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

[Molu]

But the discretion to be exercised now is regarding whether consensus has been formed. The admin decides whether there exists a consensus to delete while accepting that counting votes is not the only way to determine consensus. But what is being proposed is that in the absence of established policies closing admins be allowed to delete or not delete based on their personal views regarding the matter while ignoring consensus if they choose to. I find that to be entirely unacceptable. Let's not make a holy thing out of a necessary evil.
   
  Molu


  On Tue, 09 May 2006 09:53:50 +0100, Steve Block wrote:

>> On 5/6/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
>>> Why not just scrap the concept of a vote entirely, and make it more
>>> like a judge deciding a case.
>> 
>> Because then the judges (closing admins) have discretionary power, 
>> and in that situation, decisions are made by admin aristocracy, not 
>> consensus.
>> 
>> I'm willing to accept a degree of admin aristocracy, so I consider 
>> this worth consideration. But we should be under no illusions about 
>> what's going on here.
>> 

>But that's the process as stands now, in that per [[Wikipedia:Deletion 
>guidelines for administrators]], "Administrators necessarily must use 
t>heir best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a 
>fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached."

>An admin is supposed to weigh the debate, and also take into account 
>that the three key policies cannot be over-ridden by a consensus formed 
>in a deletion debate.

>The admin has always had the discretion in calling the outcome. Killing 
>the idea it was about counting votes was the whole reason the name was 
>changed to afd.

>Steve block
		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.