Examine what was deleted, not whose it was.

You're on to us. We (the secret PerlMonks cabal) carefully control all consideration votes and make sure that mistakes are conviently swept under the carpet but only for those we like. When we meet over coffee, we often laugh at you.

(tye)Re: why a nodelet can be kept against author wish? is the public claim I make in a shoddy attempt to distract from how things really work.

Oh come on tye, you can do better than that! "consideration votes"? They stood at:

Considered: [demerphq] delete, obviously the BrowserUK doesnt want us 
+to see the flaw

Keep/Edit/Delete: 2/0/23
[download]

when I posted. How many more delete votes does it take?

Have you ever watched a politician change the subject when asked a question they don't want to answer?

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

It can have 1000 delete votes and still not be reaped. A node won't be reaped if it has 4+ edit votes, or 2+ edit votes and one keep vote, or 2+ keep votes, or 0+ reputation.

I was replying to:

So, I did a little research and discovered that it is perfectly acceptable to blank ones node, or request that ones mistakes be deleted--depending upon who you are!

I've repeatedly complained about people blanking their nodes and about other people enabling such immature handling of mistakes (voting for reaping). Occasionally getting a whole 5 people to vote "delete" before anybody notices doesn't qualify as evidence of being "perfectly acceptable" to me.

And your conclusion about the difference between your case and the cases you found being based on who wrote the node is... well, worthy of ridicule, hence what I wrote.

I frankly have no idea what you think I'm trying to change the subject from. Are you so dense as to think that there is some vendetta involved preventing your node from being reaped? If so, then you either haven't read or haven't understood the nodes posted to this thread (including one before your reply above).

Now you've been told why the automated system didn't reap your node and why I refuse to use site priveleges to reap such nodes.

My preference would be that you replace the node with an explanation of your line of thinking and how you realized the flaw in it so we could all learn from it, which is a large point of this site. But that is up to you.

- tye        

I can tell you what my 179985 was: a copy of 179986 posted to the wrong parent. Also note that I had just registered a few months before — I was young and foolish then. :-) In retrospect it was a mistake to erase that node. I should simply have considered it. [Update: I'm not sure I had the powers to do that back then, though. And I only learned that reparenting is possible much much later.]

I've only ever "willfully" erased a couple of my nodes in one thread — I got drawn into a flame with an Anonymonk (who seemed to have particular fun railing on me personally at the time; it was a pretty aggravating week and I lost my cool, which basically never happens). I regret that about as much as I regret making these posts in the first place; I did it as a statement and vowed never to do it again.

And I haven't since.

I think the general sentiment with regard to that behaviour has also changed over time; or maybe it is only mine that has.

Even when I embarrass myself nowadays, I will only <strike> the relevant portions and possibly add an update to explain. It is no fun at all to feel like an idiot at times, but my take is: if you didn't want to remove all doubt, you shouldn't spoken in the first place, eh?

I am flattered that you consider me among those who can get away with it because of who they are, though. :-)

To override this requires godly intervention; AFAIR this usually only happens at the request of a janitor, and usually only for a duplicate post, not an erroneous one.

So, if there are rules, how about having them written down somewhere...

The rules are written down. How do I change/delete my post? is linked from Perlmonks FAQ, and says clearly that you should not empty your node. It also explains why.

Sure, this still doesn't guarantee that the rules are applied equally to all.

Instead, it had been considered (with the trite consideration that it still bears).

I was hoping you would see my 'trite' consideration and figure out why I chose that explanation. Which also leads to your point about multiple standards. There are indeed different standards for different folks here, just as there are different rules for different circumstances.

Multiple standards exist here for the same reason they exist elsewhere. Human nature. We don't hold initiatess to the same standard as saints. You are of course a member of the latter group and as such are held in the eyes of many to a higher standard. This is in fact a matter of respect and not disrespect. If you wandered down a path that ultimately proved frutiless then its probably a line of reasoning worth exposing to the community as other less experienced monks may wander that path without noticing the flaw. It was this reason that I considered the node as I did. I would prefer that monks like you leave bad arguments you've made up as instruction for others. Its why some my doozy stupid nodes are still online. I made an ass out of myself, and heres the proof... That way folks learn from my bad reasoning and also learn that just because im a saint i'm no less prone to stupidity than any other monk. ;-) Lastly in my eyes there is a big difference between deleting a dupe and deleting a bad argument and at least a few of the nodes you mention are dupe deletes.

My hope was that you would see the consideration comment and 'nuff said. I personally didn't care enough to make more than a snide comment. Although I thought you would get the humour of that comment too. :-)