About: Wookieepedia talk:Comprehensive article nominations/instructions

Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Wookieepedia talk:Comprehensive article nominations/instructions Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

Since I'm the one who set up the instructions page back when the CAN concept was approved, I'll respond. We didn't vote on every single detail in the original CT, so I had to make some assumptions when I created the instructions. We didn't specify in the CT IIRC whether non-ECs could remove failed noms. The part about how to override an objection was another one that was not specified in the CT IIRC. So I had to make something up on the spot that I felt wouldn't be controversial, because I wasn't really interested in bogging down the CT by voting on every last detail. I admit that I myself have removed failed noms at the nominator's request before, and I agree that anyone should be able to remove them in most cases. However, I would suggest that when a judgment call in involved (i.e. the '

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Wookieepedia talk:Comprehensive article nominations/instructions
rdfs:comment	Since I'm the one who set up the instructions page back when the CAN concept was approved, I'll respond. We didn't vote on every single detail in the original CT, so I had to make some assumptions when I created the instructions. We didn't specify in the CT IIRC whether non-ECs could remove failed noms. The part about how to override an objection was another one that was not specified in the CT IIRC. So I had to make something up on the spot that I felt wouldn't be controversial, because I wasn't really interested in bogging down the CT by voting on every last detail. I admit that I myself have removed failed noms at the nominator's request before, and I agree that anyone should be able to remove them in most cases. However, I would suggest that when a judgment call in involved (i.e. the '
dbkwik:starwars/pr...iPageUsesTemplate	dbkwik:resource/WWVenAg0KMvvv-_oQTgCvQ==
abstract	Since I'm the one who set up the instructions page back when the CAN concept was approved, I'll respond. We didn't vote on every single detail in the original CT, so I had to make some assumptions when I created the instructions. We didn't specify in the CT IIRC whether non-ECs could remove failed noms. The part about how to override an objection was another one that was not specified in the CT IIRC. So I had to make something up on the spot that I felt wouldn't be controversial, because I wasn't really interested in bogging down the CT by voting on every last detail. I admit that I myself have removed failed noms at the nominator's request before, and I agree that anyone should be able to remove them in most cases. However, I would suggest that when a judgment call in involved (i.e. the 'cannot realistically be fixed", or what I call the "nonsense nomination" clause), the decision should be left to an EC, who is theoretically better qualified to make that call. Whatever we decide, though, is fine with me. I would suggest that if either of those two items go to the CT, it should be decided by simple plurality vote instead of saying "no consensus, revert to status quo one user's unilaterally established rule". —MJ— Training Room 06:20, December 20, 2012 (UTC) * Oh no, I'm fine with the striking votes thing. I just didn't remember talking about it, and remembered talking with ECs about whether or not they had the power do that ("This guy's not responed to the fix in a month. …Can we just strike it?" "…I'm…not sure." That kind of thing.) None of us thought to look at the charter, apparently. x) We've run into plenty of times where it's needed to be put into use. My problem would have been if it were added after we voted on it without a CT, for obvious reasons. We all had plenty of time to read it when we were ratifying it, so there's no trouble on that point. We just forgot about it when the time came. NaruHina Talk File:Anakinsolo.png 07:07, December 20, 2012 (UTC) * Well, technically speaking, the instruction page wasn't created until after the original CT was archived. That was because we didn't do any of this stuff during the trial period; we just dumped completed nominations onto a single archive page to reduce the workload if this thing had been rejected. So those two clauses actually were put here after the ratification CT and were never properly voted on, directly or indirectly. That's what I meant when I called it "one user's unilaterally established rule". With the CT forum currently empty (less the ever-present message wall petition), now might be a good time to do a (hopefully) quick CT to formally ratify those clauses (or change them if the vote goes that way). That would also serve to make people more aware of them. —MJ— Comlink 19:33, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software