My own opinion was to not switch it on, but I think that action was reasonable enough
On Jan 10, 2008 9:18 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It was made quite clear in several places that it was JeLuf who switched it on.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l