[WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking

[Jimmy Wales]

Ben McIlwain wrote:
> That would take weeks, and by then the vote-stackers have long gotten
> away with it.  And I don't think vote-stacking is too subjective.  If
> you see someone recruiting votes, deal with them.  It's pretty simple.

I am, again, very much in sympathy with you, but now think about my
bridge example.  A bridge is placed on AfD.  It looks like it is about
to be deleted, let's suppose, because idiots are voting on the premise
of "Well, I have never heard of it, so: nn, delete."

A bridge expert knows that it *is* an important bridge.

Now, the right thing to do here, and what used to work, is that our
bridge expert writes a few sentences:  "This is an important bridge, and
part of an ongoing project we have in the bridges area to flesh out
articles on the top 1,000 longest bridges in the world.  This one is
currently ranked 797.  May not seem important to you, but we have
verifiable sources and are planning to fill these stubs in over the next
6-9 months.  Thanks."

THEN, some admin comes along and says, gee, the vote is 27-3 to delete,
but frankly, this bridge guy knows what he is talking about, so I am
going to close it with a keep.

In today's environment, the admin doing that better be prepared for a
massive firestorm from process wonks.

So, what's our bridge guy to do?  Well, one thing he can do is go around
to all the other bridgipedians (great word, huh?) and point it out to
them.    Vote stacking?  Maybe, but don't we prefer that these bridge
people come in and have a say?