[WikiEN-l] Improve AFD - require rationales (2-step process)

Tue Dec 13 11:19:55 UTC 2005

On 12/12/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Tony Sidaway got RFCed for not doing a strict numerical count. I said
> > the RFC was completely fuckheaded (which it was), and then Ed deleted
> > VFD. So there's some historical precedent for your view ;-)
> >
> >
> The RFC *was* fuckheaded, but there might have been a point somewhere in the
> nonsense.  That admins can execute as much discretionary power when it comes
> to what "consensus" means in an AFD is worrisome; it implies that the
> closing admin can alter the result of the vote substantially according to
> whatever arbitrary view he or she might have on deletion.  Tony doesn't
> think this is a problem, because (I get the impression-- please correct me
> if I'm wrong here) that he's happy that he can close AFDs with an inflated
> standard for consensus, because he wants more articles to be kept.

This is a misrepresentation.  My standard for consensus, at the time I
was closing AfDs, was 70-80% depending on the strength of arguments. 
This is in line with standards used elsewhere on Wikipedia, and in no
way can it be described as "inflated".

That some other editors use 2/3 as in any way representative of
consensus, I find unfortunate, but I can live with it.