> Fred, as I've already noted, the offending comment was apparently > *not*eliminated from the final tally of the votes made by George > Chernilevsky, > though omitting it would not have changed the outcome of the vote. > > Nepenthe
It should not have been considered. That is our standard practice with inane "reasons". In the background is the question of whether something should have been "done". What would be appropriate? A private note, a note on the users talk page? A warning? Removal of the remark from the discussion? Deletion of the edit? Suppression of the edit? Perhaps a discussion of the remark at the Village Pump on Commons? We do have a deletion reason WP:RD2 Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs. I think this falls within "ordinary incivility", but someone might have a different opinion. Fred _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
