Meta:Requests for undeletion

Stuff is deleted by administrators.

Generally these decisions are correct and undisputed (see also wikipedia:requests for deletion. Rarely, they are more controversial. The forthcoming deletion management redesign may address many of these issues, but that is some way off.

Generally the authors are told (or find out) about the forthcoming deletion, and have the possibility of disputing it. Sometimes they are not.

This page exists for people to challenge deletions that they feel were incorrect, or did not go through the proper process, or where the authors were not kept informed. It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged.

Non-sysops are handicapped in this because one cannot review the content of deleted articles unless one is a sysop. This is unfortunate. Sysops may decide to temporarilly undelete articles so that an informed discussion can take place.

Deletion should be a w:consensus decision, or a BenevolentDictator decision, not the excercise of GodKing powers.

---

• Undeleted Hard bans.

hardly suspicious piece of article. Wrongly named though. Use of singular when naming articles makes sense for easier linkage Anthere

• Undeleted Libel pit

• since I invented "Rainclouding" as amn alternate means to deal with troublesome contributors, I'm interested in what a troublesome contributor said at Wikipedia:RainCloud... -mrd
  • Restore done ;wikipedia:Raincloud - not a interesting page only one edit ever in its history and it is a redirect to User:Maveric149 I have put it again on the list to be again deleted Giskart 10:16 30 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Dang. Thanks anyway. -mrd

• Wikipedia is not a social club. Since I just thought up the slogan, I'd be interested to see what the "hard banned user" wrote about it. What harm is he doing, Mav? GrahamN 21:39, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • He is posting in defiance to the hard ban so it doesn't matter what he wrote because he should not have posted it here. What do you think "hard ban" means? If we read what he writes and keep that then there is no hard ban. --Maveric149 22:06, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • You didn't answer my question - "what harm is he doing?", but I'll answer yours. If this is the person whom I think you think it is, then "hard ban" means that some people who dislike this person's opinions were alarmed by the coherent and persuasive way he was expressing them. Finding that they could not manufacture the consensus for a ban, they browbeat Jimbo into banning him by Royal Decree. It's disgraceful. There was never anything near a consensus for a ban. Anyway, that aside, please could you let me read that article, please, Mr Adminstrator, Sir? GrahamN
      • He is anti-social and has (as 24) threatened Larry and (as 142.177) has threatened me, Jimbo and the rest of the "cabal". In fact Jimbo was so shaken up by it that he forbids his wife from opening packages they were not expecting. If you think that that type of activity should be encouraged by allowing him to continue to edit, then you have some emotional problems that need to be examined by a professional. So the only thing that is distasteful here is your accusation that the 142.177 hard ban is not justified. And the way we do bans around here is still by Jimbo's decree, so either get used to it or propose a better way (I would like to prevent Jimbo from being the bottleneck on bans - he waits too damn long sometimes). If you promise not to repost the text, then I'll send it to you via email. Just enter an email into your preferences and I'll use the 'Email this user function'. --mav