[WikiEN-l] editorial oversight, re: afd, fac, etc.

[dmehkeri at swi.com]

> > There are just too many uninformed drive-by votes for me to continue in AfD,
> > though, it's too contentious, the guidelines are ignored, editors make up
> > reasons for deletion, and well-sourced articles on major topics are liable
> > to be deletely simply because a small group of editors have never heard of
> > some obscure world-leader Nobel laureate.
> 
> Don't forget the human factor involved here. When a person finds they
> actually have a voice in a crowd, they may use it simply to be heard; and to
> call attention to the fact that they are there.


I remember voting[1] for someone to become an administrator. It failed, with
almost all opposers citing lack of project-space edits, some specifically
mentioning XfDs (various deletion debates). As in, they advised him to go
vote[1] on a bunch of XfDs and come back in three months.

This thread reminds me of this, because essentially he was being told to do the
very thing we are complaining about now.

I am pleased to see he has so far ignored this advice. But I wonder what happens
in other cases, and even whether other "aspiring administrators" see this and
take it to heart before putting themselves up for RfA.

Dan

[1] Yeah, yeah. Technically they're not votes.