jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Todd,
I'm not sure that it makes sense at this point to use the word 'consensus' at all when referring to en:. Regardless, if you mean "such that every single person involved, including the editor who originally raised the concern, agrees that the problem is fixed", we are probably in agreement about what should happen. If you are using "consensus" to mean "51% of the voters at Deletion Review", then we don't agree.
Your complaint about "giving every user office powers" suggests that you are using the word 'consensus' to mean something more like the latter. You are assuming in your concern that the person raising the concern cannot be satisfied that the problem is fixed, and you want it to be possible to outvote them. That's precisely the problem that needs fixing, and taking away the ability to undelete from some users who don't seem to be using it wisely is one way of tackling that problem.
JkellyQuoting Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com:
What I said is that it should -stay gone- until discussion takes place. However, my concern is that Fred effectively said that even if the matter is discussed, and consensus is "This is not problematic, it does not violate policy", anyone-even who acts on that consensus-would be penalized for doing so.
I agree that if someone brings up BLP concerns, we should err on the side of caution until the matter is discussed, and that no one who acts on a BLP concern should be reversed unilaterally. But it shouldn't be closed to discussion or immune to consensus.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's a false dichotomy fallacy. (We have an article on that.) Consensus is not a simple majority vote, but it's not unanimity either. (If I had meant "a simple majority vote", or "a unanimous agreement", I would have said that. I'm familiar with the terms.)