On 09/09/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: You're on your way to setting a new record for clear helpfulness in your responses. - d.

On 9/9/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] [snip] Evidence? As far as I can tell DRV exists because there was a group of users who didn't feel like they were given enough control over Wikipedia... so another page was required to give a larger audience their power fix. Wikipedia (tm) The free content encyclopedia where everyone is CEO.

On Sep 9, 2006, at 4:56 PM, geni wrote: You're confusing DRV with VfU. VfU was the very nice page we used to have where deletions could be contested. DRV is what happened when the deletionists got mad that VFU was being used to give articles a "second chance," and so they overwhelmed all sense and made it so that you couldn't undelete an article on the grounds that the outcome was idiotic. Unfortunately, this didn't actually put an end to AfD coming to idiotic conclusions, leaving us without a good mechanism in place to deal with that - a particular problem considering the continued belief of some AfD regulars that AfDs that close "delete" all mean "and salt the earth so that this article may never rise again." Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer(a)english.ufl.edu You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:11 PM, geni wrote: Clearly you enjoy it, yes. Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer(a)english.ufl.edu You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

Let alone all subsequent replies. But honestly, 'stop screwing up deletions in the first place' is the perfect solution, its just impossible to implement. I say for every controversial AfD closure or prod, 3 sysops have to take a call and article is only deleted if 2 of 3 vote delete. On 9/10/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/09/06, Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote: PROD takes a bit of the load off AFD, though I don't know numbers. (Anyone?) And undeleting after a PROD is a matter of asking an admin for the undelete (and then fixing whatever got it PRODded in the first place, or it may end up on AFD proper). So AFD can consider the contentious stuff in a bit more depth. Sure there is - the closing admin is supposed to apply sense. Nineteen "* never heard of it, delete" followed by one "Keep, I'm an expert and I've added full references confirming its verifiability and notability" is supposed to result in a keep, 'cos it's not a vote. The admins are relatively sensible most of the time I've looked of late. - d.

On 9/11/06, Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, yes. AFD and its ilk are designed precisely to maximize the ability of the "uninvolved" to !vote on as many nominations as possible, as efficiently as possible. (Hence the emergence of WikiVoter, or whatever they're calling it this week.) This is not a function of the particular details of the process, incidentally, but rather the fact that a rigidly centralized process like the current AFD necessarily encourages people to participate on topics of which they are mostly ignorant (and about which they couldn't care less, usually -- except for the fact that they happened to come up in that day's deletion listings). (The obvious consequence of this is that we can expect any fundamental change to AFD will be rigidly resisted by those whose heavy participation in the deletion process might be curtailed by such a change.) -- Kirill Lokshin

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:23:11 -0400, "Carl Peterson" <carlopeterson(a)gmail.com> wrote: It is strange that you see it this way. As far as I can see, DRV is one of the few places where there is a serious attempt at a clue-based approach. Whatever the notional rules, people look at both content and process, and take a view on what is likely to be best for the project. Obviously it's not consistent, but I have seen patient explanations to purveyors of egregious vanity and other examples of good practice. I have also seen that the process is denounced by those who fail to get their favoured articles kept - the ED mob, for example. That is not DRV's fault, it's the fault of people who have a stake in the content of an article becoming excessively impassioned. In the case of the esoteric programming languages, overall, most of them were below the level of trivial and in many cases looked like vanity for the creators. Several people at DRV asked that those which were considered to have been wrongly deleted, be listed separately, since the majority were clearly (to my mind) delete-worthy. But I do think that AfD is not a good mechanism for deciding on a class of articles. Maybe a block RfC to discuss the individual articles, with an AfD nom at the end for those which by consensus in that discussion should be deleted. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Are you quite sure about that?

Matt Brown wrote: Indeed. Any process that results in a group nomination of 61 articles and allows both group votes and individual voting on each specific article like this is a horrendous mess. What sense can possibly be made of all the "keep most" and "delete most" votes?

Akash Mehta wrote: ... of DRV? Excellent idea. PS. I've never been too fond of the name "Deletion review" - sounds like some sort of revisionist history/slander site... -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 9/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Or simply delete it, a la Uncle Ed. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

Akash Mehta wrote: [fixed top posting, again] ... which is why I've MFD'ed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:De… -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 10/09/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm shocked and amazed mine is the first "kill it". - d.

geni wrote: Next week we're taking out stub-sorting and introducing captchas to break all the semi-bots; only users with a bot flag will be exempt. Oh, and thanks to people claiming the "DRV doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted" (despite the fact that several people were strongly in favour), I've now created the proposed policy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Undeletion for your perusal. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 9/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Wikipedia:Deletion_r…

On 9/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: of Deletion" (or something similar) for process appeals and Articles for Undeletion for content appeals. Basically, disambiguate the usage and intent. Carl

On 12/09/06, ikiroid <ikiroid(a)gmail.com> wrote: And even if they don't think it, they *behave* towards any suggestion of change as if it will destroy their power base. Of course, their concern is actually that any suggestion of change will corrupt and thus destroy Wikipedia, or provide a precedent for such. - d.

On 9/10/06, Akash Mehta <draicone(a)gmail.com> wrote: This possibility was discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_… I think it was generaly assumed it was a bad idea. -- geni

On 12/09/06, Jim <trodel(a)gmail.com> wrote: The problem with this one was not actually the result - I agree with pretty much the entire list of keeps and deletes. But it's a gross abuse of the deletion process, and anyone on DRV who could say "Endorse process" on this one with a straight face has shown themselves to be below a certain level of complexity. - d.