[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism userbox

[Tony Sidaway]

On 6/1/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/1/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather
> > explicitly
> > > said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would
> > > bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox.
> >
> > This is not a problem.   That is precisely what I did.
>
>
> Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things, the
> LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item which
> you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.

Well I don't see why not--if I were to particularly despised it.

And that would be presuming that I were "campaigning".

This isn't what Wikipedia is about at all.  All of the religious
userboxes are obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted.
Some for multiple reasons--in the case of the Satanist box it's not
only unsuitable, it's got the added problem that it would bring
Wikipedia into disrepute.

And as I explained in the original email:

"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"