On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
No, the one he is talking about, who tried to use DRV to overrule a no-consensus AFD because it was more likely to get the result he wanted. This is a picture-perfect example of how process should NOT be (ab)used.
Currently it stands as follows:
A second AfD was started by me on "List of state-named avenues in Washington".
The first AfD had been closed with a no consensus keep, and the user was trying to get that overturned in DRV. I believed that it would be more appropriate to rerun the AfD and see what we got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_state-n...
This was closed by someone who falsely claimed that my nomination was made "in bad faith" (apparently because I recommended a keep result, although as a historical matter this is quite common in such reruns).
There is another case currently going through where an undeleted article has been edited to add two paragraphs and an external reference. Someone involved in Deletion review then protected the article and slapped a template over the top, apparently in an attempt to stop the editor improving the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Alexander_%28cartoonist%29
I have unprotected the article and removed the template.
I am used to this kind of illogic when dealing with those who frequent Deletion review, but I do recognise that this is very, very bizarre behavior. Attempts to prevent a second run of a deletion nomination because the first one is still being investigated, and attempts to prevent the improvement of an article because its earlier speedy deletion is under investigation. In both of these cases it seems to me that a process has been used to make it unreasonably difficult for potentially useful content to be retained and improved in the encyclopedia.