[WikiEN-l] VFU is utterly beyond hope

Mon Oct 17 01:53:25 UTC 2005

On 10/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 10/17/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No we didn't.
> > >
> > > The consensus appears to be against you on that one.
> >
> >Absolutely not. When we decide that the forum dedicated to undeleting
> >articles should not undelete articles?
>
> VfU does undelete articles, regularly. What you are arguing about are what
> VfU should consider as valid rationales for undeletion. Until now its
> mandate has been to undelete (or not) based on process - in other words,
> an
> appeals court; you would like to expand that to include undeletions based
> on
> content.

Until now? Didn't I send those links to what the VFU pages said just a few
months ago?

VFU was initially a page where you could list an article that you wanted to
undelete, and the community would discuss whether or not to undelete the
article. It wasn't about process, it was about whether or not the article
should be undeleted or not. There were articles which were deleted out of
process, which received a majority of support to keep deleted, and there
were articles which were deleted within process (at least, assuming you
agree with the twisted definition of consensus as 67%), which received a
majority of support to undelete.

Someone went in to the "rules" at the top of the VFU page and changed them
to say it was about process, claiming that there was a consensus for this
viewpoint. Based on the discussion here, there obviously wasn't such a
consensus.

Jay.

Anthony