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
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
Dear All,
Boothy443, from when I last checked the RfA pages, has still opposed many RfA's. At the one related to user Greg Robson, Greg asked Boothy to give a reasoning why, but another user said Boothy does not have to and that Boothy does what they do all of the time. The exchange can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RfA#GregRobson.
Regards,
Zachary Harden
From: "David 'DJ' Hedley" spyders@btinternet.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Worrying trends Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:50:34 +0100
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oddly enough, I think the reason Boothy443 supported me was that I reverted an anonymous vandalism of his userpage that referred to his admin votes in a negative fashion :)
Travis Mason-Bushman FCYTravis@en.wikipedia
On 7/20/05 8:50 AM, "David 'DJ' Hedley" spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
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'.
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?
Larger attempts at voting, such as the Manual of Styles vote over the use of styles, and the whole mess of GNAA show that there is a huge trend going towards voting. Consensus always seems like an abstract idea to many, not easily defineable and up to individual judgements. Voting, it seems, is more clear cut; majority wins, and no one has to decide which side has the advantage.
A suggestion could be that the idea of consensus be more easily defined and propagated.
Ben/Bratshce
On 7/20/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
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?
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 20/07/05, Ben bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
Larger attempts at voting, such as the Manual of Styles vote over the use of styles, and the whole mess of GNAA show that there is a huge trend going towards voting. Consensus always seems like an abstract idea to many, not easily defineable and up to individual judgements. Voting, it seems, is more clear cut; majority wins, and no one has to decide which side has the advantage.
A suggestion could be that the idea of consensus be more easily defined and propagated.
The WP policy page on consensus isn't bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
I suggest creating more "this poll is lame" sections in, er, lame polls, and then linking to WP:CON and meta:Polls are evil.
Dan
Dan Grey wrote:
I suggest creating more "this poll is lame" sections in, er, lame polls, and then linking to WP:CON and meta:Polls are evil.
I think this technique is very often useful. Not in every case, but in many many cases, it's the right thing to do to short-circuit a vote which is, well, lame.
--Jimbo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact
is a good place for looking into more Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses. I alerted the mormons to your concerns, btw.
Jac (Sam Spade)
On 7/23/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
I suggest creating more "this poll is lame" sections in, er, lame polls, and then linking to WP:CON and meta:Polls are evil.
I think this technique is very often useful. Not in every case, but in many many cases, it's the right thing to do to short-circuit a vote which is, well, lame.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
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.
Well, speaking personally, I've probably voted in support of 3 dozen RFAs, and only voted against 3 applications, each time listing my reasons. In each case I was challenged, sometimes in a most rude way, for more detail. When I provided it, giving links to examples of policy violations etc., I was attacked again. Those who did not give reasons for rejecting the applications were not subject to these violations of [[Wikipedia:Civility]] policy. It would be most tempting, in the future, to simply vote "No" and refuse to give a reason, in order to avoid this kind of unpleasant treatment.
Jay.
Wikipedia's Achilles heel was inevitably going to be its size, and the unwieldiness of managing or guiding large group trends. If you think about any society in general, its continuity is dependent on the establishement of ritual behaviours. Wikipedia's core principles are for the most part exactly what should be, but Ive been concerned that we lack rituals for indoctrinating people into a sense of our community goals and nature.
Indoctrination? Yea--if people feel like a mere number,(relative to others I suppose), then only those with the a healthy and egotistical presumptuousness will tend to be assertive, and gain for their online persona. The purpose of encyclopediasm and community are not entirely in sync --community requires personality, which can be obstructive to the goal of being NPOV and detached.
So, (more smoke out of... (MSOOMA)) if conceptual continuity is based upon outdated modalities of community, then that may (conceptually) validate the worries that of the community growing thinner as it grows larger. Certainly its worrisome to think that good articles today can be turned into porridge by a slew of new, dissassociated editors, but that's perhaps where "Wikifaith" comes in, I suppose.
The general idea, back in the day, was that as problems grow, the community must restructure to answer them. Disputes gotten too big for JW and the mailing lists?--empower a committee to deal with this, and another to deal with that. The point is that these committees are more than just bantha fodder--they represent community structure, which is just as important as software structure, or NPO structure. If were not responsive in terms of community structure... <i>aw, look at me, I'm ramblin' again. Wal, uh hope you folks enjoyed yourselves. Catch ya further on down the trail.</i>
SV
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
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.
Well, speaking personally, I've probably voted in support of 3 dozen RFAs, and only voted against 3 applications, each time listing my reasons. In each case I was challenged, sometimes in a most rude way, for more detail. When I provided it, giving links to examples of policy violations etc., I was attacked again. Those who did not give reasons for rejecting the applications were not subject to these violations of [[Wikipedia:Civility]] policy. It would be most tempting, in the future, to simply vote "No" and refuse to give a reason, in order to avoid this kind of unpleasant treatment.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 7/20/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
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.
Well, speaking personally, I've probably voted in support of 3 dozen RFAs, and only voted against 3 applications, each time listing my reasons. In each case I was challenged, sometimes in a most rude way, for more detail. When I provided it, giving links to examples of policy violations etc., I was attacked again. Those who did not give reasons for rejecting the applications were not subject to these violations of [[Wikipedia:Civility]] policy. It would be most tempting, in the future, to simply vote "No" and refuse to give a reason, in order to avoid this kind of unpleasant treatment.
I am the only one who feels that votes for adminship is a slightly different matters than other polls? You are discussing a particular individual, and it gets a lot more personal than discussing other matters. Saying that voting yes is to agree with the nomination and voting no is the only version that needs to be explained is really to ask for rough behaviour against those who oppose the nomination, like Jay describes. If I know that if I vote no I have to give a motivation, someone will think I am cruel and the consequence is I get into a hailstorm - then maybe I choose not to vote.
Maybe you need either a culture where the votes are always motivated, really _always_ and votes that are not motivated are removed - including votes agreeing with the nomination - or an exception regarding votes for adminship. The election for the Wikimedia board, that recently was finished, was done not only without motivation but closed, so you did not display who you voted for. In Wikipedia context, with the ideals of concensus etc. it would be interesting to hear why this method was chosen.
/ Habj
The current method of open voting on RfA is terrible, btw, and causes a great deal of hurt feelings, log rolling, and clique development.
Jack (Sam Spade)
I am the only one who feels that votes for adminship is a slightly different matters than other polls? You are discussing a particular individual, and it gets a lot more personal than discussing other matters. Saying that voting yes is to agree with the nomination and voting no is the only version that needs to be explained is really to ask for rough behaviour against those who oppose the nomination, like Jay describes. If I know that if I vote no I have to give a motivation, someone will think I am cruel and the consequence is I get into a hailstorm - then maybe I choose not to vote.
Maybe you need either a culture where the votes are always motivated, really _always_ and votes that are not motivated are removed - including votes agreeing with the nomination - or an exception regarding votes for adminship. The election for the Wikimedia board, that recently was finished, was done not only without motivation but closed, so you did not display who you voted for. In Wikipedia context, with the ideals of concensus etc. it would be interesting to hear why this method was chosen.
/ Hab
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:16:13 +0100, Jack Lynch wrote:
The current method of open voting on RfA is terrible, btw, and causes a great deal of hurt feelings, log rolling, and clique development.
It seems to me that the problem is that RfA has come to be seen as a democratic vote with a high pass mark rather than the poll of consensus that it used to be. We do not help ourselves in this regard with our use of tallies and other aspects of the format that simplify the process but encourage misperception. In my opinion, the process would be better aligned with its earlier intent if it adopted a format along the following lines:
Proposal: I propose that User:Foobar be given admin facilities. [Note: No advocacy; no details] Acceptance by candidate: [Signature; No husting] Acceptances: [List of signatures with no explanations. Acceptance means "I can live with this"; it does not need unreserved endorsement.] Requested changes: [Suggestions formatted along the lines of "I would support this proposal if ...". Note: No counter-arguments; no debate] Discussion: [Comments, responses and rebuttals. This is the debating space.]
This approach formalises a drive towards consensus without democracy. In an enhanced form all participants who have requested changes would be asked to confirm that their request is still unaddressed at the point of closure.
Theo
sounds great to me, but i still like Talrias's adminship proposal better. I'm sorry, but what is husting?
On 7/26/05, Theo Clarke wiki@tignosis.com wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:16:13 +0100, Jack Lynch wrote:
The current method of open voting on RfA is terrible, btw, and causesa great deal of hurt feelings, log rolling, and clique development.
It seems to me that the problem is that RfA has come to be seen as a democratic vote with a high pass mark rather than the poll of consensus that it used to be. We do not help ourselves in this regard with our use of tallies and other aspects of the format that simplify the process but encourage misperception. In my opinion, the process would be better aligned with its earlier intent if it adopted a format along the following lines:
Proposal: I propose that User:Foobar be given admin facilities. [Note: No advocacy; no details] Acceptance by candidate: [Signature; No husting] Acceptances: [List of signatures with no explanations. Acceptance means "I can live with this"; it does not need unreserved endorsement.] Requested changes: [Suggestions formatted along the lines of "I would support this proposal if ...". Note: No counter-arguments; no debate] Discussion: [Comments, responses and rebuttals. This is the debating space.]
This approach formalises a drive towards consensus without democracy. In an enhanced form all participants who have requested changes would be asked to confirm that their request is still unaddressed at the point of closure.
Theo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have to disagree.
Saying that agreement requires no justification, while disagreement does, is ludicrous and is solely a method for putting those who disagree "on the spot."
If someone has a disagreement or thinks that someone does not have what it takes to be a good Admin, but doesn't want to give their reason, their voice in the matter ought to be given the same weight that someone who agrees, but does not give a reason, has.
A. Nony Mouse
On 7/26/05, Theo Clarke wiki@tignosis.com wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:16:13 +0100, Jack Lynch wrote:
The current method of open voting on RfA is terrible, btw, and causesa great deal of hurt feelings, log rolling, and clique development.
It seems to me that the problem is that RfA has come to be seen as a democratic vote with a high pass mark rather than the poll of consensus that it used to be. We do not help ourselves in this regard with our use of tallies and other aspects of the format that simplify the process but encourage misperception. In my opinion, the process would be better aligned with its earlier intent if it adopted a format along the following lines:
Proposal: I propose that User:Foobar be given admin facilities. [Note: No advocacy; no details] Acceptance by candidate: [Signature; No husting] Acceptances: [List of signatures with no explanations. Acceptance means "I can live with this"; it does not need unreserved endorsement.] Requested changes: [Suggestions formatted along the lines of "I would support this proposal if ...". Note: No counter-arguments; no debate] Discussion: [Comments, responses and rebuttals. This is the debating space.]
This approach formalises a drive towards consensus without democracy. In an enhanced form all participants who have requested changes would be asked to confirm that their request is still unaddressed at the point of closure.
Theo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Ludicrous" is a harsh word. I am assuming that it is hyperbole.
My proposal did not include anything that 'is solely a method for putting those who disagree "on the spot."' I might agree with you in principle were we discussing a democratic process. But RfA is no more democratic than the rest of Wikipedia. It is consensual by design. Consensus amounts to "we will do this thing if almost all of us accept it". In practice, we do not need to know the reasons for acceptance or the extent of that acceptance by individuals. All we need to know is whether it is acceptable and what would need to change to make it acceptable to an individual. If changes are made to accommodate the issues raised, then that should help some people to accept the proposal. And, in some cases, the change might result in some acceptors withdrawing their acceptance. In the case of RfA, immediately constructive change requests might be "I wish the candidate to promise to use full edit summaries in future" or "I wish the the decision to be deferred by x weeks to see if the candidate will avoid edit wars'' or "I wish the candidate to reach x edits so that I have a fuller set upon which to make a decision". 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. 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. 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.
Theo
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 05:04:51 +0100, A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Saying that agreement requires no justification, while disagreement does, is ludicrous and is solely a method for putting those who disagree "on the spot."
If someone has a disagreement or thinks that someone does not have what it takes to be a good Admin, but doesn't want to give their reason, their voice in the matter ought to be given the same weight that someone who agrees, but does not give a reason, has.
On Jul 27, 2005, at 5:41 AM, Theo Clarke wrote:
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.
Exactly, consensus is a process which contemplates discussion of issues and good faith consideration of alternatives.
Fred
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
A. Nony Mouse: Your implication that I am arguing a "your opinion doesn't matter if you don't write something" idea misrepresents my position. Oversimplifying my position and then dismissing it as "pure nonsense" feels like an escalation of your previous dismissal of my suggestion as "ludicrous". I am unclear as to your intention here: you argue against my points at length and then dismiss it all in a sentence. Do you seek discussion?
You are right that someone who cites no reason for a opposing a proposal may be seeking a consensus against it. As I see it, the difficulty for the proposers is that they cannot tell whether the opposition amounts to "not now" or "not ever".
Was your "Their opinions are no more valid than yours." a suggestion that all opinions are of equal weight or a suggestion that my opinion, specifically, is of comparable weight to that of those who flatly reject certain changes in any form? And, if the latter, what weight are you according this class of opinion?
I will devote more time to this if you confirm a desire for discussion. I cannot tell whether you are being abusive or are using impassioned language without hostile intent. I see this as my failing, not yours.
Theo
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:38:23 +0100, A. Nony Mouse wrote:
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
Responses inline.
On 7/27/05, Theo Clarke wiki@tignosis.com wrote:
A. Nony Mouse: Your implication that I am arguing a "your opinion doesn't matter if you don't write something"idea misrepresents my position. Oversimplifying my position and then dismissing it as "pure nonsense" feels like an escalation of your previous dismissal of my suggestion as "ludicrous". I am unclear as to your intention here: you argue against my points at length and then dismiss it all in a sentence. Do you seek discussion?
Discussion would be good, but I feel I have made my point even as you backpedal to try to salvage yours. I have not "oversimplified" anything: your proposal requires no justification for a "yes" vote, but throws out any "no" vote that does not include justification.
You are right that someone who cites no reason for a opposing a proposal may be seeking a consensus against it. As I see it, the difficulty for the proposers is that they cannot tell whether the opposition amounts to "not now" or "not ever".
And at the present time, what does that matter? If someone votes "no" now, and doesn't wish to give a future forecast, then your recourse is to bring it again later and see if they still have objections.
Was your "Their opinions are no more valid than yours." a suggestion that all opinions are of equal weight or a suggestion that my opinion, specifically, is of comparable weight to that of those who flatly reject certain changes in any form? And, if the latter, what weight are you according this class of opinion?
I am according equal weight to the each of the opinions that X change should be done, Y change should be done, some blend of X/Y should be done, or that nothing should be changed. The statement that all proposed changes are worse than making no change at all is a perfectly valid statement.
A. Nony Mouse