WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
Consensus isn't a number. That said, given the virtual identical
numerical
results,
some serious explanation is in order. To attempt to defend this after
the
fact is
unacceptable.
-Durin
_______________________________________________
Quite. I've often closed afds with results against the 'numbers' but in
such cases I owe the community an explanation, and I need good reasons -
and a willingness to defend them afterwards. And afds closings can be
contested and overturned on drv.
So far, we've had no explanation: we're not even knowing who made the
decision and there's no place to contest it, and no process to seek
redress.
There's structurally something wrong with the fact that a community
discussion is weighed (so badly) by an unidentified person who is not
obviously accountable to the community.
The more important a decision is, and the more irreversible it will be,
the more vital it is that the process is transparent. That's why we have
easy processes for afd - assessed by an admim; more thorough ones for
RfA - assessed by those chosen as crats'; a very open and careful one
for choosing arbitrators - assessed by Jimbo himself. Yet, on a vital
and divisive issue like this, we get a snap poll - assessed by who knows
whom and why?
Not good.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It was made quite clear in several places that it was JeLuf who switched
it
on.
--
Alex (Majorly)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: