On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Will <[email protected]> wrote:
> We should codify against this somewhere. AFAIK, it's still an unwritten > rule. But this is the second time a discussion about a significant change > has been closed by someone who voted for it (the first being flagged > revisions). The first time could be seen as Jimbo's prerogative, but > SilkTork, AFAIK, doesn't have a similar power. It's indicative of a problem > regarding process. > > I should point out I find it funny that the discussion partially about > closing AfDs early got closed early itself. Twelve days is a weird number; > RfCs themselves tend to go on two to four weeks. Hopefully, though, SNOW > should still be accepted, if its users use it diligently; not willy-nilly. > > 2009/4/11 Risker <[email protected]> > > > Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside. > > > > Risker > > > > 2009/4/11 George Herbert <[email protected]> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Al Tally wrote: > > > > >> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem > > like > > > a > > > > >> minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days > > > since, > > > > >> what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. > > Pointless > > > in > > > > my > > > > >> view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what > > they've > > > > been > > > > >> practising for years. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it. > > > > > > > > > > AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting > this > > > > > change really enough? > > > > > > > > The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the > > > > current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve > > > > enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's > > > > announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors > > > > had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed > > > > out of articles. > > > > > > > > > Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump? > > > > > > If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything > > there... > Perhaps someone who's neutral can reopen and reclose on a pro forma basis, but I think that the closing was a fair judgement of the poll results and discussion and an accurate call. I have no objection to correcting the pro forma aspect, but I think that no harm was done in that. It's relatively easy to tell a 3:1 SNOW result, and a proponent calling the discussion isn't calling the results into disrepute. Closer results are a different thing. We should strive to avoid conflicts of interest real or apparent, but a little imperfection when it's not ambiguous helps keep the gears turning. -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
