On Wed, 03 May 2006 20:32:12 -0400, you wrote:
I recently came across a very contentious Afd having to deal with the movement to impeach George W. Bush. The discussion was overwhelmed with vote-stacking. I caught two users doing it and temporarily blocked them, but was reverted by an admin who says it's "not in policy" that we can block for that. I've also since discovered a third person who was vote-stacking.
It is wrong per policy, it is disruption. If done off Wikipedia it is meatpuppetry. On the whole it is good to attract more people to a debate, but bad to select only those people who are known in advance to support your view.
Also, no admin should revert the actions of another admin without discussion, preferably at the noticeboards. On the other hand using admin tools - whether to block or to revert blocks - in disputes where you are involved is a Bad Thing. And yes, I have done it too, we are but human.
If a particular debate is becoming a cesspit it may be better to close it and get all parties involved to a dispute resolution process. You are right that in many cases personal preference is allowed to trump policy. And in some cases the Google hit count is taken in lieu of reliable sources. But AfD is not a vote, and the closing admin has some discretion in weighing the arguments.
Guy (JzG)