On 10/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/28/05, Alphax <alphasigmax(a)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