"

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.-' NO! I'm Spartacus! 

Steve, I can tell you one way which will not work for the articlesand 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 waynominate 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. '  
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 
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 
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