From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au
If you think that all the people who are making boilerplate "keep" votes
in
incredibly short periods of time are not actually just mindlessly and sequentially voting "keep", but rather are people who read the articles, consider them carefully, then like to line up all the votes in many different tabs so that the votes all show up on the Contributions list
in
as short a period of time as possible, then no. But I think my
assumption
is far more reasonable and plausible than yours.
What, that someone edits VFD like I do?
But they don't; your comments are not all identical, theirs are.
I suspect the root of your assertion is that you can't really believe anyone would vote "keep" sincerely on almost all school articles. So when you see someone do so, you immediately assume bad faith editing on their part; and you won't be swayed from this explanation for what you see.
Not true. I know there are people who believe *most* school articles should be kept. But the boilerplate votes in short periods of time which make no reference at all to the article or the VfD page are examples of something else, and in particular, when I see someone voting "keep, good stub" etc. on a completely useless stub.
Me, I vote 'keep' on almost all of them because they're NPOV and verifiable (though in most cases they don't have an independent reference listed; as per my proposal on [[Wikiedpa:Schools]], I certainly wouldn't object to that as a very strong guideline). I really don't see that a 'keep' vote requires any greater justification, whatever someone's edit pattern.
I understand your position; I've never objected to your votes, or your voting pattern.
Jay.