| Hello again, I am hoping I can clarify my stance for you, if I fail in doing so again please do message back and I will try to explain it better. By the way, I found the discussion I was talking about before.
Basically, my problem with citing policy is that a candidate is acting like a robot, and they are likely misunderstanding policy. Policy is only in place because it is considered the right thing to do, and in the discussion that I have linked you to above, you can clearly see that a lot of the community hold a differing view to what the policy states, myself included. Policy is based on consensus, and consensus can change. In the words of that policy, and yes, I cite it directly like I so discourage - but I only do so because I wholeheartedly agree with the next statement:
| “
|
Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.
Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.
|
”
|
I, like Kurt, hold strong opinions on what policy actually is, and whilst I realise that Wikipedia is not a place to fight my battles at, it is important to make a candidate take a side. That said, I don't actually ask about the cool down blocks at RfA, partially because Kurt probably will, and partially because I'm not one for wanting a massive discussion on my views - I used to really dislike what Kurt did (I still don't agree with his self-nom opposes, but he has enlightened me as to what he is concerned about), but now I positively agree with his opposition of candidates that cite policy as if it were God's word.
I realise that it is perfectly possible that the candidate holds the opinion that what is written in the policy is correct, and conforms to their opinion. In that case, I am merely opposing because I find that most blocks on Wikipedia are in fact these much criminalized cool-down blocks, and for a prospective admin not to realise this is a sobering thought.
It should be noted, however, that I usually won't oppose a candidate because they take the side of demonizing cool-down blocks. I will usually only mention it if I am opposing anyway - I was going to neutral, but Kurt's question threw my vote into the oppose section - perhaps it should have been weak, but I find 'weak' votes a little weak in themselves, because it's still an oppose, after all.
Anyway, I hope this has cleared it up for you, and I will no doubt be posting some of this to my user page to better explain to other editors my stance. Have a nice day, mate. Asenine 09:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
– [1]
|
