On 9/16/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 9/16/05, Poor, Edmund W
<Edmund.W.Poor(a)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(a)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