On 7/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:33:10 -0700, "K P"
I agree with the expedited cleanup. Sometimes
dreadful crap that really needs to get off Wikipedia ASAP. Just
because someone contests a PROD doesn't mean pure crap should be
granted a 1 week reprieve, like that moron who decided to write a
piece of crap article about beach chic to honor his bride (God help
her), then contested the prod so the piece of crap would stay up for
the week of his wedding.
Ugh. And in the past we have had issues when we speedy such crap and
get oddballs calling it an "out of process deletion" at DRV. But
let's not get started on that route, I think we are broadly in
agreement that what is needed is a funnel of some sort, that
problematic articles get fed in, and which then triages them into
unambiguous crap for nuking, unambiguously good subjects for keeping,
and the stuff in the middle that needs something between a complete
rewrite and a bit of extra sourcing.
As much of an inclusionist as I am, compared to
Guy certainly, there
really is a lot of crap that gets a one week free ride, that I
wouldn't mind seeing reduced to a 2 day free ride.
We are all inclusionists, otherwise we would not be here in the first
place. The difference is just where we place the bar for inclusion -
or perhaps our view of what constitutes an encyclopaedia or an
There is too much strife at present, and I don't know why. I suspect
that the recent backlash against "tabloid" stuff is partly to blame,
but I don't really know.
What I have noticed is that there are more people out there who are
prepared to bolster trolls and shout from the sidelines. Maybe that's
just the disputes I get involved in, but it does appear to me that
there are more, and more aggressive, POV-pushers and trolls these
days. Yes, my personal experience does inform this, I currently have
a problem with some utterly baffling "overturn" advocates on a
deletion review for a laundry list of grudges against me by an editor
with fewer than 100 mainspace edits; the grudge list sat unedited in
his user space for nearly six months, and no RfC is ever likely to be
brought because his complaint is clearly and unequivocally baseless,
but the troll-enablers are out in force. Which goes to reinforce my
current disaffection with the whole project.
There seems to be a lot of troll enabling at AfD AND a shocking number
of accounts created to simply participate in one AfD. I keep
stumbling over there and finding myself in a different cyber space
In the meantime, getting some sort of funnel that keeps the obvious
crap from being kept for 7 days would be good, or any system that
says, "look you moron, you could hardly be lamer, let's be decent to
you and erase all evidence of your loserhood," would be great.
And what's with all the editors who tell me I can't clean up an
article while it awaits the trash heap? If it's up for deletion, and
it's going to be hanging around for another week as a certifiable
piece of crap, the first thing I do is edit the article to the least
offending version possible.
If we create a funnel, let's make sure it gives no indication that the
article has to stay looking like crap all the while it's up for
deletion, whether 2 days, or 1 hour.
I even edited 2 attack BLPs before I put the attack label on them.
They were deleted in under 15 minutes, but no one needed an effortless
view of the crap in those 15 minutes.