| Revision as of 02:46, 25 October 2010 editStrom (talk | contribs)996 edits Logic and reason?← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:48, 25 October 2010 edit undoStrom (talk | contribs)996 editsm Wording and wikilinksNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Previous reversions suggest that issues be taken to WP:DRV, but that page is only editable by Administrators. This means that an AfD can be initiated repeatedly with a fairly low bar for the burden of proof. However, in order to re-open the discussion, I need to be an administrator?! There's a quote from the 2008 AfD that is think is quite relevant. | Previous reversions suggest that issues be taken to ], but that page is only editable by Administrators. This means that an AfD for an existing article can be initiated repeatedly with a fairly low bar for the burden of proof. However, in order to re-open the discussion, I need to be an administrator?! There's a quote from the 2008 AfD that is think is quite relevant. | ||
| :"Consensus, and indeed even our policies, can change in 3 years, Alansohn. We are not even close to the same encyclopedia that we were in 2005. A bad decision yesterday does not make a tidal current that we can not swim against today. And a good decision yesterday may not be a good decision today." | :"Consensus, and indeed even our policies, can change in 3 years, Alansohn. We are not even close to the same encyclopedia that we were in 2005. A bad decision yesterday does not make a tidal current that we can not swim against today. And a good decision yesterday may not be a good decision today." | ||
| That was originally used to justify re-opening the AfD. Why can a regular editor not use such logic to re-open the AfD over 2 years later? I don't know all of the in's and out's of Misplaced Pages policy or how to initiate the politics associated with convincing an admin to raise this in WP:DRV ... which is why I've taken the "unilateral action" of recreating the article. ] (]) 02:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | That was originally used to justify re-opening the AfD. Why can a regular editor not use such logic to re-open the AfD (for a deleted article) over 2 years later? I don't know all of the in's and out's of Misplaced Pages policy or how to initiate the politics associated with convincing an admin to raise this in ] ... which is why I've taken the "unilateral action" of recreating the article. ] (]) 02:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:48, 25 October 2010
Previous reversions suggest that issues be taken to WP:DRV, but that page is only editable by Administrators. This means that an AfD for an existing article can be initiated repeatedly with a fairly low bar for the burden of proof. However, in order to re-open the discussion, I need to be an administrator?! There's a quote from the 2008 AfD that is think is quite relevant.
- "Consensus, and indeed even our policies, can change in 3 years, Alansohn. We are not even close to the same encyclopedia that we were in 2005. A bad decision yesterday does not make a tidal current that we can not swim against today. And a good decision yesterday may not be a good decision today."
That was originally used to justify re-opening the AfD. Why can a regular editor not use such logic to re-open the AfD (for a deleted article) over 2 years later? I don't know all of the in's and out's of Misplaced Pages policy or how to initiate the politics associated with convincing an admin to raise this in WP:DRV ... which is why I've taken the "unilateral action" of recreating the article. Strom (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)