Any article one dislikes can be seemingly deleted with enough persistence and adequate trolling. That was the case with [[Daniel Brandt]]. A valid rationale isn't even necessary anymore.
AFD is clearly a vote even though policy and people claim it isn't. AFD can't be fixed so long as the approach towards it is a vote. Consensus != votes but worthy comments. A lots of '''delete''', few '''keep''' should be kept if the delete remarks have no valid rationale and vice versa. We are explicitly seeking a "majority" vote to the point of calculating percentages. How can something like that NOT be a vote? "no consensus" closures should be given breathing space to promote people to discuss otherwise it is a vote.
Trolling should be strictly forbidden. Anyone trolling on RFAs, VFDs, CFDs should be immediately blocked rather than given any slack. Trolling itself should also be removed. If people are not able to give a rationale reasoning they shouldn't be participating in the discussion anyways.
In sum the first thing that needs to be done is to lower the bar for trolling tolerance. Second drop the vote approach.
- White Cat
On 6/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. A four month moratorium following a "Keep", or two months after a "no consensus" seems plenty to me. Maybe 6 and 3 respectively.
I don't think "no consensus" AFDs should delay anything, there should only be a delay if there is a positive decision to keep. I'd say 3 months is probably enough - a lot can change in 3 months.
If someone isn't happy with the result of a recent AFD, we should have a process by which it can be reopened (ie. not a new AFD, but continuing the old one, on the same page, previous comments still count). Someone would propose reopening the AFD and would have to give a reason explaining what has changed (reasons to delete/keep should be ignored at this stage). If people agree that something significant has changed (that could be some real world change in the subject making it more notable, for example, or it could just be a change in community consensus demonstrated by a similar AFD resulting in an opposite decision) then they vote to reopen. If the is a consensus to reopen, then the AFD carries on from where it left off, just like when an AFD is relisted at the moment.
It should be made clear that this is a different process to DRV - DRV is for when you disagree with the determination of consensus, reopening is for when you think consensus has changed.
The key thing with this proposal is that the comments made the first time still count after it is reopened (anyone who commented the first time round should be notified in case they want to change their vote), which should stop the "deletion by attrition" problem.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l