On 1/28/06, Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/27/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
That beiing so, I'd gently suggest that the
Foundation *must* get
involved in this. Deletion is a mess and the various deletion-related
forums have become a law unto themselves. We can't do anything,
arbcom is scared to do so, and so outside action is required.
Personally, it's not so much /scared/ as concerned it is outside the
arbcom's jurisdiction/mandate. The arbitration committee has not
considered content disputes within its remit, for one thing.
Behaviour and adherence to policy ARE, but I think it would require an
actual, specific case to be brought before the arbcom.
Agreed. There have been tentative advances on this front, for instance
in the recently concluded webcomics case where two issues were
addressed: attempts to alter deletion policy without discussion, and
alienating newcomers by smearing them as trolls and ridiculing them.
There have been some cases of editors using the laudable principle
that the debate is not a vote as a kind of two-by-four with which to
browbeat people who make too-brief statements. While it is desirable
to have a good debate, this is not facilitated by having some
participants haranguing others in this manner.
References to specific items in the undeletion policy are almost
absent from the Deletion Review page, and some of the statements that
are there go directly against the principles of the undeletion policy.
A notice by me informing editors that I am temporarily undeleting
pages that are subject to good faith nominations for undeletion has
been removed twice on the pretext that my notice "wasn't discussed".
There is in short a palpably abusive atmosphere in these forums. at
least one such undeleted article has been deleted as "improperly
undeleted." The presumption of bad faith is the norm.