WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
Consensus isn't a number. That said, given the virtual identical numerical results, some serious explanation is in order. To attempt to defend this after the fact is unacceptable.
-Durin _______________________________________________
Quite. I've often closed afds with results against the 'numbers' but in such cases I owe the community an explanation, and I need good reasons - and a willingness to defend them afterwards. And afds closings can be contested and overturned on drv.
So far, we've had no explanation: we're not even knowing who made the decision and there's no place to contest it, and no process to seek redress.
There's structurally something wrong with the fact that a community discussion is weighed (so badly) by an unidentified person who is not obviously accountable to the community.
The more important a decision is, and the more irreversible it will be, the more vital it is that the process is transparent. That's why we have easy processes for afd - assessed by an admim; more thorough ones for RfA - assessed by those chosen as crats'; a very open and careful one for choosing arbitrators - assessed by Jimbo himself. Yet, on a vital and divisive issue like this, we get a snap poll - assessed by who knows whom and why?
Not good.