On 9/2/07, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote: In all fairness this is one of the few times I've seen anyone make a monumental mistake in a nomination and realize it, but that wouldn't have made the post any fun. Still it would taken less of his time to realize that Ja Rule is a bit too well known to be nominated for deletion for being non-notable, than it took to prepare the AfD. But, still, no penalties for people smart enough to realize when they've acted stupidly. And, Steve, I think it would be too long for a list. KP

On 9/2/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote: But what was more important, removing the improper material from a BLP or nominating it for deletion? In my opinion, cleaning up a BLP. Two of the recent nominations were as I mentioned before, DAVID CREWS and the one with the absurdly long name, both made a little extra work for people because the nominators couldn't have been bothered to at least move them to a correct name and speedy the absurd spellings or titles. And, it's not an occasional poor decisions, there are poor decisions all of the time, every day on AfD, nominations because an article hasn't been edited in 2 months or something, nominations because an academic isn't as notable as a pokeman card, and when the nominator can bother to follow it for all this time, but can't spend a second to clean it up. I think you should be required to tag and do the minimum clean-up if you can't be bothered to check to see if the subject is notable, at the very least. I also wonder if allowing people to nominate in in the first 30 days or so is such a good idea. I personally think all these people who join and start AfDing right away are simply sock puppets. KP

WPedians are human, even administrators. There are very few processes depending on people that work with more than 95% accuracy--especially when judgment is involved. Given that, bad examples will always be forthcoming. As a first approach I ask just 3 things: 1/ that we try to ensure our error rate for rejection is 5%, not 20%. 2/ that we have a more flexible and accessible process for detecting, reviewing and correcting mistakes, and use it more frequently and with greater participation. 3/ that those who insist on acting against policy but instead as they wish policy would be, do not become, or remain, administrators. On 9/5/07, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

On 9/2/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: Then could I nominate it for deletion on the grounds that it was largely incomplete and unlikely to be completed? I've seen that one used successfully, rather recently, too. KP

michael west wrote: Hmmm... That makes me tempted to build an AfD scorekeeper bot and a service that lets you easily check rankings. Sort of like eBay feedback percentages. Unless one exists already? William -- William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri

Charlotte Webb wrote: Having too formulaic a guideline probably wouldn't be a good idea, but _some_ means of limiting AfD nominations by "vexatious litigants" would be really nice. At the moment, I'm sighing at a guy who nominated every article relating to a particular major role-playing game system in one massive group AfD. That AfD was quite rightly snowed, but since some of the articles did look iffy the AfD was closed without prejudice. So he's now apparently systematically renominating every article individually with the same "NN" argument for each. He really should have got the clue from the result of the first AfD that that's not the right approach. I know that ultimately the wiki way will prevail, but it's so spirit-sapping in the meantime...