On 5/4/06, Ben McIlwain <cydeweys(a)gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
geni wrote:
On 5/4/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I'd think this counts as a disruption of the
normal workings of afd
and is blockable on those grounds. Isn't this exactly why we were so
concerned about userboxes - to prevent this sort of thing from
happening?
That would depend on which set of claims you belived.
In any case it appears at least one of the people used a list compiled
from past AFD votes.
Well, specifically, a list of all of the people who had voted Delete in
the previous vote. That user made no attempt to notify any of the Keep
voters. It's this kind of selective voting recruitment (aka
vote-stacking) that is so harmful to Wikipedia. When I canceled that
Afd it was leaning heavily towards Delete, but that was only because two
Delete vote-stackers had been out campaigning heavily and there was only
one Keep vote-stacker who had just begun operations. The end result
would've just been another no consensus once both sides were "properly"
marshaled.
And the problem with that is?
The kind of actions I'm describing here are pretty
clearly disruptive
and work against the policies we have in place for deciding issues.
It's extremely harmful. Note that the ArbCom has already come out
against vote-stacking, in one form or another, in three separate instances:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastr…
Arbcom can to a large degree do what it likes. Votestacking is hard to
define. If I post a notice to the rational skecpticism wikiproject
about a AFD of some alt med article is that vote stacking?
In the past many blocks have been issued to deal with
these issues. Yet
suddenly we're running into a lot of resistance from people who are
saying it isn't explicitly listed in policy. Well, since policy is
simply a written-down version of what happens in practice, we need to
modify policy. The only single diehard policy is "Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia",
Wrong. NPOV is hard policy.
and it's pretty clear that these vote-stacking
campaigns
I've been describing go against that ultimate goal of making the best
encyclopedia we can.
Nah not really. They tend to nullify themselves quite effectively.
--
geni