On 10/3/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
I don't think that changing the tiger's
stripes is going to make it any
less vicious.
What could be useful would be to leave all deletion votes open
indefinitely. Even if the current trend is to delete with the relevant
threshhold being met, additional opinions could lead to an automatic
reversal of the deletion without having to go through a whole separate
undeletion process. There could still be a difference in the margins to
prevent a rapid series of deletions and undeletions. Thus if deletion
requires 90% support, it could be undeleted automatically if the
deletion support falls below 80%.
So you want detetion arguments to carry on forever? You know I quite
like the way we don't have to perminatly police a GNAA AFD.
The other recommendation that I would make is that any
substantive
change to an article after it has been nominated for deletion would
reset the clock for the deletion timetable. Perhaps all "votes" made
prior to that change should be declared void, allowing those voters to
cast a new vote.
Ec
Person produces hoax. Listed on vfd. After 4 days they change the
hoax. Repeat untill we get fed up. Also look for arguments over the
defintion of substantive.
--
geni