"George Herbert" wrote
I am considering proposing a deletion process change - Increase AFD run time so that they run for six business days, ensuring that at least one weekend is in the AFDs run time so that people who have work during the week and a bit more bandwidth on weekends are sure to have a chance to see it.
You'd still have a problem with people who think WP:SNOWBALL can be used to justify almost any sort of early closure.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 10/1/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"George Herbert" wrote
I am considering proposing a deletion process change - Increase AFD run time so that they run for six business days, ensuring that at least one weekend is in the AFDs run time so that people who have work during the week and a bit more bandwidth on weekends are sure to have a chance to see it.
You'd still have a problem with people who think WP:SNOWBALL can be used to justify almost any sort of early closure.
Sure. But if the policy says "Thou shalt not SNOWBALL early close normal AFDs" then we can set people on fire if they close them early anyways.
If something is truly likely to snowball, one should PROD it, not AFD it. Snowballs are an indication that someone is taking an uncontroversial delete (or very clearly should be deleted delete) through the controversial or questionable deletion process role AFD is now.
The process change should also increase PROD time runs to 7 calendar days to ensure at least one weekend is included as well, for the same reason.
On 10/1/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"George Herbert" wrote
I am considering proposing a deletion process change - Increase AFD run time so that they run for six business days, ensuring that at least one weekend is in the AFDs run time so that people who have work during the week and a bit more bandwidth on weekends are sure to have a chance to see it.
You'd still have a problem with people who think WP:SNOWBALL can be used to justify almost any sort of early closure.
Charles
Realistically, what percentage of AfDs really have the outcome in doubt? Maybe 10%? IfDs are much lower - go over those noms, almost none actually require discussion. Like anything, SNOW is sometimes applied inappropriately - that can always be fixed afterwards.
WilyD
On 01/10/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Realistically, what percentage of AfDs really have the outcome in doubt? Maybe 10%? IfDs are much lower - go over those noms, almost none actually require discussion. Like anything, SNOW is sometimes applied inappropriately - that can always be fixed afterwards.
Of course, the moment it has to go to DRV, the burden of consensus changes.
Snow closes do get overturned at DRV from time to time. The main thing that is needed to improve DRV--and very badly needed--is wider participation. A rule --or preferably a bot-- that ensures that everyone in the previous debate MUST be notified would help--it has been requested many times.
Just as the request for 7 days at AfD has been suggested many times. Time to do it. See you on the discussion page there.
On 10/1/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Realistically, what percentage of AfDs really have the outcome in doubt? Maybe 10%? IfDs are much lower - go over those noms, almost none actually require discussion. Like anything, SNOW is sometimes applied inappropriately - that can always be fixed afterwards.
Of course, the moment it has to go to DRV, the burden of consensus changes.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l