On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:26:49 +0100 "Tony Sidaway" wrote:
this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration,
of a userbox
that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds
that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.
I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I
don't think the goal
of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging,
though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the
like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and
coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only
bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse.
Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where
traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors
vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of
votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be
appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be
made for this particular template
This is what I was talking about. When admins consider themselves empowered to
completely ignore community consensus on the ground "I know better". The userbox
debate has provided the highest amount of this shit, with admins speedying templates kept
the day before at TfD. Don't give me that crap about best interests of the
encyclopedia, it's subjective and you have no right to overrule community by the
virtue of being an administrator. This makes me sick. Thankfully someone with good sense
has restored the debate.
Molu, disgusted
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com