On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If deletion was done like any other edit, we would have to somehow stop wheelwarring about deletion (which is now greatly confined).
And if you made an encyclopedia that anyone could edit, you would have to somehow stop edit warring about content disputes. I know I am being sarcastic about this, as I have been in the past, but I really can't believe that anyone on a Wiki seriously raises this objection. We don't have votes to determine how any other edits should be done, that are regarded as final once the vote is completed-- and with good reason. But we do with deletion. Why?
The whole point that the actual deletion button is given to admins is that
they know the deletion guidelines and are supposed to be trusted members. If deletion/invisibility powers were given to anyone, we'd end up with a mess
- useful articles deleted because one person didn't like them. And then
there's the strain on the server when substantially large articles get deleted and undeleted multiple times.
1) This still begs the question why deletion should be treated differently than other edits. We don't require that only people who understand the editing guidelines can use the "edit" button, but we do require it for deletion. Why?
2) Please ask the devs if it strains the server to have articles blanked and unblanked. This is already the case with vandalism, yet the servers seem to chug along fine. I want to know if there actually is any evidence that this would be any serious problem for the servers that isn't already the case with vandals.
Ryan