[WikiEN-l] Viral swarming teenage vanity spam

[geni]

On 7/6/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> No.  Well, yes.  But no.
>
> DRV has been legitimately accused of endorsing bad decisions on that
> grounds that "process was followed".  The people arguing that DRV should
> do such a thing are either:
>
> a) Process wonks, who can therefore be ignored (or, preferably, locked
>     in a padded cell for their own comfort and safety)
> b) People who have confused Wikipedia with Real Life.
>
> DRV is *not* an appeals court.  The rules that apply to appeals courts
> in the USA, Canada, Australia, and I assume practically everywhere else,
> do *not* apply to DRV.  We need to remember that.  DRV is not, it's
> true, in the business of providing a venue for AfD Take Two, but neither
> is it totally uninterested in the outcome provided process is followed.
>
> DRV is a safeguard to ensure that AfD gets the right *result*.  That's
> all it's for --- *not*, I repeat *not*, simply to ensure AfD gets the
> right *process*.  Process being followed is a good indication that the
> AfD result was good; but it shouldn't blind us to potential errors.
>

An  argument that fails when you consider you only need an absolute
majority to keep something deleted on DRV. If it is to be more than a
process review area then that is illogical.

-- 
geni