[WikiEN-l] Worrying trends

[Michael Turley]

On 7/20/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at 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