From the point of view of those who disliked the
article, no harm was
done--the article was subsequently redirected to
"penis" and the
content moved to Wikisaurus. I read that AfD as indicating that those
involved did not know what they wanted to do with the material (for if
it was to be merged there was no need for an AfD) and the arguments
were a mixture of idontlikeit and that it was not a very good list. No
consensus is a safe decision: it does not delete, and it also sets no
precedent for keeping. DGG
On 5/11/07, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway
"This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous
occasions." i.e., he didn't just count votes.
While administrators are not supposed to count votes, neither are they
supposed to discount them unnecessarily. It's possible that the correct
result should be to keep the article even though counting the votes suggests
otherwise. After all, it isn't supposed to be a vote count; sometimes the
correct result doesn't match the vote count. But it's much less plausible
when it's constantly being done by the same admin. While not following a
vote count is expected some of the time, someone who *consistently* fails to
follow a vote count is doing something wrong. And some of the examples seem
rather egregious even as single examples;
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names for the human penis]] had
14 votes, only one of which was "keep". He closed it as "no
consensus".
The only way in which that had no consensus was that people wanted to get rid
of it and couldn't reach consensus on exactly what way to get rid of it.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.