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

Wed Dec 14 09:52:45 UTC 2005

Ryan Delaney wrote:

> It bothers me that you and David are ignoring my main point, so I'll
> try repeating it: I'm not using this email to make a judgment about
> what percentage you arbitrarily picked as a standard for what
> "consensus" means.  The mere fact that administrators can decide for
> themselves is what bothers me, and if I am criticizing you, I am
> criticizing everyone (including myself, since I've closed a lot of
> AFDs).  What troubles me is that the result of AFD votes -- the
> controversial ones that actually matter, anyway -- can be
> substantially influenced by the administrator who closes them.

Mmmm. Administrators are expected to be able to exercise the judgement
that has presumably been a factor in their selection as an admin. Trust
me when I say there's a lot of feedback (loud screeching noise) when
someone thinks they're wrong ...

> Say some contentious issue comes up on an AFD, say a series of
> "roadcruft" nominations.  Now, the votes will be very close, but say
> we have 64% of people voting to delete.  Some administrators, without
> doing the math, would close this as a delete.  You certainly
> wouldn't.  What does that say about the discussion process?  Doesn't
> that mean the opinion of the closing admin on deletion standards
> weighs in more than anyone elses?  This is what I'm getting at-- I
> think your case isn't an example of an admin abusing his power, but it
> is an example of what can go wrong with AFD *as a system*, and it
> actually goes wrong every day without anyone noticing.

It's explicitly Not A Vote, so it's hard to see how to get around this one.

I am tempted to summarily remove all tally boxes as blatant invitations
to abuse of AFD as a straight vote.

- d.