- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete both. — Doug Bell talk 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Timecop/The war on blogs and User:Hosterweis/Terminated
An unsuccessful attempt to delete many notable articles, the activities of this "war on blogs" should have been brought to an end after Timecop's banning. I suggest to Mark it historical, and no objection to deletion. Wooyi 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: As nominator I do not have intention to delete User:Timecop/The war on blogs, just mark it historical, I put it here because I want to have a discussion to reach a consensus. As for User:Hosterweis/Terminated, it was not added by me, but by User:Interiot, and for that one I say no opinion. Wooyi 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as a very poor example of desired AFD etiquette. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and using words like "war on", "terminated", and images of tanks is inappropriate. As Jimbo stated, we need to approach AfD with more courtesy, not with more animosity. -- Interiot 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Interiot; these two pages are destructive to the encyclopedia and are unnecessarily confrontational. I would have no objection to a project that was similar but used a less confrontational title like "blog notability verification" or some such. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Above two people, deletion isn't the intention of the nominator, which is me. The page was a very controversial historical incident and is currently inactive. We should preserve as a historical page instead of delete.Wooyi 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)- Understood. But a nominator is only one voice, and doesn't get additional weight in determining the outcome of a discussion (that is, unless the nominator presents well-reasoned arguments which in turn convinces others). I had intended to nominate it for deletion a while ago, so consider me a ghost nominator, or something.
- If the page had been created as a good-faith effort and had gotten even minimal support among Wikipedians in good standing, then I could see a reason to mark it {{ historical}} and move on. But it wasn't at all. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia was another group that targeted a whole set of pages in AfD, and it got deleted too. I just don't see much benefit in keeping such pages, other than as an example of exactly how not to do things. -- Interiot 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per both above. And MfD does not have tag enforcement powers. - Amarkov moo! 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Little bit of a controversial topic, coud lead to disruption about whats notable or not and could lead to people ignoring guidelines such as notability. Telly addict 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and don't forget Image:Wob4.gif. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do not delete The question of what blogs are fit for an articles or sources for WP is a very live one. In general, I think we do wrong to delete material about rejected views or the less pleasant aspects of the history of WP. It shows a certain lack on confidence.The comment above shows why--the fear that the page will be used as material to support a particular view of N -- but it could also be used to oppose such a view. NPOV about WP.
DGG 20:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when have indefinitely banned trolls had any relevance to policy discussions? And when have writeups containing WP:CIVIL violations like "useless", "batshitinsane", or "B.U.T.F.U.Q." been remotely persuasive here? Though I can't speak for others... I don't fear pages like this, I just don't think they have any place on Wikipedia. -- Interiot 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when the acronym "B.U.T.F.U.Q." violates a wikipedia policy? Which one? - Femmina 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete. This is absolutely the wrong way to address this issue, and is an abuse of user space. Given Timecop's history, the pages were definitely not created in good faith, and there's no reason to keep this around (even marked historical). -- Core desat 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This page should be kept for historical interest, because it serves as a negative example of making wikipedia a battleground. We can keep it to admonish newcomers not to start this kind of war. Sometimes it's better to preserve old record of bad things. Remember that the United States forgot the harms of
Prohibition and now they start
War on Drugs. We can't let that happen on wikipedia. War on Blogs would serve as a reminder not to start war in wikipedia, or you would be banned like Timecop was.
Wooyi 03:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We don't need negative examples. The actual policies and guidelines are enough. Keeping this as historical would just preserve and acknowledge a tirade by a now-banned user, and encourage others to continue it. -- Core desat 06:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The WOB and timecop's ban are somewhat unrelated. I partecipated in the WOB and I can still edit here. Besides, deleting this page will not make your blog or podcast less non-notable. - Femmina 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both. I'm persuaded by Coredesat that we don't need to keep these around to show people what not to do. — coel acan — 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Both Per above. I have nothing else to add so I will leave it at that:) -- James, La gloria è a dio 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now the consensus seems to delete, and after reconsidering my position, the War on Blogs borders "inflammatory and divisive", so I will not object deletion.
Wooyi 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had hoped to use it as a bad example in trying to retain some blog articles against deletion.--but ok, delete if that seems on balance better. DGG 07:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both - Wikipedia is not a war.... ~ Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree, here is not a battlefield, and warring among ourselves does harm and no good. Wooyi 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete both. — Doug Bell talk 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Timecop/The war on blogs and User:Hosterweis/Terminated
An unsuccessful attempt to delete many notable articles, the activities of this "war on blogs" should have been brought to an end after Timecop's banning. I suggest to Mark it historical, and no objection to deletion. Wooyi 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: As nominator I do not have intention to delete User:Timecop/The war on blogs, just mark it historical, I put it here because I want to have a discussion to reach a consensus. As for User:Hosterweis/Terminated, it was not added by me, but by User:Interiot, and for that one I say no opinion. Wooyi 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as a very poor example of desired AFD etiquette. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and using words like "war on", "terminated", and images of tanks is inappropriate. As Jimbo stated, we need to approach AfD with more courtesy, not with more animosity. -- Interiot 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Interiot; these two pages are destructive to the encyclopedia and are unnecessarily confrontational. I would have no objection to a project that was similar but used a less confrontational title like "blog notability verification" or some such. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Above two people, deletion isn't the intention of the nominator, which is me. The page was a very controversial historical incident and is currently inactive. We should preserve as a historical page instead of delete.Wooyi 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)- Understood. But a nominator is only one voice, and doesn't get additional weight in determining the outcome of a discussion (that is, unless the nominator presents well-reasoned arguments which in turn convinces others). I had intended to nominate it for deletion a while ago, so consider me a ghost nominator, or something.
- If the page had been created as a good-faith effort and had gotten even minimal support among Wikipedians in good standing, then I could see a reason to mark it {{ historical}} and move on. But it wasn't at all. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia was another group that targeted a whole set of pages in AfD, and it got deleted too. I just don't see much benefit in keeping such pages, other than as an example of exactly how not to do things. -- Interiot 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per both above. And MfD does not have tag enforcement powers. - Amarkov moo! 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Little bit of a controversial topic, coud lead to disruption about whats notable or not and could lead to people ignoring guidelines such as notability. Telly addict 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and don't forget Image:Wob4.gif. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do not delete The question of what blogs are fit for an articles or sources for WP is a very live one. In general, I think we do wrong to delete material about rejected views or the less pleasant aspects of the history of WP. It shows a certain lack on confidence.The comment above shows why--the fear that the page will be used as material to support a particular view of N -- but it could also be used to oppose such a view. NPOV about WP.
DGG 20:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when have indefinitely banned trolls had any relevance to policy discussions? And when have writeups containing WP:CIVIL violations like "useless", "batshitinsane", or "B.U.T.F.U.Q." been remotely persuasive here? Though I can't speak for others... I don't fear pages like this, I just don't think they have any place on Wikipedia. -- Interiot 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since when the acronym "B.U.T.F.U.Q." violates a wikipedia policy? Which one? - Femmina 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete. This is absolutely the wrong way to address this issue, and is an abuse of user space. Given Timecop's history, the pages were definitely not created in good faith, and there's no reason to keep this around (even marked historical). -- Core desat 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This page should be kept for historical interest, because it serves as a negative example of making wikipedia a battleground. We can keep it to admonish newcomers not to start this kind of war. Sometimes it's better to preserve old record of bad things. Remember that the United States forgot the harms of
Prohibition and now they start
War on Drugs. We can't let that happen on wikipedia. War on Blogs would serve as a reminder not to start war in wikipedia, or you would be banned like Timecop was.
Wooyi 03:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment We don't need negative examples. The actual policies and guidelines are enough. Keeping this as historical would just preserve and acknowledge a tirade by a now-banned user, and encourage others to continue it. -- Core desat 06:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The WOB and timecop's ban are somewhat unrelated. I partecipated in the WOB and I can still edit here. Besides, deleting this page will not make your blog or podcast less non-notable. - Femmina 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both. I'm persuaded by Coredesat that we don't need to keep these around to show people what not to do. — coel acan — 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Both Per above. I have nothing else to add so I will leave it at that:) -- James, La gloria è a dio 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now the consensus seems to delete, and after reconsidering my position, the War on Blogs borders "inflammatory and divisive", so I will not object deletion.
Wooyi 02:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had hoped to use it as a bad example in trying to retain some blog articles against deletion.--but ok, delete if that seems on balance better. DGG 07:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both - Wikipedia is not a war.... ~ Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fully agree, here is not a battlefield, and warring among ourselves does harm and no good. Wooyi 19:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.