly adhere to CFI and to override it in cases specified in that BP discussion? And then, a BP discussion can reach consensus to create "New CFI" with a guideline status and to abandon applying the old CFI. If "consensus" in BP means plain majority, then the project is de facto forthwith administered by plain majority everywhere: the old policy pages are left abandoned to rot. That's probably not the intention of this vote, but it is the effect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

And Wiktionary:Voting policy itself is a think tank and is not vote-protected. This proposal is absurd, unless the purpose is to switch to plain majority everywhere. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)