On 1/30/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Rob wrote:
If someone disagrees with a deletion result, then
lists it on DRV, this is
generally (with the exception of vanity self-promoters, trolls, and the
like) accepted as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.
If someone disagrees with a keep result, then lists it on DRV, this is seen
by many as an "abuse of process" and an effort to "get the result he
wanted".
It seems that if one type of result can be reviewed and possibly overturned,
what's wrong with reviewing another type of result? What's the difference?
The difference is that keeping and deleting are not symmetrical. It' s
like innocent until proven guilty - it's *supposed* to be keep unless
deletable. So the first is appealing a "guilty", the second is double
jeopardy.
There is a lot of investment in the process on DRV, to the extent that
they regard those who don't want to bother with the process thank you
very much and would far rather take their chances on AfD as abusers.
Which I suppose wouldn't be such a bad thing if the process were a
good one. Instead it's a rather mysterious thing run on the assumption
that the content of an article is immaterial. and that what matters is
counting numbers and ensuring that the closing admin dotted all the
i's and crossed all the t's. And needless to say, it tends to attract
the kind of person who is obsessive about dotting i's and crossing
t's.