User talk:MBisanz/AfD

Untitled

Apologies for writing here, but it seems I can't start a talk page. I have to say though, this looks a whole lot like you don't actually try to find consensus, but basically ignore it. Consensus does not mean "MBisanz decides which arguments have merit and then decides whichever way he chooses based on his weighting of arguments". That's a perverse reading of what "consensus" means; indeed, it's practically its opposite. You set yourself up not as a functionary, who simply follows consensus, but as a judge, lordly deciding the fate of articles depending on which arguments sway him. I think the creation of a mandarin class in Wikipedia, and the destruction of the consensus approach to building it, have been Bad Things, but I suppose that if you actually didn't empower yourself way beyond your merit, half the fun of editing the encyclopaedia would be lost for you. Grace Note (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, the section that I have based my closing off of is:

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new user id whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept.

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant.

Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.

I don't judge the articles, I interpret the consensus of the arguments. Some arguments are stronger than others, citing the existence of sources is strong than citing ILIKEIT, and I weight an argument based on the existence of sources much more than ILIKEIT, since one is based on policy and the other is based on opinion. MBisanz ^talk 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems that back in February my username was added to the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to combat the Fang vandal (look at my talkpage history), which would explain why you couldn't create the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 07:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]