On 07/04/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think of it this way: If the article could be kept in the past and the current version cannot be kept, it seems obvious that the correct course of action is to revert to the version that consensus was to keep. Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin deleted it anyway.

On 07/04/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Barbara Bauer.

On 4/7/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: Your options include asking me to clarify my reasoning if you couldn't understand it, or taking the close to deletion review if you disagreed with it. Proclaiming the death of AfD on the mailing list seems to me to be a less productive option than either of those two. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

On 07/04/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: Apologies, I though the statement was about RfA for some reason... My response was to "RfA is dead" -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 07/04/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: [...] s/dead/pointless, then. OK, I'll happily spend my time elsewhere instead.

On 07/04/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: Why waste time when I could be doing things for the project that might actually be useful? It seems like there's an awful lot of time committed to meta-activity; and whilst some is essential, it can easily spiral out of control. Exhibit A: RFA.

On 4/7/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: === "Asking the other parent" On the other hand, it is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are based not on the numerical fact of how many people showed up and voted a particular way. It is based on a system of good reasons. Attempts to change consensus must be based on a clear engagement with the reasons behind the previous consensus - not simply on the fact that today more people showed up supporting position A than position B. A good sign that you have not demonstrated a change in consensus, so much as a change in the people showing up, is if few or none of the people involved in the previous discussion show up for the new one. === IMHO The admin who closes a renomination should look for people who voted in the first afd who changed their vote from "keep" to "delete" in determining if consensus really has changed. Lacking that, the article should stay unless the article is substantially different from what it was when the article was first nominated. Even that case there is always the option of reverting it back to its pre-first-nomination state.