JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com JAY JG said:
and in particular, when I see someone voting "keep, good stub" etc. on a completely useless stub.
Oh, you mean someone who disagrees with you?
No, Tony, and I find your strawman arguments tiresome; that's two in one discussion.
I seriously question whether you are aware of the difference between a "straw man" argument and an accurate description of my interpretation of your stance. It seems to me that in the above you are saying that you know that someone else shares your perception of what is and what is not a good stub, and as a consequence it follows that it is a fact, and not solely your opinion, that this person is voting "keep, good stub" on an indisputably useless stub.
Either that or you think that the other person's opinion of what constitutes a good stub doesn't matter because you are the arbiter. I think we can assume that this is not your opinion, otherwise you wouldn't see any point in discussion.
Your apologetics are interesting examples of rationalization, but the bottom line remains that a group of school inclusionists, organized via a school inclusionist page, were robotically voting identical "keep" votes on large sets of school deletions.
See my earlier postings in which I analyze the basis for this claim.
Some data points to get along with. Two users that I looked at, at random today: User: Dozenist
First edit January, not many edits before this week when he started editing some dentistry articles in earnest. Came to VfD on 13th (last Friday) when he made a pertinent comment about the VfD for "Waterfluoridation quotes". First ever school VfD votes: today.
User: No Account
First ever edit on Wikipedia 16th, this Monday. Around 70 article edits, edited every day except Wednesday. First schools VfD vote today. 33 votes in less than 25 minutes. Without looking at Wikipedia, can you tell which one of them consistently votes keep and which one of them consistently voted delete?