[WikiEN-l] Re: Turn off AfD

Mon Dec 12 19:06:20 UTC 2005

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>>It's this notion of a "somewhat final decision" that's the problem.  Two
>>editors, at least one of whom must be a sysop for technical reasns,
>>should be all that's needed for undeletion.
>>
>>Ec
>>    
>>
>Why should 2 people be able to overthrow a bunch of others in case
>where there's nothing wrong with their judgement? You'd need a bloody
>good reasons for an undeletion. If you have evidence they were
>misinformed, undelete. If you know they didn't provide a valid
>rationale, undelete. If they provided a now outdated rationale,
>undelete. But undeletions as well as deletions should be proofed and
>checked by the community before they happen.
>  
>
"Overthrow" seems like a drastic term in these circumstances.  Why 
should a desire to undelete something be seen as an attack on their 
judgement?  Things have gone too far when the deleters take a simple 
request to undelete as a serious criticism of their personal judgement.  
It's as though they are insisting that they are never wrong.

Most of the deleted articles are unlikely to even have one person who 
wants to undelete, ever.  If even one person who knows anything about 
the subject was not available at the time of the deletion he should be 
able to have a meaningful influence on the decision.  Even in your terms 
that alone should satisfy the "misinformed" criterion.  Undeletions 
should be about content, not process or rationale.

Your last comment is illogical.  How can a community proof and check a 
deleted article unless it is first undeleted?  Yes, one person can ask 
an admin for a copy of a deleted article, but that one person is not a 
community.

>What makes you say only two people are needed?
>  
>
Because I don't think that one would be enough, particularly if that one 
is not an admin.  Having a second person agree gives a little room for a 
reality check.

Ec