[WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

[Tony Sidaway]

On 1/30/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, the one he is talking about, who tried to use DRV to overrule a
> no-consensus AFD because it was more likely to get the result he wanted.
> This is a picture-perfect example of how process should NOT be (ab)used.

Currently it stands as follows:

A second AfD was started by me on "List of state-named avenues in Washington".

The first AfD had been closed with a no consensus keep, and the user
was trying to get that overturned in DRV.  I believed that it would be
more appropriate to rerun the AfD and see what we got.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_state-named_Avenues_in_Washington%2C_D.C._%28second_nomination%29

This was closed by someone who falsely claimed that my nomination was
made "in bad faith" (apparently because I recommended a keep result,
although as a historical matter this is quite common in such reruns).

There is another case currently going through where an undeleted
article has been edited to add two paragraphs and an external
reference. Someone involved in Deletion review then protected the
article and slapped a template over the top, apparently in an attempt
to stop the editor improving the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Alexander_%28cartoonist%29

I have unprotected the article and removed the template.

I am used to this kind of illogic when dealing with those who frequent
Deletion review, but I do recognise that this is very, very bizarre
behavior.   Attempts to prevent a second run of a deletion nomination
because the first one is still being investigated, and attempts to
prevent the improvement of an article because its earlier speedy
deletion is under investigation.  In both of these cases it seems to
me that a process has been used to make it unreasonably difficult for
potentially useful content to be retained and improved in the
encyclopedia.