[WikiEN-l] Worrying trends

[Zachary Harden]

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 at btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at 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 at starglade.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at 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 at starglade.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l