[WikiEN-l] Merger of [[WP:SOCK]], [[WP:SPA]], and [[WP:DOP]] into [[WP:U]]

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

Merging those first 3 might be a good idea, but without wide discussion this
is going to fall flat. WP:ATT hit problems too. We need to do some serious
thinking before trying a second merge.

Merging into the username policy is a bad idea. Sockpuppetry is more about
behavior than account naming.

Mgm


On 4/14/07, Dycedarg <darthvader1219 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Apparently some people got together...somewhere...and decided that it
> would
> make sense to merge [[WP:DOP]], [[WP:SPA]], and [[WP:SOCK]] into [[WP:U]].
> No link to said discussion was put anywhere on the talk pages of the
> articles to be involved in the merger, just general comments that it had
> been decided following discussions on WP:LAP, WP:VP, and WP:AN. I couldn't
> find any trace of a discussion on the talk page of WP:LAP concerning the
> merge, and that page has no archives. I'm not about to go trolling through
> the archives of WP:AN and WP:VP, but even if there has been discussion, it
> doesn't do anyone any good if no one knows about it or can find it. The
> only
> discussion relating to the merge that I found was on the talk page of the
> draft page where the merge was conducted before it was moved to WP:U, and
> that discussion involved no more than 7 editors. I just thought I'd try to
> bring this to people's attention, because I don't feel that this merger
> makes the slightest bit of sense, and the way much of it was done without
> even properly using merge tags (one was never placed on WP:U until I put
> it
> there, nothing was put on WP:SOCK until I put it there even though the
> material has already been merged, nothing was put on WP:SPA until the
> material was already merged, and WP:DOP was merged after having a merge
> tag
> on it for five days but without there ever having been a merge tag on WP:U
> or any discussion on its talk page) really gets on my nerves. I don't like
> it when a few people get together somewhere and decide the fate of
> multiple
> *policies*, not guidelines, without even linking to the discussion or
> mentioning it on the talk pages of the policies in question until major
> changes have already been underway. Not to mention I can't imagine why
> they
> thought the merger of a guideline ([[WP:DOP]]) and a somewhat
> controversial
> essay ([[WP:SPA]]) into a policy would be uncontroversial. That's akin to
> raising the status of those pages to policy level, and I've yet to see
> straw
> polls or any kind of discussion at all indicating consensus.
>
> --
>
> Dycedarg
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>