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.
All that said, I never voted keep for every article. I think that pretty much every article which has any information that is NPOV and verifiable (in a respected source such as a government site or national non-tabloid newspaper) should be kept or merged and redirected. If the verifiability is disputed, I support moving the information to the talk page where this can be sorted out. I support *massive* editing of many of the articles submitted to VfD. When something's listed as an ad, for instance, I support cutting the article down to the basic NPOV facts. Occassionally, especially with articles which are doomed to never be more than dictionary definitions (articles about adjectives, for instance), an appropriate redirect can't be found (or too many can be found so a single one can't be chosen), and I don't oppose transwiking and deleting. I suppose there are some limited exceptions to all these rules, but I rarely find them on VfD.
Maybe I should put this on my talk page, because there are a few people out there (RickK, who votes delete more than I vote keep, comes to mind) who insist on incorrectly making the claim that I vote keep on everything, and some people apparently believe their lies.
Anthony
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]])
I resent the implication that voting to keep something is somehow reprehensible. Mark
--- Anthony DiPierro anthonydipierro@hotmail.com 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.
All that said, I never voted keep for every article. I think that pretty much every article which has any information that is NPOV and verifiable (in a respected source such as a government site or national non-tabloid newspaper) should be kept or merged and redirected. If the verifiability is disputed, I support moving the information to the talk page where this can be sorted out. I support *massive* editing of many of the articles submitted to VfD. When something's listed as an ad, for instance, I support cutting the article down to the basic NPOV facts. Occassionally, especially with articles which are doomed to never be more than dictionary definitions (articles about adjectives, for instance), an appropriate redirect can't be found (or too many can be found so a single one can't be chosen), and I don't oppose transwiking and deleting. I suppose there are some limited exceptions to all these rules, but I rarely find them on VfD.
Maybe I should put this on my talk page, because there are a few people out there (RickK, who votes delete more than I vote keep, comes to mind) who insist on incorrectly making the claim that I vote keep on everything, and some people apparently believe their lies.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
I also vote "keep" more often than you vote "delete". Have you EVER voted "delete"?
RickK
Anthony DiPierro anthonydipierro@hotmail.com wrote: Maybe I should put this on my talk page, because there are a few people out there (RickK, who votes delete more than I vote keep, comes to mind) who insist on incorrectly making the claim that I vote keep on everything, and some people apparently believe their lies.
Anthony
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!