Philip Welch wrote:
On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just scrap the concept of a vote entirely, and make it more like a judge deciding a case.
Because then the judges (closing admins) have discretionary power, and in that situation, decisions are made by admin aristocracy, not consensus.
I'm willing to accept a degree of admin aristocracy, so I consider this worth consideration. But we should be under no illusions about what's going on here.
But that's the process as stands now, in that per [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators]], "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached."
An admin is supposed to weigh the debate, and also take into account that the three key policies cannot be over-ridden by a consensus formed in a deletion debate.
The admin has always had the discretion in calling the outcome. Killing the idea it was about counting votes was the whole reason the name was changed to afd.
Steve block