On 6/6/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's not quite that bad: I find that about 80% of
the articles that I
know enough to tell and think ought to be kept are kept, and another
10% are debatable. 90% is doing rather well, by WP standards. The ones
that get unfarly deleted are primarily the passable ones that nobody
care to defend or improve, and I see no way to have a process that
will protect in such cases. What we can do:
1/ is prohibit placing an article on Afd without notifying every
editpr who has been substantially involved-- and similarly on
sfd--everyone who has used a category or a template, or commented in a
discussion on them.This can be done by a bot.
Good idea, and already encouraged, but this should be made firmer.
2/ prohibit nominating an article unless one has made
at least a
preliminary search, and found nothing usable--with a report of the
search and a link to the results.
Yes, but you won't find everything on Google.
3/ to find a way to indicate approval of short
articles.
I don't exactly understand what this menas, can you elaborate or give examples?
4/ to prohibit placing a second AfD within at least 6
months after a
keep decision and 3 after a no consensus, unless new negative
evidence can be demonstrated at Deletion Review, and then to require
individual notice to everyone present at the first AfD
Heck yes, but maybe shorten the periods *a bit*. But this is
*desperately needed*.
Also, we might need to make some exceptions for "messy" AFD's, like
ones that are a mess of open proxies and sockpuppets.
5/ To require continuing the debate if fewer than 5
WPedians have
participated; after two additional periods, to automatically make the
closure no consensus
First part is already done; I have never seen a situation where the
second part would be used, but I don't think it could hurt.
6/ to automatically restore history for examination on
request to
anyone who asks, and to the entire community during an XfD*
Yes, but isn''t it already there during an XFD? Perhaps you meant DRV?
7/ to prohibit speedies during the discussion except
by the
concurrance of 2 admins. Everything that gets there should stay the
full time.This will apply to speedy keeps too--those stupid enough to
nominate them wil have their work visible.
Yeah, ok, but you won't have trouble finding 2 admins.
8/ to track those repeatedly proposing deletions that
are rejected,
and display the results.
Good idea, but how so?
9/ to track those making closures overthrown at
Deletion Review, and
to post the results.
Possibly, but maybe have that more as a warning to them personally.
10/ to change the time period to 8 days to accomodate
less frequent editors.
and involving other processes:
I think more like seven...
11. that in cases of proven copyvio only the copyvio
material be
removed. If this leaves a page empty, that's a separate step.
This should be done already. I think.
12. The relevant parts of these provisions apply to
speedies and prods as well,
*with exceptions of true cases of blatant copyright violation, BLP, or
other specific harm to individuals. The level of this should be the
level required for office actions or oversight.
Yes. That would be necessary.
I know a few of these have been rejected at various
times.
So propose them, and link to the discussion-- I know I'll support most of it.
This still leaves the basic problem of which KP complains--uninformed
editors and stupid actions. Those will always be with us.
Unfortunately, yes. ~~~~
DGG
--
Absolute Power
C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y