Not only would I like to foster a more friendly, and less tense environment at Rfa and other discussions at wikipedia, but I would also like to foster those things on wikipedia in general. A more friendly environment is a less stressful environment.--SJP Chat 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I would vote twice for this if I could. :) Erik the
Red 2 (
AVE·
CAESAR) 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(2) Every Wikipedian in good standing should be welcome to vote at RfAs and similar polls.
People are free to hold any position they'd like.--SJP Chat 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia falls apart if anyone is victimized for taking an opinion on something designed to further the community.Erik the
Red 2 (
AVE·
CAESAR) 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's provided they specifically state that they don't want to explain, with some sort of reasoning (eg. "I don't want to say more due to private information."). —Giggy 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think its okay to ask for them to explain, but that's it. You shouldn't harass them into explaining. Also, I don't think there "vote" should have as much weight as someone who did explain why they supported/opposed or voted neutral.--SJP Chat 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(6) A very negative atmosphere is created by charges of
cabalism, which are inherently vague, subject to interpretation and
confirmation bias.
What should be done to encourage calmer situations around Wikipedia polls? Add your suggestions.
Perhaps encouraging a friendlier environment and also mention that using restraint and being less aggressive would fall under
Wikipedia:Use common sense.
It really shouldn't be necessary, and it's sad that such a thing makes sense given the current climate. It, honestly, sucks.
Beam 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Not only would I like to foster a more friendly, and less tense environment at Rfa and other discussions at wikipedia, but I would also like to foster those things on wikipedia in general. A more friendly environment is a less stressful environment.--SJP Chat 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I would vote twice for this if I could. :) Erik the
Red 2 (
AVE·
CAESAR) 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(2) Every Wikipedian in good standing should be welcome to vote at RfAs and similar polls.
People are free to hold any position they'd like.--SJP Chat 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia falls apart if anyone is victimized for taking an opinion on something designed to further the community.Erik the
Red 2 (
AVE·
CAESAR) 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's provided they specifically state that they don't want to explain, with some sort of reasoning (eg. "I don't want to say more due to private information."). —Giggy 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think its okay to ask for them to explain, but that's it. You shouldn't harass them into explaining. Also, I don't think there "vote" should have as much weight as someone who did explain why they supported/opposed or voted neutral.--SJP Chat 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(6) A very negative atmosphere is created by charges of
cabalism, which are inherently vague, subject to interpretation and
confirmation bias.
What should be done to encourage calmer situations around Wikipedia polls? Add your suggestions.
Perhaps encouraging a friendlier environment and also mention that using restraint and being less aggressive would fall under
Wikipedia:Use common sense.
It really shouldn't be necessary, and it's sad that such a thing makes sense given the current climate. It, honestly, sucks.
Beam 00:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)