On 12/10/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 12/10/05, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com>
wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
How do you deal with crap everyone agrees should
be deleted, but is
not actually speediable? Here's a thought - make it speediable!
Anthony
Are you kidding? A year ago, the paranoid community rejected two
different measures for something *in between* speedy deletion and AFD
(both involved admin discretion but not full reliance on it). What makes
you think anything will have changed this year?
I *don't* think anything will have changed. I said was talking about
what we *should* do, not what's going to happen. If everyone agrees
something should be deleted, we should delete it, period. Running it
through some AFD process first is not smart.
And how are you going to determine whether everyone agrees? Without a
central place, the only way to find out if a discussion is going is by
running across it on RC or in a watchlist, which you could miss if you
happen to not be online when it happens.
That said, if we turned off AFD, I think the number of speediable
categories would quickly grow.
Plus, in my opinion, Jimbo has set us into a new era of
experimentation on Wikipedia. We no longer need consensus before we
can at least try something out. Don't you think the paranoid
community would have rejected a proposal to disallow users that
weren't logged in from creating new articles? I certainly do, in fact
if you want consensus I don't even think the community would accept
such a proposal now (maybe it'd get a majority, I really don't know).
Jimbo is our benevolent dictator. He can do things because he's the
boss. If Jimbo decrees something that doesn't mean the rest of us
should stop looking for concensus.
If people won't trust
admins to semi-speedy something, why would they trust them to speedy
something?
I don't understand that question at all. Why should the votes of a
few non-admins and a few admins override the consensus of all admins?
If all admins insist on keeping something deleted, then there's
nothing that can be done about it.
If anything, considering how we've grown, I
wouldn't be
surprised if people would vote down proposals like Preliminary Deletion
even harder. People are scared of the potential for admin abuse. And
frankly, I don't blame them.
As long as the ability to delete remains possible, the potential for
admin abuse is very small. What is the potential abuse here? GNAA
gets deleted? I actually doubt it would.
You know what, forget the AFD experiment. Let's give admins free
reign over deletion for one week. Surely they won't vandalise
Wikipedia to the point where we can't fix things after the week is up.
After one week, we look at what got deleted, and we see if there was
any admin abuse, and if so how severe it was.
AFD is still there, but it's there for actual disputes. Preferably
it's there mainly for discussion about the underlying issues of what
should and shouldn't be deleted, and doesn't get bogged down in
minutiae of every single article (in some especially heated cases
maybe there will be a vote over a single article, but not hundreds a
day). AFD doesn't get it right perfectly 100% of the time. There's
no reason admins need to either. As long as there aren't gross
violations of the standards which we reach *through consensus*, it
really doesn't matter.
How can you determine if there is a dispute at the moment you nominate
something? If it's not yet deleted, it needs to be discussed (AFD is a
debate). If it is deleted in error you go to DRV.
We'll probably wind up with somewhat more
deletions this way, and
really I see that as a bad thing. But as AFD has pretty much
completely abandoned the notion of consensus anyway, it's probably
inevitable.