|
List of defecation postures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)
Shit(sic), I can't believe I'm doing this.
I haven't read the article text, I don't even care if the article gets merged, deleted or whatever. However a conclusion of, "The result was MERGE INTO NEW ARTICLE THEN SEEK SPEEDY DELETE - Nonadmin closure by nominator user:Pharmboy" just has to be the worst sort of abuse of process. Surely a nominator can't close their proposal for deletion as such a fait accompli? That would be a mockery of the whole notion of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Short version: Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't close any discussion I was the nominator for. In this case, everyone involved was in full agreement.
- Long version: Basically, the original author changed the articles into (logical) redirects, and merged all the material into Defecation posture. Now, this actually made sense. Instead of three articles, each focusing on an individual posture, and a separate article with a "list" of the two, you had one comprehensive article. The only problem is that the "list of" article was really not needed as a redirect, and under any circumstance, was not up to policy. The quickest and easiest way was if the original author agreed to blank and request speedy for it, which he saw the logic in and had no problem with. Once that was accomplished, there was no reason for the AFD. Basically, it was the equivelent of WITHDRAWING the AFD because the original article was speedy deleted and the others redirected. I simply put the real explanation of what happened, for the record. (ie: if I had just said "withdrawn", we wouldn't be here, but it wouldn't have been 100% honest) Both the nominator and the original author were happy with the outcome and agree with the method (see his talk page and my talk page) and no other editor has contacted either of us with a complaint. The content was saved, it was reorganized in a better fashion, and Godwin's Law was never an issue. As for this review, I understand since it was a non-admin closure by the nom, (my first closure I do believe), so I am open to any constructive criticism. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should ask Caesar's wife about this. It's not about whether this was a good action, it's about whether it's seen as a good action, as having been carried out beyond reproach. Having now read some more talk pages, I'm happy that the useful content of this has been preserved and that no-one has a substantive problem with it. However couldn't you have had some 3rd party close it? Or even note the closing comment as, "Content merged by consensus, remaining empty article can now be WP:CSD#G7" ?
- My concern is that wikipedia has a problem with deletionists who would love to adopt this sort of action as a precedent to make themselves judge, jury and executioner all in one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken, and after consideration, I see this would be a bad precedent. Again, today was the first day I have ever closed a discussion (6k edits in 2 years, so not new, just new to closing, did 2 today). I had not though about the potential perception of this particular action, but I do see what you mean. I was too literal in my explanation, but better yet, I should have instead gotten a 3rd party (admin or otherwise) to close in this circumstance to remove any perception that I was thinking myself above the process, or worse, to create an illusion that this type of closure is "normal". I would hope that a review of the entire process (and my history) demonstrates I do not think I am above the process, and was only taking a bit of a (shortsited) shortcut. I see a lot of areas at Wikipedia that are backlogged due to an inability of admins to keep up, and my goal was simply to move along a process that was finished. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Not even an admin should be closing an AFD they nominated. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Merge and Delete is not acceptable under the GFDL. How many times do we need to go over this? This is aside from the obvious inappropriateness of closing an AfD that one nominated. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored the article for GFDL compliance (it was copy-pasted over when merged). In regards to the closure, I think rewording it to make clear it's a withdrawl is probably the easiest solution, as it's okay for the nom to close the AfD in that case (though usually not advised when others have !voted delete). I believe the current editorial solution to the problem is fine, as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Outcome is uncontroversial and seems to be generally agreed upon (at least without the delete), so I say go with it, but this was an improper close, even as a withdrawal..you can only withdraw your nom in the face of a unanimous keep. So long as the user in question understands that, I'm OK with endorsing the outcome. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was pretty much a unanimous 'merge' into a single article, and I get it now. I hadn't thought about GDFL issues either. I knew I needed to keep am arm's length away when closing an article but mistakenly thought this was an exceptional circumstance and just took the wrong shortcut to an end. My heart was in the right place, but the procedure I used wasn't kosher. Sorry about the confusion caused. The one deleted article was restored, so I think everything is now in place. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
