Talk:List of Home and Away characters/Archive 1

Archived discussion
I'm archiving this section because the pettiness simply is non-productive. Let's try to figure out something that we can do constructively with these articles. An A7 CSD was clearly wrong, but let's face it, most of these articles deserve to die. The question is how to handle this constructively, which is what is going on above. Let's stop quibbling over the rules and work towards getting something constructive done.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, I can tell you one way which will not work for the articles--and that is to do as you have done, and deleted some of them as G4, as if the AfD had closed the way you wanted it, not as keep. And the many you deleted (as did Orderinchaos) as dg-a7, non-notable person, in total defiance of WP:CSDA7.   The closer told you the right way--nominate for deletion the ones you want to, individually.   I've asked you both on your talk page to restore them.  Sarah, can you explain to them about the inadvisability of outright   defiance of Wikipedia policy?  After we get this cleanup up, I'll talk a little about proper merging/redirect. As you may guess, I shall almost certainly to revert any redirects or merges except with consensus for each article. That does not mean I might not agree to some, most, or even all of them if procedure is followed properly. DGG (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that threatening the community to edit war against it when it is trying to find a solution to a problem and work through differing and even opposing points of view to mutual satisfaction, is neither a wise nor an advisable course of action. Your behaviour at the past AfD is already under scrutiny - you openly defied policy in ways I have never actually seen from an admin who managed to keep his bit thereafter. VirtualSteve and myself closed articles which had been recreated against consensus, the recent AfD offered no opinion on any individual article and was a reaction to the mass nom (which, while I supported, I did not initiate nor did I think it was the absolute best way to resolve the situation - though as it has gotten the right people talking to each other, may yet result in progress). A bit of cooperation rather than snarky threats to disrupt and offline abuse of contributors would go a long way from you, DGG. Orderinchaos 23:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I can explain to you about the inadvisability of outright defiance of Wikipedia's policy on wheel and edit warring. The edit war policy states "Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a content dispute." Strangely enough that sounds an awful lot like what you're threatening to do. You've certainly got a check on the "confrontational", "combative" and "non-productive" criteria. Redirecting and merging are editorial decisions which can be performed in the usual manner and the threat to revert attempts to do so is truly stunning. As is the arrogance implicit in the statement that you'll return to lecture us poor shmoes on how to do merges and redirects the "proper" way. 8| You don't have any more authority here than any one of us and your behaviour regarding this subject has been outrageous and disruptive. I haven't had anything to do with you before this so I don't know if this is an aberration or if it is how you usually behave and approach dealing with other editors and fellow admins but if it is, as emails I've received since my email to the mailing list would suggest, there are serious concerns about your behaviour that will need to be addressed. As a co- (by 5?!) Vice President of the Wikimedia NY sub-chapter you really ought to be setting a far better example and not acting like an arrogant bully-boy, standing over people who are discussing ways to resolve this, and threatening to revert good faith attempts to clean up a mess, which even you yourself have said needs to be cleaned up. You really should know better and I'm appalled by your behaviour. Sarah 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also received some interesting info in recent days about unrelated disputes, and have made the relevant authorities aware. The odd bit is that there isn't even a dispute here as such between the different active, editing parties here - merely differing positions on notability which can actually be negotiated. The editors who come to this as fans have said they are - 1. willing to work with us; 2. willing to help with content. In return, we as the editors who come to this from the policy issues side have said we are - 1. willing to work with them; 2. willing to help with content. Everyone acknowledges there's a problem that needs solving. The end point will not be an extreme of either group's position - it will be some sort of acceptable mid-point that enables articles on topics which meet relevant criteria and are of interest to readers to exist and inform (even if they require some level of semi-protection) and not difficult for editors and admins alike to maintain, and presenting lists attractively and usefully. That I think is all good. It's just sad that some outside the editing group don't seem to agree and want to obstruct rather than assist, purely to make a point. Orderinchaos 02:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * David, in a post just above this one you write that I have acted as if the AfD had closed the way [I] wanted it, not as keep. This is blatantly incorrect and you might do me the courtesy of looking again at the AfD. You will find that I was not involved, and placed no comments at that page.  Further I immediately responded to your question regarding deletion of two named articles at my talk page.  I note now that your questions appear to have, broadly speaking, been the subject of a private email to the closer of that AfD.  His public response in support of actions taken so far and your follow on comment in disagreement with that response are detailed here for ease of link for others. With respect your comment there seems to indicate that it is in fact you who wishes that the AfD had closed the way you wanted it to - as a keep with prejudice against further action. I also agree that your threat to edit-war on this situation is not appropriate.-- VS  talk 03:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * are we discussing private emails on wiki these days? When I write emails I write them because I do not want what I have to say to go on wiki, and I assume that people i write private email to will keep it private, whether or not they're my friends.  If Balloonman communicated my email to you, he did very wrongly. I didn't think of  asking him not to, for I assumed he knew the rules and that i could trust any fellow admin to know them.  Personally, I applaud Balloonman's close, and I told him so on-wiki, on the AfD talk page. That is just how i would have closed, and I said that also. I would not have closed the way you think I wanted, with prejudice against further afds individually. That would be absurd, since they were not individually considered, nor could they be at that point. We neither keep or delete in such situations, but consider individually--I;'ve advocated this every time the matter has come up, including subjects i don't care about in the slightest. As for the articles, I've even said above that i would support a proper merge, or even redirects. I do not support keeping individual small articles about medium-important characters in series  like this. I always oppose it, I oppose it actively, I try to convince the people who want it kept that they're not being reasonable,  I have supported and will support any non destructive merge in cases like this. If you want to cut down on article like this I'll be glad to help anyone acting in good faith--which I understand to be keeping significant content.  DGG (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are trying to make assumptions about my sources with a view to insulating yourself from the impact of your actions - it's not a game I wish to play. If you choose to use email to keep your canvassing and bullying of other editors from scrutiny, that's entirely your choice. If they think the contents are sufficiently objectionable that they are worth sharing with admins or with the Arbitration Committee, per WP:EMAILABUSE, then that is their choice. Orderinchaos 04:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again David, please if you could read my comment - I do not want to fight with you. I do not say nor infer that Balloonman communicated any email to me. I have merely pointed to a link where you quite clearly are corresponding with Balloonman about some emails that he had received following his close of the AfD which is the subject of this thread.  In that single response you make some complaint about Balloonman's close and inform him via your edit summary as to what he should have said as a part of his close.  This is a fact David as is the fact that I had no input at all into the AfD.-- VS  talk 04:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record EVERYTHING I have said related to this case is on WP. I have not emailed or responded to any of the 3 emails I received. So any speculation about who contacted me or whom I contacted is just that---speculation. You can readily see in my edit history, that the only reference to the emails is the generic statement that 3 people have contacted me. No mention as to who those 3 people are or what was said to me has been shared to anybody and frankly nothing that was said to me is of ANY concern.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll confirm here that while I have been contacted by email by several people, Balloonman was not one of them and likewise I have not contacted him - he has been very transparent in this process and has been a model detached admin. Orderinchaos 10:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)