On 9/13/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
So instead you want to give more power to admins? Wikipedia descisions are not made by professional professional deletionists. Most seem to be made by random peopel who just happened to find out about the deleteion listing. As for your claim "Deleting encyclopedic articles harms the encyclopedia" it can only be true if you assume that survival of the fitest type evolution does not apply to wikis.
I'm simply suggesting that admins should be more willing to use judgment in making the decision deletions they are already empowered to make. This isn't about giving new powers to admins, it's about expecting admins to exercise their existing powers with judgment and discretion instead of mechanically.
AFD is swarming with professional deletionists, and many deleted articles were deleted with input mainly from editors whose main contribution to Wikipedia is to vote to delete things. I question whether this group of individuals fairly represents the Wikipedia community, and therefore whether AFD actually arrives at community consensus, except in obvious cases, and therefore call for admins to exercise their judgment in evaluting AFDs for whether they reflect true consensus, and also for admins to feel free to boldly undelete articles that were clearly deleted in a manner which harms the encyclopedia.
I know that it has become popular to grill admin candidates on their criteria for "consensus" at AFD, and candidates who fail to meet the standard that the deletionists have established as "reasonable" get dogpiled with oppose votes. Frankly, I'm worried about this emergent mob mentality, which I think is encouraged by having a caste of professional deletionists, which is itself a consequence of having a centralized deletion mechanism.
Kelly
On 9/13/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
AFD is swarming with professional deletionists, and many deleted articles were deleted with input mainly from editors whose main contribution to Wikipedia is to vote to delete things. I question whether this group of individuals fairly represents the Wikipedia community, and therefore whether AFD actually arrives at community consensus, except in obvious cases, and therefore call for admins to exercise their judgment in evaluting AFDs for whether they reflect true consensus, and also for admins to feel free to boldly undelete articles that were clearly deleted in a manner which harms the encyclopedia.
Name one article that was wrongly deleted in the past 3 days.
--Mgm
From: Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com
AFD is swarming with professional deletionists, and many deleted articles were deleted with input mainly from editors whose main contribution to Wikipedia is to vote to delete things. I question whether this group of individuals fairly represents the Wikipedia community, and therefore whether AFD actually arrives at community consensus, except in obvious cases, and therefore call for admins to exercise their judgment in evaluting AFDs for whether they reflect true consensus, and also for admins to feel free to boldly undelete articles that were clearly deleted in a manner which harms the encyclopedia.
What is a "professional deletionist"? Is is a paid position? Does it require annual certification?
I know that it has become popular to grill admin candidates on their criteria for "consensus" at AFD, and candidates who fail to meet the standard that the deletionists have established as "reasonable" get dogpiled with oppose votes. Frankly, I'm worried about this emergent mob mentality, which I think is encouraged by having a caste of professional deletionists, which is itself a consequence of having a centralized deletion mechanism.
This "deletionist cabal" view of the way both RFA and AFD work does not correspond to any sort of reality that I am aware of.
Jay.
On 9/13/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
I know that it has become popular to grill admin candidates on their criteria for "consensus" at AFD, and candidates who fail to meet the standard that the deletionists have established as "reasonable" get dogpiled with oppose votes. Frankly, I'm worried about this emergent mob mentality, which I think is encouraged by having a caste of professional deletionists, which is itself a consequence of having a centralized deletion mechanism.
This "deletionist cabal" view of the way both RFA and AFD work does not correspond to any sort of reality that I am aware of.
Check out the number of admin candidates who were asked to specify their standard for AFD consensus by Hamster Sandwich. Sam Vimes got dogpiled when his answer was deemed unsuitable (although he may have been dogpiled for other reasons as well). JesseW was also interrogated closely, although he passed muster and was not dogpiled. Marianocecowski was interrogated. Scimitar was interrogated, but the question was removed when it was answered collaterally. Hamser Sandwich seems to have discontinued this interrogation method, but I'm not pleased to see it happening.
Kelly
From: Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com
On 9/13/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
I know that it has become popular to grill admin candidates on their criteria for "consensus" at AFD, and candidates who fail to meet the standard that the deletionists have established as "reasonable" get dogpiled with oppose votes. Frankly, I'm worried about this emergent mob mentality, which I think is encouraged by having a caste of professional deletionists, which is itself a consequence of having a centralized deletion mechanism.
This "deletionist cabal" view of the way both RFA and AFD work does not correspond to any sort of reality that I am aware of.
Check out the number of admin candidates who were asked to specify their standard for AFD consensus by Hamster Sandwich. Sam Vimes got dogpiled when his answer was deemed unsuitable (although he may have been dogpiled for other reasons as well).
He *may* have been "dogpiled" for other reasons as well? I've looked over the RfA, and it is quite apparent that a majority of "Oppose" votes occurred before Hamster Sandwich even asked the question, and that *none* of the oppose vote rationales have anything to do with his response to Hamster's question, including Hamster's own vote. The only person who seems to have cared about the question at all was *you*, who voted "Support, to counterweigh against the oppose votes of the wikilawyers and the deletionist society."
JesseW was also interrogated closely, although he passed muster and was not dogpiled. Marianocecowski was interrogated. Scimitar was interrogated, but the question was removed when it was answered collaterally.
I looked over these votes as well; no-one seems to have cared about the responses to the question except Hamster Sandwich.
Hamser Sandwich seems to have discontinued this interrogation method, but I'm not pleased to see it happening.
In other words, *one* editor asked a question relating to this on *four* RfA pages, the RfA votes themselves seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with "deletionist" tendencies, and no-one has ever been "dogpiled" there for failing to meet some "deletionist" standard.
As I stated above, your "deletionist cabal" view of the way both RFA and AFD work does not correspond to any sort of reality that I am aware of, and this only strengthens my point.
Jay.