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&di... Splash added a mild threat: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff... DS1953 removed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff... Splash replaced it by rollback: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff... Titoxd removed both as "flammable materials": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&diff...
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.