This answer is not intended to address the specific post listed in the question, but rather the topic in general. I don't know the reason for the OP deleting this particular question. Maybe this specific example is a benign case and there are no real issues with undeleting it.
These Meta discussions tend to become precedent, so while this might be a special case, it is a terrible precedent. As a matter of general practice, I think the approach taken here is absolutely wrong and inappropriate, and violates the trust that users place in the site to be able to control their own posts within the site's guidelines.
Who "owns" the posts?
Ramhound states in a comment basically that all posts become community property as soon as they are submitted. The community does have certain interests in questions from the time of submission, and that grows when answers become attached. But it isn't unlimited community control from the moment of submission. The site has guidelines on when questions cannot be deleted, at least by regular methods. That cuts both ways. The guidelines also mean that questions CAN be deleted when those conditions are not met, and users post here expecting the guidelines to be honored.
Rules similarly apply to edits. On answers, we allow very limited edits that don't substantively change anything. Questions tend to get far greater overhauls if needed in order to meet site standards. However, if the OP disagrees with a question edit and feels it substantively changes what they're asking, they are not obligated to accept it just because the community thinks the change makes a better question. The question may get closed as a result, or the OP could choose to delete it if the action is allowed.
The point is that the community doesn't have total rights to do anything on any post immediately upon its submission.
Why was a post deleted by the OP?
We have cases, especially with new users, where they get frustrated trying to comply with site guidelines. They go back and forth with other members tweaking the question, unsuccessfully, and finally just throw up their hands and abandon or delete the question.
At that point, does the community own the question, and members are free to edit it at will to turn it into an acceptable question? This is a case where the OP may not care, or may even benefit and be thankful for the effort after the fact. But that heavy-handed approach is something we get away with, not something that is appropriate.
It may seem clear that the only reason the OP deleted the question was out of frustration. But there are many other reasons why an OP might delete a question. Just a few examples:
They could have a face-palm moment and think the question was a stupid one. They are embarrassed at having asked it or feel that its continued presence could call their technical reputation into question.
They could be choosing to post under a username that is not their real name in order to remain anonymous for reasons important to them. They could realize that something unique in the question would be recognizable by colleagues and would out their identity and their past posts.
They could realize that they inadvertently included information that is confidential, proprietary, or otherwise not for public consumption. If that's actually the case, it could cost them their job. But it doesn't have to actually be sensitive to cause the OP distress if they think it is.
The point is that we may not know why, or all of the reasons why, the OP deleted the question. When it is their right to do so under the site guidelines, it isn't other people's place to undelete it against the OP's wishes, particularly with the OP's username still attached, and particularly with any content intact that may have been the reason for the deletion (and we may not recognize what the OP believed was problematic).
Even if the question was deleted purely out of frustration, undeleting it has implications for the OP. They may want nothing more to do with the post. Undeleting it means they have to deal with the content, respond to requests for clarification, they might be expected to weigh in on answers (failing to accept any worthy answer can affect the perception of them by other users, and could affect other people's willingness to answer their future questions), etc. These don't even have to be real concerns; they could just be concerns or expectations of the OP that we burden them with by undeleting the question.
Undeleting against the expressed wishes of the OP violates site guidelines and norms. Undeleting without the knowledge and consent of the OP isn't really different. I mentioned some of the ways the OP can be affected. It puts the onus on them to pursue disassociation, if they are even aware that it can be done, after they have already spoken as to their intent.
If undeletion is done without the OP's involvement, the problems can be compounded by timing. It may eventually be re-deleted or disassociated, but we don't necessarily know when the OP will become aware of the undeletion. They have no reason to be expecting it, and posted with the correct expectation that it was their right to delete it. In the meantime, the problems for the OP, real or imagined, go on.
So I have serious issues with:
- simply undeleting it against the OP's wishes or without their knowledge and consent
- doing so with their username still attached
- leaving their content in place
- doing the above and then locking it here with upvotes
If we think the question should be undeleted, a completely different approach is appropriate. Have a dialog with the OP and request that they undelete it, possibly with modifications. If they aren't interested or don't respond in, say, a few days, start a new thread and leave them out of it. Post a brand new question that covers the issue without using any of the original information, and post answers there.