[WikiEN-l] Discussions for Adminship

John Lee johnleemk at gawab.com
Sun Feb 5 17:26:09 UTC 2006

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 2/5/06, John Lee <johnleemk at 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
>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.
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

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list