Anybody who chooses to cite no change that will
enable
them to accept a proposal is applying an immutable veto and refusing to
participate in consensus building.
No, they are on the side of a consensus that it SHOULD NOT BE DONE.
It amounts to saying "I object and
nothing anyone can say or do will change my mind".
That is the prerogative
of a democratic voter but, in this context, it is a refusal to participate
in the consensus building process.
No, hardly. It is a request by those voters that the consensus lean
towards the most minimal option possible: no change. Face facts: there
ARE some people who simply do NOT want to see certain changes. Their
opinions are no more valid than yours.
And consensus is one of our tenets. If
you want to be part of an encyclopedia project that is a democracy, go and
find one; Wikipedia is not that animal.
There are some policies that should never be passed, no matter what.
There are some editors who should never be given Admin powers, no
matter what (and there are quite a few of them that, to the detriment
of Wikipedia as a whole, seem to have been given Admin powers
anyways).
Speaking this fact is NOT a "refusal to participate in the consensus
building process." It is a statement that they do not feel the current
proposal, in WHATEVER form, benefits Wikipedia.
A Request for Adminship is a request to see whether someone is
suitable for Adminship. You're trying to turn it into a "what can we
do to make this person an Admin" forum rather than a real discussion
of whether or not the person SHOULD be an admin at all.
If a large number of people - large enough to show that there is NOT a
concensus - believe that someone should not be an admin, then that is
reason enough that they should not be an admin. It may be for one
reason, it may be for a thousand reasons, and it may change later, but
they are free to be nominated later.
The whole "your opinion doesn't matter if you don't write something"
idea is pure nonsense.
A. Nony Mouse