On 2/1/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch(a)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for Undeletion (the original forum that was superseded by Deletion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.