Could people interested in fixing the problems AFD is causing in the wider world please come to [[WT:AFD]]? At the moment most of the responses to my message there are varying degrees of denial and/or indignation. I've pointed out that I put it there to point out the need for severe internal reform rather than a solution being imposed from without. But helpful suggestions on how to deal with problematic nominations/nominators and (not-a-)votes are most urgently needed.
And remember: just because a nomination or (not-a-)vote is in good faith doesn't mean it's not stupid or damaging.
- d.
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote in message news:fbad4e140601260443l5c3ed83n@mail.gmail.com...
Could people interested in fixing the problems AFD is causing in the wider world please come to [[WT:AFD]]?
I've suggested that we delegate a lot more work to WikiProjects, and make them more "official".
And remember: just because a nomination or (not-a-)vote is in good faith doesn't mean it's not stupid or damaging.
Heh! What was the road to hell paved with, again?
HTH HAND
It occurred to me that there are three totally different situations which could be described "deletion":
Topic: The topic itself simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and even a brilliant article should be deleted. Examples: Dictionary definitions, un-notable people/groups. Solution: Delete and put a note on the topic. Article: The topic itself could belong in Wikipedia, but it doesn't deserve a whole article. Examples: Less well known songs of notable but not famous groups, less well known characters in fictional universes ("fancruft"). Solution: Merge with other articles. Content: The topic itself could make a good article, but this isn't it. As it stands it's worse than nothing. Examples: Copyright vio, substub, horribly POV etc. Solutions: Delete, reduce to stub, call for help to rewrite, trim, as appropriate.
Perhaps the format for AFD could be modified to split nominations into these three categories. This could reduce some hurt for some article "owners" ("It's not that your writing is bad, it just doesn't belong here"), and also make it a bit clearer when an article is being deleted for the wrong reason. Ie, it's in the bad topic section, but the dispute is about poor writing or lack of comprehensiveness.
Comments?
(I can't get to the wikipedia page just at the moment, but if anyone wants to copy this there and reply there, that's fine with me. Use my en login name Stevage.)
Steve
On 1/26/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Could people interested in fixing the problems AFD is causing in the wider world please come to [[WT:AFD]]? At the moment most of the responses to my message there are varying degrees of denial and/or indignation. I've pointed out that I put it there to point out the need for severe internal reform rather than a solution being imposed from without. But helpful suggestions on how to deal with problematic nominations/nominators and (not-a-)votes are most urgently needed.
And remember: just because a nomination or (not-a-)vote is in good faith doesn't mean it's not stupid or damaging.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/26/06 9:20 AM, "Steve Bennett" stevage@gmail.com wrote:
It occurred to me that there are three totally different situations which could be described "deletion":
'''Support''' --~~~~
-FCYTravis
I'm not going to get involved with this. At this stage the only thing that can help Wikipedia's deletion process is to have it nuked from orbit. Only the Foundation can do that, if the new arbitration committee is too scared to act.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I'm not going to get involved with this. At this stage the only thing that can help Wikipedia's deletion process is to have it nuked from orbit. Only the Foundation can do that, if the new arbitration committee is too scared to act.
This attitude is not helpful. Furthermore, the arbcom doesn't really have jurisdiction over deletion process or any form of policy, IIRC -- Jimbo only delegated his judicial powers to it.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
On 1/28/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I'm not going to get involved with this. At this stage the only thing that can help Wikipedia's deletion process is to have it nuked from orbit. Only the Foundation can do that, if the new arbitration committee is too scared to act.
This attitude is not helpful. Furthermore, the arbcom doesn't really have jurisdiction over deletion process or any form of policy, IIRC -- Jimbo only delegated his judicial powers to it.
That beiing so, I'd gently suggest that the Foundation *must* get involved in this. Deletion is a mess and the various deletion-related forums have become a law unto themselves. We can't do anything, arbcom is scared to do so, and so outside action is required.
On 1/27/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That beiing so, I'd gently suggest that the Foundation *must* get involved in this. Deletion is a mess and the various deletion-related forums have become a law unto themselves. We can't do anything, arbcom is scared to do so, and so outside action is required.
Personally, it's not so much /scared/ as concerned it is outside the arbcom's jurisdiction/mandate. The arbitration committee has not considered content disputes within its remit, for one thing. Behaviour and adherence to policy ARE, but I think it would require an actual, specific case to be brought before the arbcom.
Gross incivility to others is obviously in contravention of Wikipedia policy, and if such is occuring within *FD I suspect the current arbcom would consider it within our jurisdiction to rule upon.
-Matt
On 1/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/27/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That beiing so, I'd gently suggest that the Foundation *must* get involved in this. Deletion is a mess and the various deletion-related forums have become a law unto themselves. We can't do anything, arbcom is scared to do so, and so outside action is required.
Personally, it's not so much /scared/ as concerned it is outside the arbcom's jurisdiction/mandate. The arbitration committee has not considered content disputes within its remit, for one thing. Behaviour and adherence to policy ARE, but I think it would require an actual, specific case to be brought before the arbcom.
Agreed. There have been tentative advances on this front, for instance in the recently concluded webcomics case where two issues were addressed: attempts to alter deletion policy without discussion, and alienating newcomers by smearing them as trolls and ridiculing them.
There have been some cases of editors using the laudable principle that the debate is not a vote as a kind of two-by-four with which to browbeat people who make too-brief statements. While it is desirable to have a good debate, this is not facilitated by having some participants haranguing others in this manner.
References to specific items in the undeletion policy are almost absent from the Deletion Review page, and some of the statements that are there go directly against the principles of the undeletion policy. A notice by me informing editors that I am temporarily undeleting pages that are subject to good faith nominations for undeletion has been removed twice on the pretext that my notice "wasn't discussed". There is in short a palpably abusive atmosphere in these forums. at least one such undeleted article has been deleted as "improperly undeleted." The presumption of bad faith is the norm.
On 1/27/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. There have been tentative advances on this front, for instance in the recently concluded webcomics case where two issues were addressed: attempts to alter deletion policy without discussion, and alienating newcomers by smearing them as trolls and ridiculing them.
The alienating newcomers part is what particularly concerns me. I think those on the 'front lines' of fighting vandalism and spam get very rapidly jaded and cynical, and start assuming bad faith automatically. In truth, I find, most newcomer editors are operating in good faith. Not being that familiar with the Wikipedia project, of course, many are in good faith attempting to do things we don't want or in ways that aren't the ways Wikipedia uses, but that should not allow us to think they mean any harm.
It is a mistake to put these people on the defensive, to make them feel attacked. Not all of them are capable or interested in being Wikipedia editors, but some of them will be - among whom may be many people capable of being excellent content editors once they understand the project better. It is not in our best interests to burn these people.
Even if their ultimate goals are not compatible with the Wikipedia project and they won't make useful contributors, we should endeavor to handle them politely.
Of course, some contributors are not acting in good faith. However, we should keep in mind that they may simply be misguided. Those adding spam links, for example, may not realise how much this is frowned upon here; seeing external links in many articles, they might simply have assumed that linking to on-topic external sites is acceptable.
Even with bad-faith contributors, it would be a good thing to handle them with as little drama and provocation as possible. If we have to show them the door, let's do it quietly and politely.
There have been some cases of editors using the laudable principle that the debate is not a vote as a kind of two-by-four with which to browbeat people who make too-brief statements. While it is desirable to have a good debate, this is not facilitated by having some participants haranguing others in this manner.
Again, goes back to assuming good faith. Encouragement to elaborate is a good thing, but not browbeating.
References to specific items in the undeletion policy are almost absent from the Deletion Review page, and some of the statements that are there go directly against the principles of the undeletion policy. A notice by me informing editors that I am temporarily undeleting pages that are subject to good faith nominations for undeletion has been removed twice on the pretext that my notice "wasn't discussed". There is in short a palpably abusive atmosphere in these forums. at least one such undeleted article has been deleted as "improperly undeleted." The presumption of bad faith is the norm.
I personally feel that Deletion Review has a worse record than AFD or the other deletion forums.
-Matt
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown Sent: Saturday, 28 January 2006 19:18 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More on WT:AFD
On 1/27/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. There have been tentative advances on this front,
for instance
in the recently concluded webcomics case where two issues were addressed: attempts to alter deletion policy without
discussion, and
alienating newcomers by smearing them as trolls and ridiculing them.
The alienating newcomers part is what particularly concerns me. I think those on the 'front lines' of fighting vandalism and spam get very rapidly jaded and cynical, and start assuming bad faith automatically. In truth, I find, most newcomer editors are operating in good faith. Not being that familiar with the Wikipedia project, of course, many are in good faith attempting to do things we don't want or in ways that aren't the ways Wikipedia uses, but that should not allow us to think they mean any harm.
It is a mistake to put these people on the defensive, to make them feel attacked. Not all of them are capable or interested in being Wikipedia editors, but some of them will be - among whom may be many people capable of being excellent content editors once they understand the project better. It is not in our best interests to burn these people.
Even if their ultimate goals are not compatible with the Wikipedia project and they won't make useful contributors, we should endeavor to handle them politely.
Of course, some contributors are not acting in good faith. However, we should keep in mind that they may simply be misguided. Those adding spam links, for example, may not realise how much this is frowned upon here; seeing external links in many articles, they might simply have assumed that linking to on-topic external sites is acceptable.
Hear hear! During my all too brief stint on the help desk (before being kicked off by Mr Wales for being too obviously Skyring) I saw any number of people whose hearts were firmly in the right place but just needed a bit of guidance. A lot of them weren't game to hit that "edit" button and wanted someone to correct mistakes on their behalf. I felt myself warming to these folk and did my best to encourage them to dive in. I told them that they would be met with mutual respect and a helping hand.
And I truly hope that they find this to be so.
But I fear that all too many of these bright new editors will run into people who resent them, people who have been here for a year or two and have staked out their own little bit of content or stylistic territory and stand ready to bark and snarl at any interloper. Do you know, I found one new editor who was brutally reverted and abused because he had the temerity to put full stops on the end of section headings? An admin simply picked up the Manual of Style and swatted the poor guy flat, repeatedly using the edit summaries to label him a numbskull.
I couldn't help feeling that a little politeness and gentle guidance would have gone a long way there. Ignorance of the finer points of wikistyle doesn't make a well-intentioned new editor a "numbskull".
I found a few angry people who had had bad experiences. One or two of them were obviously pushing some sort of agenda and were smarting because they had been legitimately seen off, but on checking the stories of others, I couldn't help but feel that things could have been done better.
I spent a couple of days manning the helpdesk and enjoying it, but I've got to say that the workload is huge, and more volunteers are sorely needed.
Peter (Skyring)
I personally feel that Deletion Review has a worse record than AFD or the other deletion forums.
The problem is that it has a split personality, dealing both with process and content, and often has trouble keeping its eyes on the ball. It must be a place where you can come and say things like:
"WTF? My article was speedied though it obviously doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. Can't I at least get a chance to defend it in an AfD?" (a process-oriented request)
But you must also be able to say things like this:
"I think AfD really dropped the ball when it deleted <X>. This is actually quite a notable whatsit as shown by <Y> and <Z>. Can I have it back?" (a content-oriented request)
The problem is that some people treat the process oriented requests as content-oriented and say: "No, we won't undelete it - it doesn't look like a worthwhile article to me." And some people treat the content-oriented requests as process-oriented and say: "No, we can't undelete it because the AfD was legit."
This is not good, DRV has to be able to handle both types of requests sensibly.
Regards, Haukur
On 1/28/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
The problem is that some people treat the process oriented requests as content-oriented and say: "No, we won't undelete it - it doesn't look like a worthwhile article to me." And some people treat the content-oriented requests as process-oriented and say: "No, we can't undelete it because the AfD was legit."
This is not good, DRV has to be able to handle both types of requests sensibly.
No. We should never restore crap content, no matter how mucked up the process was that deleted it, and we should always restore good content, no matter how perfectly the process that deleted it was followed.
Anything else is putting process before the encyclopedia.
Yes but determining who decides what is "good" and what is "crap" is the basic problem here. The deletion process isn't perfect but it's better than individual admins or users deciding what should be "rescued" and what shouldn't be. The whole purpose of the deletion process is to get community consensus as to whether an article should be kept or not. It's attempting to balance inclusionists like yourself and deletionists like me. If a better system can be devised, wonderful, but ditching it altogether is a bit rash and foolhardy to me. Mike
On 1/29/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/28/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
The problem is that some people treat the process oriented requests as content-oriented and say: "No, we won't undelete it - it doesn't look like a worthwhile article to me." And some people treat the content-oriented requests as process-oriented and say: "No, we can't undelete it because the AfD was legit."
This is not good, DRV has to be able to handle both types of requests sensibly.
No. We should never restore crap content, no matter how mucked up the process was that deleted it, and we should always restore good content, no matter how perfectly the process that deleted it was followed.
Anything else is putting process before the encyclopedia. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/29/06, Michael Lindeen wikikitty@gmail.com wrote:
Yes but determining who decides what is "good" and what is "crap" is the basic problem here.
This is the job of AfD and DRV. When AfD fails, DRV is supposed to correct the error. This isn't rocket science.
Yes but determining who decides what is "good" and what is "crap" is the basic problem here.
This is the job of AfD and DRV. When AfD fails, DRV is supposed to correct the error. This isn't rocket science.
But DRV also gets out-of-process speedy deletions. If it votes solely based on content then we've effectively lowered the bar for deleting something down to 50% support as long as you can find an admin to do the dirty work. That sends your precious "when in doubt, don't delete" out the window.
If everyone agrees that an article is crap then we can keep it deleted per WP:SNOW no matter what satanic ceremonies were used to destroy it. But if there are people arguing in good faith that an article is worthwhile and it was indeed deleted out of process then we should restore it and give it a chance at AfD where a supermajority is required to delete something.
Regards, Haukur
On 1/29/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Yes but determining who decides what is "good" and what is "crap" is the basic problem here.
This is the job of AfD and DRV. When AfD fails, DRV is supposed to correct the error. This isn't rocket science.
But DRV also gets out-of-process speedy deletions. If it votes solely based on content then we've effectively lowered the bar for deleting something down to 50% support as long as you can find an admin to do the dirty work. That sends your precious "when in doubt, don't delete" out the window.
Not at all. If the speedy is undeleted while being discussed on DRV, there's nothing to stop someone cleaning it up listing it in good faith on AfD. That's the beauty of having (non-problematic) articles undeleted while on DRV. The article becomes visible, editable and improvable and if it ends up going to AfD and being kept there then so much the better.
Not at all. If the speedy is undeleted while being discussed on DRV, there's nothing to stop someone cleaning it up listing it in good faith on AfD. That's the beauty of having (non-problematic) articles undeleted while on DRV. The article becomes visible, editable and improvable and if it ends up going to AfD and being kept there then so much the better.
Good, especially if we can institutionalize it. We need a streamlined DRV procedure to avoid time-wasting wheel-wars and blocks. Currently we have something of a Wild West atmosphere.
Regards, Haukur
On 1/29/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Not at all. If the speedy is undeleted while being discussed on DRV, there's nothing to stop someone cleaning it up listing it in good faith on AfD. That's the beauty of having (non-problematic) articles undeleted while on DRV. The article becomes visible, editable and improvable and if it ends up going to AfD and being kept there then so much the better.
Good, especially if we can institutionalize it. We need a streamlined DRV procedure to avoid time-wasting wheel-wars and blocks. Currently we have something of a Wild West atmosphere.
The reason for this, in my opinion, is that there is a very storng culture of bad faith on the deletion forums. Just a few minutes ago on IRC one administrator whom I respect greatly said, quite candidly and without any hint that what he was saying might be controversial, that nearly all DRV listings are in bad faith, anyway. I'm doing my best to lead by example, opening up the procedure so that it doesn't unnecessarily hamper the wiki aspect of Wikipedia and so that commonsense moves of venue from DRV to AfD, where appropriate, are not artificially hampered.
Yes, In the past I have had to repeatedly undelete articles in order to shift venue, in cases where the subsequent AfD has resulted in near unanimous keeps of good articles. I'm not ashamed of having done that, and I don't care if people call it wheel warring. It certainly was not abuse of my administrator powers. But it is, undoubtedly, undesirable to have administrators faced with the dilemma of either going against other admnistrators in order to ensure a move to AfD, or accepting the rubber-stamping of a bad deletion call. This change in procedure should make that unnecessary. Articles will be visible and editable and a switch to AfD, where appropriate, will be painless.
On 1/28/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
The alienating newcomers part is what particularly concerns me. I think those on the 'front lines' of fighting vandalism and spam get very rapidly jaded and cynical, and start assuming bad faith automatically.
No. They stop assuming anything. Assuming bad faith will mean you make mistakes as will assuming good faith. The the shear number of descissions the people on the front line have to make means that it is ilogical to do anything that will increase the number of mistakes you make.
-- geni
On 1/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
That beiing so, I'd gently suggest that the Foundation *must* get involved in this. Deletion is a mess and the various deletion-related forums have become a law unto themselves. We can't do anything, arbcom is scared to do so, and so outside action is required.
Who is the "we" who can't do anything? The community? I do not want to believe that the community as a whole is in such a bad state that it could fail to reform its own processes without interference from some perceived "higher body" - a body that was certainly not elected to reform deletion processes on the English Wikipedia. If you really think a body is needed to do that, perhaps it time to elect one of those instead of relying on one elected to do something entirely different.
Angela.
Suit yourself. Deletion policy is a festering sore and I see no will within the community to bang heads together and wag fingers with sufficient severity to remedy the fundamental atmosphere of bad faith.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
On 1/28/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I'm not going to get involved with this. At this stage the only thing that can help Wikipedia's deletion process is to have it nuked from orbit. Only the Foundation can do that, if the new arbitration committee is too scared to act.
This attitude is not helpful. Furthermore, the arbcom doesn't really have jurisdiction over deletion process or any form of policy, IIRC -- Jimbo only delegated his judicial powers to it.
That beiing so, I'd gently suggest that the Foundation *must* get involved in this. Deletion is a mess and the various deletion-related forums have become a law unto themselves. We can't do anything, arbcom is scared to do so, and so outside action is required.
Assume good faith, Tony. Accusing us of being scared is not going to persuade us to do what you want us to do.
- -- Sean Barrett | Suicide is the most sincere sean@epoptic.org | form of self-criticism.
On 1/28/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Assume good faith, Tony. Accusing us of being scared is not going to persuade us to do what you want us to do.
It was worth a try! :-D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
I'm not going to get involved with this. At this stage the only thing that can help Wikipedia's deletion process is to have it nuked from orbit. Only the Foundation can do that, if the new arbitration committee is too scared to act.
The Arbitration Committee is a judiciary, not a legislature. We weren't elected to design and implement organizational structures and processes.
Until we have a case, we have nothing to do. When are we going to see "Tony Sidaway v. Afd" on our docket?
- -- Sean Barrett | Some days it's just not worth filing sean@epoptic.org | the environmental impact statement.
This is my first post here. Heya. I'm woohookitty. He of 10 gazillion edits. :) Anyway, I agree with Sean here. The arbcom cannot get rid of afd even if they wanted to. They cannot nuke it from orbit. I can't even see how it could come up in an arbcom case. They take user conduct disputes, not policy disputes per se. Mike
On 1/28/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
I'm not going to get involved with this. At this stage the only thing that can help Wikipedia's deletion process is to have it nuked from orbit. Only the Foundation can do that, if the new arbitration committee is too scared to act.
The Arbitration Committee is a judiciary, not a legislature. We weren't elected to design and implement organizational structures and processes.
Until we have a case, we have nothing to do. When are we going to see "Tony Sidaway v. Afd" on our docket?
Sean Barrett | Some days it's just not worth filing sean@epoptic.org | the environmental impact statement. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD24+5MAt1wyd9d+URAjnaAJ9JvLufYWOGk4pZ3B8fTL8Jn0LBZgCfSYnD AJ4uCucC/+Yv96Hggg6mAS0= =dUOd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sean Barrett wrote:
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
I'm not going to get involved with this. At this stage the only thing that can help Wikipedia's deletion process is to have it nuked from orbit. Only the Foundation can do that, if the new arbitration committee is too scared to act.
The Arbitration Committee is a judiciary, not a legislature. We weren't elected to design and implement organizational structures and processes.
Until we have a case, we have nothing to do. When are we going to see "Tony Sidaway v. Afd" on our docket?
When all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried, of course.
On 1/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Until we have a case, we have nothing to do. When are we going to see "Tony Sidaway v. Afd" on our docket?
When all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried, of course.
The arbcom has, on occasion, taken cases where not all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried.
-Matt
On 1/29/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Until we have a case, we have nothing to do. When are we going to see "Tony Sidaway v. Afd" on our docket?
When all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried, of course.
The arbcom has, on occasion, taken cases where not all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried.
-Matt
well I seem to recall there has already been an RFC on deletionists so that would just leave medation.
-- geni
Jesus. If we did that, it would involve about half of the site. If people don't like the deletion policy, they can get it changed through consensus just like anything else we do. I don't understand why it automatically becomes "we have to use dispute resolution". There is no "dispute" per se. Mike
On 1/28/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/29/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/28/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Until we have a case, we have nothing to do. When are we going to see "Tony Sidaway v. Afd" on our docket?
When all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried, of course.
The arbcom has, on occasion, taken cases where not all other forms of dispute resolution have been tried.
-Matt
well I seem to recall there has already been an RFC on deletionists so that would just leave medation.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Lindeen stated for the record:
Jesus. If we did that, it would involve about half of the site. If people don't like the deletion policy, they can get it changed through consensus just like anything else we do. I don't understand why it automatically becomes "we have to use dispute resolution". There is no "dispute" per se. Mike
A great many people would dispute that statement.
- -- Sean Barrett | That would have worked if you hadn't sean@epoptic.org | stopped me. --Dr. Egon Spengler