A reasoning should be mandatory for an oppose vote. See Boothy443, a while back, who put "ADMINS ARE EVIL" on talk pages and voted oppose on every RfA until FCYTravis'. Support votes are in agreement of the nomination, so that is their reasoning. Neutral votes and oppose votes, however, are not and should need to explain why they aren't. Bureaucrats should also make their judgement on such reasoning. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Jenkinson" chris@starglade.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:09 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Worrying trends
Hi all,
I'm becoming rather worried at the lack of consensus building on requests for adminship and other pages, with oppose votes basically saying "oppose, don't even think about asking why, no is no", and in some cases support votes being challenged and no response (however this is much rarer).
This is incredibly damaging in my opinion as Wikipedia operates on consensus, and refusing to discuss not only shows a lack of regard for other people's opinions but gives an arrogant, superior attitude.
I must say that I think that everyone who does not respond to a (good faith) questioning comment asking them why should have their vote/opinion on the matter disregarded. If they are not willing to say why they believe what they do then they should not be considered contributing to the discussion. Wikipedia is rightfully not a democracy where you can vote for whatever reason you like. Any position someone takes must be able to be challenged.
I would like to see any bureaucrats making a judgement on a close RfA to disregard anybody's vote, either in support or oppose, who have not responded to a challenge for their reasoning.
Chris
-- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l