Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tmorton166

message: Hi and thanks to anyone who has taken the time to come and comment. Anyway here is an expansion of my ideas copied from the talk page. I think it does not explain my opinion well and I will work on a revised version, in the meantime any comments / ideas! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I should start with your point 4 and work back, true counting votes isn't a done thing however how many comment non-votes get counted? I dont want to suggest none as we have to trust the people who are closing them but I feel that in alot of cases only actual choices are looked at (and their ratinales weighed up). However the comments usually have pertinent information and rationale behind them which can get ignored. Peoples refusal (either through choice or by following consensus) to be seen Voting means that, IMO, information is being lost.
As to the point you make about normally only being 2 or 3 choices; I would agree in part. On an RfA for example there are really only 3 options, but look at AfD - there are plenty of combinations. I mean how many valid combines of delete, keep, merge and rename are there. To make matters more complicated we get the idea of weak or strong - does weak keep because... mean that the person making the comment has no trust in their opinion?
Ok so in theory, with lots of participation, the variation doesn't matter as over time a general consensus develops. However in practice I see it not working. Take an example where 3 people vote on an AfD for a minor personality:
*weak keep was runner up  in a regional competition and several google hits  
*delete and merge with the competition article
*rename and rewrite its a crap article and the persons name does not follow naming conventions
Now what does the closing admin do? he has 3 choices rename, merge or keep. Well what does he do. The keep rationale is probably not strong enough to take that choice (IMO) which means the rename is not a choice either. So merge? The truth is that could go any of 3 ways and it might not be the right one. It is still the overall choice of the closing admin. maybe this is a very infrequent example but, as the number of votes (and number of choices) rise the closing admin has a even more difficult decision to make.
THe problem is (as I see it) that AfD is suffering from a lack of positive identity. It is almost as if we had free choice on an RfA, the choice to say promote in 3 months or never promote ever. How many people would get sysoped then!
The solution on RfA is the choice of just 3 votes, no other option. Then we only have to consider the rationale for 2 sides. Same should be on AFD - 2 or 3 choices and that is the only real option (of course other solutions could be suggested inside a persons vote rationale but not used as thweir vote). That way there is just the choice of delete or not to delete!
I chose AFD as my example as it is the most common option and also the worst offender. I also dont think I have explained myself wonderfully again but I hope it is better than the first attempt! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polls are evil!