On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 3:03 AM, doc <doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Risker wrote: >> Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside. >> >> Risker >> > > It is really about time that Wikipedia regulated the means by which > policy changes are made. > > Personally, I've long been in favour of a policy making body. However, I > understand many people prefer the "consensus model". > > But even if we stick to the consensus model, we perhaps should have a > regularised means for closing the discussion and ruling where consensus > lies. When we have an afd, an uninvolved admin closes. When the > community considers adminship, a crat calls consensus. > > Is there a need for the selection of a group of trusted users who can be > called upon to to declare (after discussion) when a policy change has > consensus has been made? > > Perhaps we should have [[Wikipedia:Requests for policy change]], where > an uninvolved crat or arb, or new class of user, closes the debate.
Agreed that someone uninvolved should close. Have suggested bureaucrats before. No comment (for obvious reasons) on whether arbs should close such discussions. I think the person or group closing the discussion should be selected ahead of time, as otherwise you can get a group of people jostling to close the discussion who deliberately stayed out in order to close it. Either that, or a semi-regular group start closing such discussions. At a minimum, a new post at some noticeboard saying "discussion has ended, we need someone uninvolved to close it" would work. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
