On 9/16/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There are over 500 admins. If you can't find an admin to support you I suggest that people should stop and think why.
Absolutely. I think more editors should use this method of appeal, since listing an article that can be seen and edited on a forum that requires a consensus to delete stands a far, far better chance of success than appealing for the undeletion of an article that most people cannot see and nobody can edit, and that requires a quorum and a majority vote to undelete.
However this only highlights the absurdity of the extremely onerous VFU requirements. Taken alongside the worrying trend on VFU to deprecate the function of reconsidering the merits of neglected arguments, anyone would think we were trying to *avoid* remedying mistaken deletions.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. I think more editors should use this method of appeal, since listing an article that can be seen and edited on a forum that requires a consensus to delete stands a far, far better chance of success than appealing for the undeletion of an article that most people cannot see and nobody can edit, and that requires a quorum and a majority vote to undelete.
However this only highlights the absurdity of the extremely onerous VFU requirements. Taken alongside the worrying trend on VFU to deprecate the function of reconsidering the merits of neglected arguments, anyone would think we were trying to *avoid* remedying mistaken deletions.
A delete via VFD/AFD means in thoery that you have consensus to delete. Another consenus should be needed to overturn this. Pure admin descissions should be overtunable by any other admin (at least that is the position I took back when I was the main inforcer of the 3RR.)
If what you say is correct then we have a problem over at VFU that it is trying to apply thr same set of standards to two differnt situations.~~~~
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
However this only highlights the absurdity of the extremely onerous VFU requirements. Taken alongside the worrying trend on VFU to deprecate the function of reconsidering the merits of neglected arguments, anyone would think we were trying to *avoid* remedying mistaken deletions.
The assumption being that many of the articles raised on VfU have actually been mistakenly deleted. Jay.
On 9/16/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
However this only highlights the absurdity of the extremely onerous VFU requirements. Taken alongside the worrying trend on VFU to deprecate the function of reconsidering the merits of neglected arguments, anyone would think we were trying to *avoid* remedying mistaken deletions.
The assumption being that many of the articles raised on VfU have actually been mistakenly deleted.
Of recent cases, I'd say that "List of gags in Airplane" is probably a mistaken deletion, as was "Gary takes a bath" and obviously "Elf only Inn". Yes, I think it's a fair assumption that a good proportion of articles appealed on VFU have actually been mistakenly deleted. It doesn't seem sensible to assume otherwise.
What concerns me is the presence of onerous and unnecessary barriers to undeletion. Temporary history undeletion should probably be provided as a matter of course unless there are, for instance, copyright reasons not to do so. I don't see any sense in requiring people to make a case about an article most participants cannot see.