[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

[Tony Sidaway]

On 2/27/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Tony Sidaway" <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:605709b90602270833m677b8f47w4d9a5b664859a91c at mail.gmail.com...
> > On 2/27/06, Steve Bennett
> > <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Am I way of base with believing that uncontroversial information
> >> should just be left? Sources are nice, but if everyone agrees that the
> >> information is correct, what is to be gained by removing it, or
> >> bickering over the quality of the source?
> > This seems to ignore the observable fact that, for some Wikipedians,
> > deletion of articles on popular culture, or in common parlance,
> > "cruft", is seen as an end in itself.  The strategy being followed
> > seems to be to systematically raise the verifiability standards to
> > exclude online sources, then denude the article of such sources, then
> > move to delete the article on the grounds that it is unverifiable.
> > Another technique is to browbeat those with whom one disagrees,
> > repeating false claims that their opinion may be ignored.
> [snip]
> > In short, the deletion process continues to be a disgrace and breed
> > the worst kind of incivility.
>
> Even better some clowns^Wpeople are now suggesting that since they have
> driven some webcomics off to Comixpedia, all the rest can safely follow
> them...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FNeglected_Mario_Characters&diff=41115907&oldid=41110586
> is a fine example.
>
> I find the nominator's habit of jumping all over every single keep vote (bar
> one AFAICT) rather offensive also.

The nominator in this case is a suspiciously new editor who has
precisely one edit in article space (inserting a "POV" template). 
Nevertheless with his *ninth* edit he nominated for deletion an
article about a reasonably well established webcomic, and to date he
has made some 30 edits to the AfD.

Something stinks.