I don't know. The use of AFDs to merely game the system can't be right. It isn't spelled out as a violation of policy but WP:GAME and WP:POINT were written for that purpose. I can delete each and every article on any topic of my choosing if I make something like 500 afd nominations.
It is still gaming the system though. I am not convinced AFDs were done in a fair environment. Votestacking and meatpuppetry needs to be investigated.
Thats not really true either as WP:DE exists for dealing with situations like this. This isn't the first time someone has tried to pull up a stunt like this.
Nothing is being merged though. Articles are converted to redirects. WP:MERGE was designed for situations where you have a few short articles that do not have the likelihood of growing. How ever like many policies and guidelines even help pages like WP:MERGE was edited controversially. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Merging_and_moving_pages&... That inclusion of FICT to the help page isn't even mentioned in the talk page. FICT itself doesn't have consensus behind it. WP:FICT was significantly altered by an elite minority to serve their needs.
The current deletion spree is not based on consensus. It started over the small fry low traffic articles and had been escalating ever since. It started with TV shows and then escalated to Video Games.
See, a problem people do not understand is that this is not about saving a few pokemon articles "you could care less about". It is more of a concept fork. What do we want wikipedia to be? I want that to be discussed. This concept fork has been covered in great detail even by the mass media. The dispute itself has gotten so notable that we have an article on it on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia
- White Cat
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
He seems to be following the letter of the rules. I'd say he's ignoring the spirit--except that obviously some people think deletionism is in the spirit of the rules too. In fact, often the rules are made unclear so that different people can "agree" on them in the first place, which makes it hard to tell what the spirit of the rules ever was.
I certainly think this behavior *shouldn't* be allowed, but it's hard to see how not to allow it without changing the rules. The letter of the rules is badly broken:
- The AFDs are discussed and approved outside the affected pages. Some
people see this as a feature. (Mentioned in the amendment request preceding this)
- Once the articles are removed, he benefits from status quo. It's a lot
harder to contest an AFD after the fact.
- Making large numbers of basically similar changes makes it hard to
contest all the changes at once.
- A merge is not officially a deletion. We really need to give up on these
legal fictions.
(Variations on the first three happened for spoiler warnings too. This isn't coincidence.)
Though despite all this, the Barrett v. Rosenthal RFA further down the page is pretty scary all on its own.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l