On 6/14/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Deletion policy lets closers disregard particular arguments "not made in good faith," and to "use their best judgement...to determine when a rough consensus has been reached." I don't think either statement covers this case. I'm too new an admin & editor to feel comfortable proposing a desysop--and it might not be fair, because there were other recent arbitrary single-handed actions taken by individual initiative.
Desysopping A Man in Black for stepping forward to wrestle with this octopus would be absurd. He's proposed a solution that will put an end to the drama, so long as everyone behaves sensibly and the article(s) are written properly.
The problem doesn't lie with the procedure for closing, but with the fact that we allow anyone, almost certainly including people with multiple accounts, to have an equal say in deciding matters of importance to the project. It's one thing to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it's another to be a top-ten website that anyone of any age determines the direction of, even if it includes running over a cliff like a bunch of lemmings.
At some point, we'll have to face that allowing any account, even a very recent one, to take part in policy discussions, BLP issues, and important AfDs is editorial, moral, and legal folly.