On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
But it's perfectly OK to support someone who says "I will delete any article where there is a majority of delete votes, no matter what the reasons are for the keep votes"?
Maybe.
I went looking through last week's AFD pages (eg. October 17-21). I saw a few articles where the "majority" of votes were to delete, but the last few votes included statements such as "keep, I have verified and rewritten the article..." and "keep after excellent rewrite".
Are you telling me that you would have deleted such articles? Why don't we actually go back to "votes for deletion" and implement voting software for the page? If the process is so mechanical and requires no brainpower whatsoever, why not just automate it?
Socks, copyvios and meatpupets call for judgements.
Lets take a real senario (for resons of avoiding percived bias I could never close and AFD on delete). The 3RR. Two people have broken the 3RR. One I know two be a POV pusher. the other just got a bit wound up. What do I do? Another case. Someone respected by the community (an arbcom memember) has broken the 3RR. What do I do. Final case once again the 3RR has been broken but thier oponenent has not broken it. However this is only because there oponent is a highly skilled edit warroir to the point where it doesn't even look like they are gameing the rule. What do I do?
In each case I block the person who has broken the rule. Why? Because if fail to follow policy for a good reason sooner or latter I will fail to do it for a bad one.
Overuleing policy to do what you belive is right is adictive. It seems to make everything so right in the short term.
(Oh yes, I forget to mention: I have a fully-functional auto-voter which merely requires you to edit the AFD subpage in question. Contact me off-list for details.)
Ctrl-v yes? -- geni