Unintentional irony in the RfA pre-RfC RfC
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:12 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RFA#RfC
Quote:
Everyone is invited to post any RfA-related topic for discussion and vote. But please, use good judgment and only ask for a vote on things that have a chance of gaining consensus within a week. Bear in mind that it's been hard to get consensus for any single plan at RfA, for years. But don't let that stop you ... if you think the time is right, go for it.
So let me get this straight:
1. Everyone should post to any RfA related topic for discussion.
2. But not everyone should post, and not to any RfA related topic for discussion, but only those things which have a chance of gaining consensus within a week.
3. But basically nothing whatsoever has managed to get consensus ever.
4. But everyone should post to any RfA related topic for discussion.
...
As an algorithm for generating a lot of useless and pointless discussion, this is genius. As a plan for... anything else, it's stupidity.
Quote:
Everyone is invited to post any RfA-related topic for discussion and vote. But please, use good judgment and only ask for a vote on things that have a chance of gaining consensus within a week. Bear in mind that it's been hard to get consensus for any single plan at RfA, for years. But don't let that stop you ... if you think the time is right, go for it.
So let me get this straight:
1. Everyone should post to any RfA related topic for discussion.
2. But not everyone should post, and not to any RfA related topic for discussion, but only those things which have a chance of gaining consensus within a week.
3. But basically nothing whatsoever has managed to get consensus ever.
4. But everyone should post to any RfA related topic for discussion.
...
As an algorithm for generating a lot of useless and pointless discussion, this is genius. As a plan for... anything else, it's stupidity.
