[WikiEN-l] Stupid DRV question

[Gallagher Mark George]

G'day Steve,

> On 4/16/07, Gallagher Mark George 
> <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > Did you wander away from your computer for a second, only to 
> find that some malicious daemon (who, clearly, is not as smart as 
> you are) had typed a paragraph and sent it off before you could 
> return?>
> > Since when was a closing admin required to follow the vote 
> count, and since when was failing to do so an excellent reason for 
> re-education procedures?
> 
> What he said was reasonable. 17% support being interpreted as
> consensus is uncommon. It's not unreasonable for people to ask how
> that interpretation was made. And if it was arrived at unduly, the
> admin should indeed be "reeducated".

There is a difference between taking a raw votecount of 17% and saying "keep's good enough for me", and reading a discussion --- regardless of the "votes" --- and concluding that "keep" is indeed the right result.  There are occasions --- more than you'd think, fewer than I'd think --- where going against the votecount is the right way to close.

Daniel's little helper suggested that *all* such closes ought to be taken to DRV, which is clearly nonsense hanging out for a patent.  Now, if I were to take a reasonable AfD discussion (assuming I had the four or five hours necessary to find one amongst the crud), where the overwhelming number of contributors were in favour of deletion, and close it as a keep ... without explanation, then, fine, rubbish me on DRV to your heart's content.  But that's a very different scenario from the one held forth in Daniel's post.  


Cheers,

-- 
[[User:MarkGallagher]]