Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Although the arbitrators didn't condemn straight keep voting (in other words, they didn't take issue with him voting keep for every article proposed on VfD), they did make it clear that voting against the general consensus without providing a reason (the manner of voting, to use an arbitrator's phrase) is not condoned.
So inclusionists who intend to sabotage such a process would have to be handled somehow. All this is based on how I understood Anthony's case; if I'm mistaken, please forgive and correct me.
No, it was actually more the opposite. The arbitrators didn't have a problem with the way I voted (and it wasn't keep for every article, it was keep for a certain class of articles, mainly those about real people). The arbitrators had a problem with the reasons I gave (which were occassionally sarcastic or hostile). They also had a problem with the fact that on a few occassions I added things to VfD which I didn't want deleted just to try to prove a point. Both were mistakes, and I fully admit that.
I agree with you that the arbitration ruling is extremely ambiguous on this, though. I even brought up the fact that saying that I shouldn't be "provacative" is completely meaningless when the arbitration decision was being voted on. But, even as arbitration was ongoing I continued to vote "Keep" on a large number of articles, and the arbitration committee passed a ruling saying that I had ceased the improper behavior, so the improper behavior certainly wasn't just the fact that I voted keep a lot.
I thought that's what I was saying - after all, if people have a good reason for voting "keep" on every listed article, I don't see what's stopping them from doing so. If they just vote keep for the sake of being a bitchy inclusionist, then that's wrong. That's how I understood your case; as I said, the arbitrators didn't take issue with what you voted for, but how you voted for it.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])