WP is in the peculiar situation where any one of over 1200 people can on their own initiative decide on the outcome of a deletion debate--or a DRV. The result in seriously disputed matters depends on the personal judgment of whoever steps forward
I know of no successful organization with a comparable size and procedure. Historical precedents are not reassuring. The Roman tribunes & consuls had similar power, but the total number never exceeded 12; even so, the Republic's history was marked by frequent civil wars. The Polish liberum veto in the sejm of approximately 400 is generally thought to have destroyed the country. And both were merely vetoes, not the promulgation of decisions.
In this case, the self-selected admin pronounced: "A COMPLEX MERGE. I think I've arrived at a solution." -- self-admittedly his own solution, not the consensus of the dispute seen rightly or wrongly--this specific merge had not been mentioned in the discussion--and there were only 2 or 3 voices supporting any merge at all. .
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.
On 6/14/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:45:04 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I think that we probably agree on more than you'd think here, but just to pick up on one thing:
It's not the validity of those concerns that I dismiss, it's their inflexibility.
That is precisely my point - "censor" is a word which is a pretty reliable marker for inflexibility. AMiB's Brandt close was the precise opposite, it was a thoughtful rather than an absolutist judgment. It is supported by a number of people who have advocated both keep and delete in the past. It is opposed by a number of people who appear to take an absolutist stance, one way or the other.
I don't actually care overmuch whether we have an article on Brandt or not, I think I have !voted keep in the past if only to end the ridiculous fighting, but this close does seem to me to be a genuine attempt to resolve the tension between those who want to cover someone because they have done something good/bad/stupid, and those who feel (reasons which are at least as good) that we should aspire to rise above such foolishness.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l