On 2/1/06, Nick Boalch n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
The reason for this is that DRV is not consensus-based; discussions are effectively votes and a tally is made. At the end, the decision is overturned if there is a 75% vote to overturn it.
I've often wondered why DRV is set up this way, since it seems to be the only thing on Wikipedia that runs on voting rather than consensus (at least in theory). Was there a reason?
I think there was a fear that every failed AfD would end up on Votes for Undeletion (the original forum that was superseded by Deletion review). So there was a requirement for a majority vote plus a quorum of pro-undelete voters.
Deletion review kept the idea of hard numerical boundaries, but changed it to 50% to confirm a result (of what ever type) and 75% to overturn. There had lately been so many good articles slipping through the cracks that I had taken to just picking up the obvious ones, undeleting them (sitting out the odd block or two) and taking them to AfD, where the result was as often as not a near-unanimous keep.
It's a sick process. I think it needs to be killed. Any administrator, on his cognizance or at the request of a user, should be able to evaluate a deleted article, and if he thinks it was deleted by mistake he can clean it up, and if he thinks necessary he can take it through AfD. Having a forum for the purpose just creates a focal point for all the bad faith in the wiki in one oozing cesspit.
There are problems with the above idea. We don't want administrators fecklessly undeleting copyright infringing material and defamation, or for that matter anything resembling a steaming pile of crap. But an administrator misbehaved in this way could be stopped.