On 2/11/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)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
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.
deletion/invisibility powers were given to anyone, we'd end up with a
- 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