On 2/5/06, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com> wrote:
I strongly agree. Based on my assessment of our
current
consensus-determining mechanisms, dividing things into a
discussion/fact-finding and voting period will rectify a number of
problems. (I'm a regular on [[WP:AFD]] where I close debates, [[WP:FAC]]
where I've gotten more than 20 articles featured and [[WP:RFA]].) FAC is
effectively one huge fact-finding period, as the culture encourages
people to rectify problems as soon as possible and notify the objectors.
AfD right now faces the same problem as RFA -- people vote before all
the facts are in. If [[WP:PROD]] works, I hope we'll be able to change
AfD into something like this -- disputed discussions should have all the
facts in before people vote. Right now closing admins have to grimace as
they "overrule consensus" because they realise that "Ohnoes, the last
voter is right and this article should be kept/deleted, but nobody else
has noticed!"
I'm all for this. Let's bring FAC-style discussion to the rest of our
consensus-determining mechanisms.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
_______________________________________________
FAC has a lot of the same problems. People oppose before things are fixed
without coming back to change their vote. I'd be happy to see a x-day
discussion implemented before voting starts, but at most that would require
a change to the rules of RFA (which is requests for adminship - not votes
for adminship). I don't see the need to make an entirely new page.
If this idea was discussed before changing anything, I'm sure there'd be
less opposition.
Mgm
That's effectively nullified by people posting to user talk pages to
remind objectors that things have changed. This is a lot harder to
accomplish on RfA and AfD, where, due to the large number of people,
it's a logistical nightmare and an easy way to be labelled a
Wikilobbyist campaigner.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])