Philip Welch wrote:
On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)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
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/334 - Release Date: 08/05/06