On 10/27/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
A mass copy-and-paste nomination of articles for
deletion without
providing any justification isn't disruptive?
However I can't show that they are doing it to make a point
IMO you've got some odd
standards for disruption, considering you once warned me I might be
blocked for disruptiveness when I proposed an policy change here on the
mailing list for increasing the duration of AfDs.
I wasn't exactly being serious. While I can come up with some say
"interesting" interpritations of the rules I don't I could really get
you under the dissruption clause for that.
I've now gone through all of my ComCat-nomination
votes and expanded on
them with more extensive comments. Turns out that my initial instincts
were completely correct, after due reconsideration all of my votes
stayed "keep" (with one exception where I mistook a "NN,D" _vote_ by
ComCat as a _nomination_ instead - the actual nomination was
reasonable). Plenty of fodder for debate there, and plenty of effort
spent to back up my position.
I'd bet tempted to go a stage further and not vote at all.
Now may I complain about the lack of
justification the nominations provided?
In theory RFC however it would be likely yo become messy.
I see no reason to mess with the ritual that is school AFds aparenty
most of those takeing part are consenting adults.
--
geni