On 11/03/2008, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
The coordinated attempts seem to be going in both directions. If one group of people can join to delete articles without all of them necessarily even reading them, others can do similarly to keep them. At present the process is set to favor the deletors.
You need a 2/3rds majority at least to delete. Clearly you are using a definition of favor unknown to the rest of the English speaking world.
Perhaps some of the people objecting to efforts to support articles want to continue it that way. The keepers are not disrupting the process, they are trying for equal treatment.
The schoolwatch mob had had equal treatment we would have far fewer school articles.
The first step in reform would be to not merely permit but require fair notice to all groups and individuals interested in an article--notice before the discussion even begins, to minimize the effect of immediate pile-on deletes.
You are free to inform whatever interested parties exist. It is unreasonable to expect volunteers to do so.
The second would be to make repeated attempts at deletion symmetrical with repeated attempts to re-insert: to require prior permission from a separate process for a second AfD after a keep.
No. You are free to go to vfu until people get fed up with you. Same as afd.