Tony Sidaway wrote:
As I've outlined before, DRV is even more prone to
assumptions of bad
faith than AfD. In a great example of instruction creep, it now
purports to declare some material (not copyright infringing, not
defamatory) unfit even for a history undeletion.
That's not instruction creep! That's [[scope creep]].
I added a note about how not to get an ulcer from the broken DRV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&d…
Splash added a mild threat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&dif…
DS1953 removed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&dif…
Splash replaced it by rollback:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&dif…
Titoxd removed both as "flammable materials":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&dif…
DRV regulars appear convinced it is a fiefdom unto itself, with only a
passing consideration at best of writing an encyclopedia rather than
fetishisation of process. If there's more than me with the notice on
their user pages about undeletion for viewing, it would be worth
listing a bunch at a time per my original notice.
- d.
- d.