[WikiEN-l] Criteria for deletion (was: Afd "votes" with no real reasons given)

Fri Sep 16 13:27:27 UTC 2005

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 at 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.
> 
> 