The real question is whether admins are mere vote-talliers.
Can users simply:
(1) Tag any article as "unmergeable" for a five-day period, to (2) Force a vote on whether it should be kept or deleted?
If so, is it the job of the admin simply to count the votes and then judge whether the percentage constitutes a "consensus" one way or another?
Apparently this custom has acquired the strength of Policy.
Last month I tested this policy by removing what I felt was a hastily-applied vfd tag and merging the information into a new article. The response had all the fervor of a personal attack: how dare I, don't I know (being an admin), etc.
But here's the point: if I had found out some other way besides seeing the VFD template, that the article was unsuitable in its current state - and read the reasons it was deemed unsuitable, I would have DONE EXACTLY THE SAME.
The only difference is some Deletionist claimed the right to stop all merges until the end of the 5-day vote.
This is BAD because
1. It requires me to come back to the article 5 days later, and re-acquaint myself with the matter (twice as much mental preparation work).
2. It stops everyone else from repairing the article (if all it needs is a merge and/or redirect).
3. It's un-wiki: the saying "anyone can edit any article, any time" no longer applies to this.
4. "Be bold" is suspended: I was bold, and get my wings clipped in a Big Hurry. (I can't remember now whether this resulted in an RFC on my action, but I worried about this at the time. How can editors be bold, if they have to worry about being the Target of a Public Hearing just for merging and redirecting info from a sub-standard article?)
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Tony Sidaway [mailto:f.crdfa@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:37 AM
I cannot discard a stated good faith opinion, even if I am not sure it was well informed. But I would certainly be justified in giving it less weight than an opinion that clearly showed serious thought, in determining whether consensus had been reached.
[snip]
We're not mere clerks tallying votes.
[snip]
Afd participants cannot just run down the list of debates ticking keep/delete according to their prejudices, and then expect their opinions to be given equal weight with those who consider the question seriously.
On 9/16/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
The only difference is [someone] claimed the right to stop all merges until the end of the 5-day vote.
That is unusual. You should be able to merge during the AfD, and this should be taken into account by the closer. You'd have to leave the AfD tag around. Don't get phased by the rule lawyers, if what you do makes sense there shouldn't be much of a problem.
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
The only difference is [someone] claimed the right to stop all merges until the end of the 5-day vote.
That is unusual. You should be able to merge during the AfD, and this should be taken into account by the closer. You'd have to leave the AfD tag around. Don't get phased by the rule lawyers, if what you do makes sense there shouldn't be much of a problem.
I agree with Tony Sidaway, however, the problem I've seen with merging during an AfD discussion is that the person doing the merge fails to include all the information from the article being discussed, therefore giving the appearance of significantly changing the topic of discussion by fiat.
If the merge is handled as a two step process, it may reduce the complaints. The two steps I suggest are: 1: Copy the article into the merge target verbatim, making absolutely no changes or edits. Note this in the edit summary. 2: Edit the merged article using your judgement. Note as appropriate in the edit summary.
In this way, the content of the article is undeniably still present, even to people who don't know enough to look back at the redirect's history, and any accusations of a "stealth delete" can be fully dismissed. The argument can then proceed about whether the information was worth saving or not, or can proceed to a revert war over the merge, but at least this way if anything is removed, everything is very clear and open about how the content "survived the merge, but then was edited out by use of an editor's judgement".
On 9/16/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
The only difference is [someone] claimed the right to stop all merges until the end of the 5-day vote.
That is unusual. You should be able to merge during the AfD, and this should be taken into account by the closer. You'd have to leave the AfD tag around. Don't get phased by the rule lawyers, if what you do makes sense there shouldn't be much of a problem.
I agree with Tony Sidaway, however, the problem I've seen with merging during an AfD discussion is that the person doing the merge fails to include all the information from the article being discussed, therefore giving the appearance of significantly changing the topic of discussion by fiat.
If the merge is handled as a two step process, it may reduce the complaints. The two steps I suggest are: 1: Copy the article into the merge target verbatim, making absolutely no changes or edits. Note this in the edit summary. 2: Edit the merged article using your judgement. Note as appropriate in the edit summary.
In this way, the content of the article is undeniably still present, even to people who don't know enough to look back at the redirect's history, and any accusations of a "stealth delete" can be fully dismissed. The argument can then proceed about whether the information was worth saving or not, or can proceed to a revert war over the merge, but at least this way if anything is removed, everything is very clear and open about how the content "survived the merge, but then was edited out by use of an editor's judgement".
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I think that could work. This way merges during an AFD period can still be undone by consensus, but bold moves or merges aren't stiffled.
Do you have the time to write a proposal?
--Mgm
On 9/16/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/16/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
The only difference is [someone] claimed the right to stop all merges until the end of the 5-day vote.
That is unusual. You should be able to merge during the AfD, and this should be taken into account by the closer. You'd have to leave the AfD tag around. Don't get phased by the rule lawyers, if what you do makes sense there shouldn't be much of a problem.
I agree with Tony Sidaway, however, the problem I've seen with merging during an AfD discussion is that the person doing the merge fails to include all the information from the article being discussed, therefore giving the appearance of significantly changing the topic of discussion by fiat.
If the merge is handled as a two step process, it may reduce the complaints. The two steps I suggest are: 1: Copy the article into the merge target verbatim, making absolutely no changes or edits. Note this in the edit summary. 2: Edit the merged article using your judgement. Note as appropriate in the edit summary.
In this way, the content of the article is undeniably still present, even to people who don't know enough to look back at the redirect's history, and any accusations of a "stealth delete" can be fully dismissed. The argument can then proceed about whether the information was worth saving or not, or can proceed to a revert war over the merge, but at least this way if anything is removed, everything is very clear and open about how the content "survived the merge, but then was edited out by use of an editor's judgement".
Yes, I think that could work. This way merges during an AFD period can still be undone by consensus, but bold moves or merges aren't stiffled.
Do you have the time to write a proposal?
I am planning to review what's out there, and look for a way to improve it during the day tomorrow. I won't be a bit upset if I find that someone else has already digested this into the appropriate pages or has already proposed doing so. ;)
On 9/16/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
This is BAD because
on the other hand it is good because it creates a very strong psycological boundry against continueing a AFD battle once the 5 days are up