On 7/20/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
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.
I already expect some degree of vote discounting and discarding where people are unresponsive regarding their votes in RfA nominations.
What I think is even more worrisome and damaging is the drive straight to the vote in matters of attempting to change or form new policies. See recent votes to expand CSD, template standardization, and template location for examples. CSD isn't the best example, as there were discussions, but I didn't see any proposed consensus declarations before a vote was set up, and that's where I see error in that process.
It's almost as if people are deliberately avoiding attempts to form consensus either because they don't understand the difference between consensus and majority, or they think it's too difficult to reach their objectives by consensus, or they're just plain pessimistic about the whole process. So they post a vote; starting time: almost immediately. Heaven help the one who attempts to delay a poll in progress, no matter how premature, as long as it "looks official". It seems that scorn is cast on those who claim the result of a poll are anything less than binding policy.
I'm not sure how we can help this, but I'd like to start with a request. Can we get some bureaucrats, stewards, and other senior members of Wikipedia to step in on these issues as they develop and strongly discourage votes and polls in general? Would that be a step in the right direction?