G'day Steve,
On 4/16/07, Gallagher Mark George
<m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
Did you wander away from your computer for a
second, only to
find that some malicious daemon (who, clearly, is not as smart as
you are) had typed a paragraph and sent it off before you could
return?>
Since when was a closing admin required to follow
the vote
count, and since when was failing to do so an excellent reason for
re-education procedures?
What he said was reasonable. 17% support being interpreted as
consensus is uncommon. It's not unreasonable for people to ask how
that interpretation was made. And if it was arrived at unduly, the
admin should indeed be "reeducated".
There is a difference between taking a raw votecount of 17% and saying "keep's
good enough for me", and reading a discussion --- regardless of the "votes"
--- and concluding that "keep" is indeed the right result. There are occasions
--- more than you'd think, fewer than I'd think --- where going against the
votecount is the right way to close.
Daniel's little helper suggested that *all* such closes ought to be taken to DRV,
which is clearly nonsense hanging out for a patent. Now, if I were to take a reasonable
AfD discussion (assuming I had the four or five hours necessary to find one amongst the
crud), where the overwhelming number of contributors were in favour of deletion, and close
it as a keep ... without explanation, then, fine, rubbish me on DRV to your heart's
content. But that's a very different scenario from the one held forth in Daniel's
post.
Cheers,
--
[[User:MarkGallagher]]