On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk 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 risker.wp@gmail.com
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...
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.