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