On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
2009/4/11 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
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...
I am not particularly concerned by the closing administrator not being neutral - he read the tea leaves in the poll results fairly, and the results seemed fairly unambiguous (3:1 support for extension).
I am however concerned that nobody had posted pointers out anywhere. I went back through AN and Village Pump archives and found nothing.
With that in mind, I started this notice on AN:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_n...
If there are any significant objections, I recommend a new thread on the AFD talk page to reopen and revisit the issue, with more visibility to others in the project.
On reflection, I do not myself find that I object to the results of this, so I'm not going to file an objection myself. However, I believe we need to make fair notifications more widely, and offer a chance for objections from the wider crowd before this is settled and done. I have in the past and still today object to side-room actions to change policy without wider discussion and attention. We can get ourselves in a lot of trouble just by not noticing something, even if all the key players watchlist all the key policies.