I have closed the deletion review of the "Conservative notice board" under the so-called "Snowball" clause. This was a wikiproject created in bad faith by a person who spammed the talk pages of 52 other editors saying that they had identified themselves as conservatives and inviting them to join.
How this ever got to the stage of deletion review I have no idea. There was never a chance that this bad faith project could be accepted. I have therefore closed the review, endorsing the deletion, which was unquestionably correct. By discussing the *possibility* that it could ever exist on Wikipedia, we were giving the wrong impression about the purpose for which Wikipedia exists, and saying that we don't care about our core policies.
On 6/19/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
I have closed the deletion review of the "Conservative notice board" under the so-called "Snowball" clause. This was a wikiproject created in bad faith by a person who spammed the talk pages of 52 other editors saying that they had identified themselves as conservatives and inviting them to join.
I agree with and support the deletion, and the closure of DRV, in principle. Controversy seems to be only about whether other pages of a similar nature should also be deleted, and some wikilawyering about the deletion process.
I believe it would have been wise to move some of the discussion to a separate page, to encourage a debate about which kind of noticeboards (LGBT, Politics etc.) are acceptable.
Erik
On 6/19/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
By discussing the *possibility* that it could ever exist on Wikipedia
But people are not doing that. People are discussing why they want it. If you cannot tollerate discussion you have lost.
On 6/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But people are not doing that. People are discussing why they want it. If you cannot tollerate discussion you have lost.
Please can we remove all reference to "winning" or "losing" from this mailing list. We are all working for Wikipedia. We aren't looking to win. We may disagree, and one person's opinion may prevail. Wikipedia wins or loses, not Tony Sidaway, Geni or Sam Korn.
Suggesting that Tony was seeking to "win" is provocative, puerile and completely unnecessary.
On 6/19/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But people are not doing that. People are discussing why they want it. If you cannot tollerate discussion you have lost.
Please can we remove all reference to "winning" or "losing" from this mailing list. We are all working for Wikipedia. We aren't looking to win. We may disagree, and one person's opinion may prevail. Wikipedia wins or loses, not Tony Sidaway, Geni or Sam Korn.
Suggesting that Tony was seeking to "win" is provocative, puerile and completely unnecessary.
-- Sam
I don't nomal use the term but if someone choses force over defending their positon in logical debate they have lost.
Sam Korn wrote:
On 6/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But people are not doing that. People are discussing why they want it. If you cannot tollerate discussion you have lost.
Please can we remove all reference to "winning" or "losing" from this mailing list. We are all working for Wikipedia. We aren't looking to win. We may disagree, and one person's opinion may prevail. Wikipedia wins or loses, not Tony Sidaway, Geni or Sam Korn.
Suggesting that Tony was seeking to "win" is provocative, puerile and completely unnecessary.
YHBT. YHL...
On 20/06/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 6/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But people are not doing that. People are discussing why they want it. If you cannot tollerate discussion you have lost.
Please can we remove all reference to "winning" or "losing" from this mailing list. We are all working for Wikipedia. We aren't looking to win. We may disagree, and one person's opinion may prevail. Wikipedia wins or loses, not Tony Sidaway, Geni or Sam Korn.
Suggesting that Tony was seeking to "win" is provocative, puerile and completely unnecessary.
YHBT. YHL...
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Wow, I actually agree with Tony Sidaway for once
That project looked like it was pretty much a remake of "Wikipedians for Decency"...
what next, a "MOTHER'S ASSOCIATION OF CONCERNED WIKIPEDIANS"? lol. :)
On 6/20/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/06/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 6/19/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
But people are not doing that. People are discussing why they want it. If you cannot tollerate discussion you have lost.
Please can we remove all reference to "winning" or "losing" from this mailing list. We are all working for Wikipedia. We aren't looking to win. We may disagree, and one person's opinion may prevail. Wikipedia wins or loses, not Tony Sidaway, Geni or Sam Korn.
Suggesting that Tony was seeking to "win" is provocative, puerile and completely unnecessary.
YHBT. YHL...
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Wow, I actually agree with Tony Sidaway for once
That project looked like it was pretty much a remake of "Wikipedians for Decency"...
Sure and we discussed that. not saying it was a fun discussion but we did discuss it
On 6/18/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
By discussing the *possibility* that it could ever exist on Wikipedia, we were giving the wrong impression about the purpose for which Wikipedia exists, and saying that we don't care about our core policies.
This is nonsense. One should be able to discuss anything on Wikipedia, even things which are plainly bad ideas. The idea that some things are "beyond discussion" is the sort of weak nonsense that people who don't or can't engage with others throw out as a justification for shutting down debate, which you seem to make a habit of.
Beyond that, discussing the possibility is a useful heuristic, as others have pointed out, for deciding exactly where to draw the line. If we all agree that a Conservative Noticeboard is a bad idea, do we necessarily think that a LGBT Noticeboard is a bad idea? What about a Political Noticeboard? What about an Evolution Noticeboard? Most of the "Restore" votes on the DRV were made not because they thought the board should exist, but because it was out-of-process and that full discussion had not taken place. Though if you think that "discussion" itself is a dangerous thing, I suppose you'd fine those invalid reasons. I think you have far too little faith in the Wikipedia Way and far too little appreciation for how to be involved in a large organization.
I think there's more evidence to support the idea that a few arrogant admins can do a lot more long term damage to Wikipedia's productivity than a few discussions.
I'm not a fan of "Wikilawyering", if that's the term we want to use for asking politely that others follow rules and guidelines developed by the community, even if it is not as expedient than just breaking them. But I do believe that communities function better when there are reliable rules, when actions do not appear arbitrary, and when it is clear that people are not being shut down simply because of their political opinions. In this case none of that is clear in the slightest.
FF
Fastfission wrote:
Most of the "Restore" votes on the DRV were made not because they thought the board should exist, but because it was out-of-process and that full discussion had not taken place.
There is no reason why discussion should not take place BEFORE restoring the board: if the result is an endorsement of the board then restoration would be a snip and if not then the deletion stands.
There are very good reasons why the board should remain deleted pending such discussion, and I fail to understand those whose apparent stance is "yes, well, it SHOULD be deleted...but we need to argue about it for days beforehand". People seem to have trouble understanding that we are working on an encyclopædia, not a discussion shop or a social website.
HTH HAND