On 10/17/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/17/05, Poor, Edmund W
<Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
"function of VFU is to undelete articles
that have been processed
properly but shouldn't have been deleted"
Huh? What kind of process can be followed properly, yet produce an
incorrect result?
An imperfect one.
The AfD process is supposed to determine which articles are deletable.
Sometimes even though it's followed completely it ends up deleting
perfectly good articles. This is predictable and is why we have an
undeletion policy.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As long as you depend on the opinion and input of real people, the
deletion process is going to be flawed. All Wikipedia processes have
processes to undo bad or wrong decisions.
I think content arguments on VFU should be documented in policy. Not
only should it be possible to reverse bad admin actions but also
uninformed votes.
Undeletion should be an option for:
1) Deletion debates with unexplained and possible sheep votes.
2) If additional info comes to light.
Who's going to suggest these and perhaps some other options in policy?
Hopefully, some detailed situations will be acceptable for those who
think VFU is only about process.
--Mgm