[WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

[geni]

On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Gerard stated for the record:
> > Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> >>I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an
> >>ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people
> >>and existing companies*.  "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an
> >>instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the
> >>subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and
> >>effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote".
> >
> > Jumping into VFD discussions with a reference to this email? Though
> > let's see how many times the obnoxious have to be hit over the head
> > with this before someone decides it's "spamming" and blocks them!
> >
> > You see what I mean when I say that AFD/DRV consider themselves worlds
> > unto themselves, and bitterly resist anything perceived as outside
> > interference, i.e. the rest of the Wikipedia infrastructure.
>
> Many of us have been saying for a long time that the *fD gangs are doing
> active and hard-to-repair damage to the reputation of this encyclopedia.
>  Of course, every time we do, the reply is an accusation that we are
> mindless inclusionist, and no serious discussion can be held.
>
> Well, here's a serious proposal to encourage discussion:
>
> I propose <sigh> yet another level of bureaucracy -- a Deletion Review
> Board (which would have nothing whatsoever to do with the useless
> WP:VfU).  The Review Board would be empowered to penalize those who
> nominate and those who vote support such egregiously careless and
> /damaging/ deletions.  Deletions of unpublished garage bands can
> continue just as they do today.
>
> The penalties would be limited, perhaps to simply to "time-outs" of
> various lengths -- prohibitions from participating in any *fD process --
> and would primarily serve as a way of getting the attention of the
> offenders that /they are damaging the encyclopedia/ with their
> thoughtless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks.  Any offenses
> too great for that level of penalty would be dealt with by the ArbComm.
>
> I would appreciate discussion of this suggestion, particularly by Jimbo
> and my fellow ArbCommies.  Starting question: should we bash on it here,
> or take it to a Meta page?
>
> - --


So no action against those who vote to keep stuff that should be
deleted? Remeber a keep vote is worth more than a delete vot on AFD.

--
geni