On 27 August 2010 01:18, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Remember that we do have DRV for
> controversial decisions. A simpler change, which I've proposed before, would
> be to require admins to give a rationale for their close on any AfD that is not
> unanimous.
They still can say more or less whatever they want, it
doesn't remove
bias from an administrator in any way. The bias is often in who
decides the AfD.
To swing this, you'd probably need quite a large amount of AFD closure
data demonstrating (preferably inarguable) bias. Ideally, you'd need
to show that it was inherent to the process, rather than because of a
few individuals not sufficiently checking their biases at the door.
(this is evaluating your arguments, rather than an opinion on whether
what they argue for is good or not)
- d.