On 3/26/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Most deletion, it doesn't really matter if the history is visible or not - it's not that the article is damaging as such, we just don't want it as part of Wikipedia. In this case, though, the deletion was (asserted to be) because the history was actually defamatory; if this is the case, we actively don't want to continue publishing it. Deleting libellous material, and then undeleting it so lots more people can read it, is conceptually a bit sloppy.
This is a circular argument, and one that seems prejudiced toward deletion. And you don't actually give the reason for this prejudice until your next email:
I did not say it was defamatory. I said it was asserted to as defamatory. As there is A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THIS, I can't possibly imagine how anyone got the idea that the content might be dubious.
In this case, because the removal is based on a fear of WP:SUIT, it should be an OFFICE action, and not a deletion. Not that I think office actions are a legitimate way of editing, nor do I think that a fear or SUIT is a healthy attitude, but the point is is that if its a WP process, this notion of sanitizing content in a prejudicial way is unwiki and against the community spirit.
-Stevertigo