On 15/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose is to stop the first google hit on someone's name being "self-promotional vanity tripe", which is a little cruel even when they did write the article - and when, as so often happens, they *didn't*, it's just nasty.
Most AFDs on people are filled with not particularly nice comments. It's dine we keep them for internal purposes, but it seems fair to stop leaving them obviously public to be stumbled upon. Blanking doesn't hide that there was a debate or hide the decision; what it *does* do is hide the most stupid excesses of the discussion.
The same could be said of requests for arbitration. Can we blank them too?
Well, we routinely dump frivolous ones...
The major difference is that arbitration, &c, are things dealing with members of the community; the people engaged in verbal rough-and-tumble there chose to get involved, to some degree or another. This sort of problematic AFD, however, often involves as its subject someone who *isn't* part of the project, someone who didn't invite this kind of thing. I think that's fair enough justification to deal with the two differently.
(Even in the cases where the subject gets involved in the discussion, they're still usually not involved in the community in the same way that someone in an arbitration case is)