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

[Peter Ansell]

On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/6/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was once told by an admin when I inquired that it was up to the
> > previous voters to be persuaded to change their votes, after other
> > opinions had been entered. I would like to see some sort of guideline
> > that recognises the progression of arguments, and gives the initial
> > delete contributors less weight unless they find arguments to rebutt
> > later keep votes.
>
> Why not just scrap the concept of a vote entirely, and make it more
> like a judge deciding a case. Everyone can present an argument. If
> there is a *compelling* argument for keeping, it's kept. If there's a
> reasonable case for deletion, it's deleted.
>
> So there would be no point adding "delete as per nom". You would only
> add a comment if it was different to what other people had said, or
> you wanted to point to sources that proved notability or whatever. As
> it is, lots of people can vote without having any idea of actual
> notability guidelines or whatever.

That suggestion shows promise, as it avoids the "piling on votes"
problem as there are no votes. I like it!

> > In general, I would also like to see some sort of guideline and
> > enforcement for notifying major contributors to an article in advance
> > of nomination, not just letting them see the banner on the page, or
> > notifying them after the start of the process.
>
> Could be done automatically if everyone who has the article in their
> watchlist received a talk page message. Having the article in your
> watchlist demonstrates you care a bit - but doesn't confirm that you
> will actually see the AfD.
>
> Steve

Still have to be careful as newbies may not check the "watch pages i
edit" box, and hence not have a functioning watchlist for their
articles. But otherwise it seems like a good suggestion.

Peter