On 6/15/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'd generally tend more to say "Anyone who
cannot accept that consensus
could conceivably change on anything, any day, and that no decisions are
final, probably is working on the wrong project." Don't necessarily like
that sometimes, but I really don't see it being changed or
[[Wikipedia:Binding decisions]] getting made into policy anytime very soon.
The idea that the recent Daniel Brandt deletion resembles anything
like a changed consensus is, frankly, absurd. It was nothing but
deletion by attrition and broken process.
Perhaps the article should have been deleted, perhaps not. But those
who proudly point to the Brandt AfD as a sign of policy maturity are
misguided; indeed, the Brandt deletion wars only showcase some of the
fundamentally mistaken assumptions in the AfD process.
The most serious one among these is: a single person should be the
final arbiter of something that hundreds of community members have
debated for weeks. Contentious AfDs should _always_ be closed in a
more deliberate process involving a small group of trusted editors who
are _not_ self-selected.
--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.