Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bushytails

Basis for opposition

While I respect their opinions, I am troubled by a perception that more than one of the opposition votes is because of disapproval of the nominees personal lifestyle. If the basis for opposition votes are not related to the nominees ability and readiness to fulfill the functions and responsibilities of Admin, then I fear that the interests of Wikipedia are not being met. To be clear, I'm not talking about opposition votes in general, but to those that specifically mention Bushytail's furry lifestyle or use terms like 'antidildoism' or make references to the Strap-on DYK nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It troubles me as well, and I would like to hear what the opposers have to say in response.--Sean Black | Talk 03:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Oddball Barnstar may be awarded to an editor who creates a particularly fine article regarding a subject that is odd, whimsical, or is otherwise something that one wouldn't expect to find in more traditional encyclopedias.

Wikipedia is NOT censored. Such votes should be ignored IMHO. The article in question should get him commended for not condemned. This is very very trobbling indeed. --Cool Cat ^Talk 18:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I find it rediculous that someone should fail to recieve adminship because they write an article that extremists do not want to exist. *SIGH*. --Phroziac^(talk)

19:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Such are the consequences of democracy. When you vote to elect a government, how bogus your reasons for voting for a party or candidate are, your vote counts as much as anyone else. People have the right to have bogus reasons, and you are free to try reasonating those you think the reasons are bogus. Also, everyone should consider that giving reasons, or giving reasons that makes sense for an opposing vote is not required, as much as it is not required to give reasons for a support vote, which I believe is more important than giving reasons to oppose. It is to the one presenting a cases(that user X fit to adminship) to support and justify such a decision, and when I come to vote, I generally think of opposing and the first thing I do is trying to find reasons for why someone should be an admin, reading the opposition, this happens after. I know votes here generally work in reverse, people read the opposition and see if there is enough concerns to oppose. Fadix 22:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]