No subject

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 at 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 at 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.