said you thought I was making disruptive undeletions So that you can see what I was really doing here are the steps that I took and the steps that you took This isn t a way of getting at you I think what you did was okay after your beliefs and I don t hold it against you that your opinions are opposed to mineyour behavior was okay according to what you could see or thought you could see at the time Tony Sidaway restored Tally accounting 19 23 19 37 various quite extensive edits extending article Tony Sidaway restored SuperOffice 20 40 Add ticker symbol and for this publicly listed company 02 41 told R Fiend who I d noticed had deleted Tally again that I d produce a rewrite of the already substantially rewritten article Wrote a new draft of the Tally article based on the original with a small amount of added information from my research 03 09 restored history of article Moved it to Tally Solutions Ltd 03 11I also edited the article about the company s founder Bharat Goenka to point to the new article 3 19 I invited R Fiend to relist it on AfD if he still thought it should be deleted Oops noticed that SuperOffice had also been deleted Tony Sidaway restored SuperOffice 3 25 I told R Fiend that I d noticed that he d also deleted the SuperOffice article and explained why I thought this was a very bad idea 04 13 R Fiend gave an amicable reply in which he said he d decided to list my actions on DRV Which is fine though not optimal since the articles were in an undeleted state and would probably have benefited from another go at AfD And there it ended Until you deleted both of them and blocked me Sjakkalle deleted SuperOffice AFD consensus Wikipedia Articles for deletion SuperOffice recreated and undeleted out of process Sjakkalle blocked User Tony Sidaway with an expiry time of 24 hours Disruptive undeletion of SuperOffice twice Sjakkalle deleted Tally Solutions Ltd AFD consensus Wikipedia Articles for deletion Tally accounting undeleted out of process This was four hours later There had been no wheel war You thought there was disruption but the deleter said he was fine with the article being undeleted during the discussion and I was fine with it too Still it can be difficult to assess a situation properly and you did your best No hard feelings From the above you can see that I was making good faith efforts to write an encyclopedia Sure I was ignoring process or rather short circuiting it but that doesn t matter one little bit Fuck process I didn t need a long and tedious undeletion debate to tell me what I already knew that the process that deleted those two articles was broken and that the way to fix it was to undelete and improve the articles Which I promptly did OK good to see that there are no hard feelings and I want to let you know that I value you as an administrator and contributor Keep in mind that process exists for a reason If anyone is given the right to simply ignore process and do whatever there would be no point in having process because anyone would be allowed to ignore it if desired Sometimes the process leads to decisions we don t agree with but simply short circuiting it just makes matters worse because it makes contributors feel that their opinions don t matter It is also difficult to say to a disruptive editor that we have these policies when they can point to an admin and say But this well respected administrator is allowed to recreate anything he likes Why can t I recreate the article on my teacher without being called a vandal It is often said that we are here to write an encyclopedia I agree Most of the time I spend at Wikipedia goes to writing or defending the encyclopedia I have initiated in the order of a hundred articles reverted away several vandalisms and worked a bit with categorizing articles which lack it in order to improve the structure I just prefer to write it within the confines of process and poli