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