Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Fish and karate/Questions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:55, 11 November 2019

Revision as of 11:00, 11 November 2019

Line 80:

|Q=Last year, you closed [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC]], a huge discussion that had involved 30 editors and seven proposed options. In a closure of a complex discussion, the closer often separates the many issues that the discussion had covered and says that on issue A there was consensus to do X, on issue B there was consensus to do Y, on issue C there was no consensus, etc. That would have been helpful because even if an RfC technically becomes moot when an editor self-reverts (as was the case here), an underlying dispute still needs to be resolved and 30 people have just spent several weeks trying to move towards resolution. Your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Osmosis_RfC&diff=841849522&oldid=838566050 closure] said nothing about what level of consensus was reached about any issue.

::12 months later, the underlying dispute was still festering and I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=886700381 pinged you] to ask for a more detailed closure. You didn't respond. My take on this sequence of events is that you basically chose to put yourself in the role of dispute-resolver, but to ''not'' help to resolve anything. My question is: Did you think your actions in this RfC helped the community with its efforts to resolve a dispute, and if so why do you think they were helpful? |A=Just to note that to ping me you are better off using the {{tlx|ping}} template, not just put my name in a <nowiki>[[User:foo]]</nowiki> link, which only works intermittently); I did not get your ping but still I apologise for not responding. The RfC was far too complicated - RFCs work best for a binary choice - seven proposed options is five too many. But that is an aside. I did not address the options discussed because the issue had been resolved/withdrawn, and to do so would have been rather presumptuous - I know if I had withdrawn an RFC I would expect it to be treated as such. Your take - that I chose to put myself in the role of dispute-resolver but not to address the dispute - would not be one I agree with. Closing RFCs that have been withdrawn is a point of process; if you wanted a detailed addressing of the issues that you perceived still existed then there was nothing stopping you in the intervening 12 months from opening another RFC and doing so, nor is there now.}}