On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, [iso-8859-1] Angela wrote:
2) Change the policy
*Reduce the waiting time (there is vast support for
this idea)
Agreed. Of course, decisions that have not reached a stable state by that
many days are obviously too complicated for discussion on VfD and should
go off somewhere else.
*Delete things after three days where no-one has
objected.
Agreed. There's a stage just above 'obvious junk' but that are
uncontroversial.
*Stop anyone with less than (for example) 200 edits
from commenting. This might get around the issue of a
huge number of supposed users voting whose only
contribution ever is to the VfD page, and once the
page is deleted or kept, that user is never heard of
again. I strongly believe ballot stuffing is becoming
a real problem here. Without it, there would be way
less discussion and a much smaller page.
Well, maybe not COMMENTING, but certainly having anything tallied in a
final count?
*Stop attacking people who try to help on the page. I
don't deny that I have made controversial deletions,
but I am attacked for absolutely non-controversial
ones
After all, all deletes are undeleteable. It's not the end of the world if
someone deletes an article over-hastily -- a better route would be simply
to vote for undeletion.
*Give up on the idea of attaining consensus and set
an
actual percentage of votes required to delete (75%
sounds good). This makes everything more clear-cut and
more people will be willing to take action if backed
up by a policy that isn't interpreted differently by
everyone reading it.
Given the presence within the community of those philosophically opposed
to deletion of anything on any grounds, and those who will always vote for
certain categories of stuff to be deleted -- I think any attempt to get
100% consensus is impossible on the vast majority of articles placed
there. 75% sounds as good as any.
-Matt (User:Morven)