User:Cecropia/Explains it all/Closing RfAs and RfBs

A foreword

In my responses here, I will generally only say "RfA" instead of "RfA/RfB" for brevity. Some answers will obviously apply only to RfA, some to both. If an answer applies only to RfB, I will say RfB. Also for brevity and the avoidance of seeming to take sides in the GWAVCW) ("Great Wikipedia Adminship Voting vs. Consensus War"--if someone wants to suggest a better acronym, suggest it at User_talk:Cecropia) I am introducing the terms qvotes to describe what we do at RfAs. This means quasi-votes ("in the appearance of votes"). They are not votes in several senses: it is not a 50/50 issue like most real votes, it does not strive for a specific fixed ratio ("supermajority"), nor are they strictly "one-person, one-vote"). Neither are they pure consensus. The numbers count even if they are not definitive.

Please do not ask questions or respond to my commentary directly on this article page. Do it on my talk page, this talk page, or in other appropriate fora such as WT:RFA. I want this to be as compact and straightforward as possible.

Issues

The first two questions are based on the question presented here

1. Q: In situations where an oppose reason is generally considered ridiculous by a large number of people, what weight do crats give to it?

A. Except for obviously improper quasi-votes (which I will dub "qvotes") such as those from anons or socks, bureaucrats hesitate to begin evaluating single supports or opposes in the general running of an RfA. If 'crats begin, upfront, to say "well, that's ridiculous, I'm throwing that out" then it would be incumbent of him or her to examine every support and oppose on a ridiculousness meter. Only when it comes to closing time, if consensus is not clear, does it become important, and then the bureaucrat should consider the quality of qvotes in determining overall consensus.

2. Q: In reference to Q.1,

a. Does it depend a lot on whether there is a well reasoned rebuttal in response to it on that particular RfA?

An ideal closing of an RfA should never have a bureaucrat becoming a super-voter in determining the quality of a particularly well-reasoned argument or rebuttal. The purpose of discussion in an RfA should be to inform and persuade other qvoters to consider the arguments when expressing their own opinions or to change their qvotes in line with the argument. When this happens, the community itself determines the quality of the well-reasoned rebuttal or argument by responding. If a particularly important comment/allegation/argument/rebuttal occurs very late in an RfA, i.e., something that might change the course of the RfA, the bureaucrats sometimes but rarely use their judgment to extend the time period of the RfA (usually by 48 hours) to give the community time to react and discuss the newly brought-up issue. But overall the community should have the burden and privilege of deciding RfAs themselves.

b. Or is it enough if there is a general sentiment in the community against such an oppose, as expressed in other fora such as WT:RFA or even on other RfAs?

If the community, within the bounds of the RfA, is clearly expressing an opinion about the quality of an expressed argument, then that it part of determining consensus; 'but every RfA should be complete in itself. Qvoters should make all their arguments on a particular RfA within the project space of that RfA.

c. Or does the crat use his/her common sense?

That is not an "or." Bureaucrats should always be using their common sense, with their knowledge and experience of the process, to consider RfAs.