| Revision as of 14:29, 6 August 2006 editAupmanyav (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,829 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:11, 6 August 2006 edit undoBakasuprman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,844 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| *'''Delete''', I find it hard to AGF. --] 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', I find it hard to AGF. --] 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Keep'''--It is a necessity for Hindu pages. Many who make changes are not even wiki members or many people using one IP. Just land up on a hindu page and vandalize it. ] 14:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | *'''Strong Keep'''--It is a necessity for Hindu pages. Many who make changes are not even wiki members or many people using one IP. Just land up on a hindu page and vandalize it. ] 14:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Keep''' -- The ones opposing this are the people who battle it out with Netaji and D-Boy. | |||
Revision as of 15:11, 6 August 2006
User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch
This "semi-project" on a user's subpage is being used to ensure that certain users are watched and to attack any religions that are not Hinduism. The Watch Page includes a long list of personal attacks against people who members of this guild deem "fundamentalist editors." This watch list is an extreme display of bad faith, referring to many established users as "vandals" or "dangerous anti-Hindus." On the main talk page Muslims have been referred to as "jihadi users" while Christians have been referred to as "Bible thumpers." I wouldn't be surprised if I ended up on their watch list because of this. BhaiSaab 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep .Netaji 05:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: You're part of the project - why do you think it should be kept? BhaiSaab 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Editors should not be categorized according to religion, especially by others.Timothy Usher 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep--D-Boy 05:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Vote made by user who referred to others as "jihadi users" and "Bible thumpers." BhaiSaab 05:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete: Watchlisting, blacklisting other editors is always a very very bad idea. If you have problems, there is always WP:RFArb,WP:RFM, WP:ANB, WP:ANB/I to resolve them. But watchlisting a group of editors just because you don't like their edits (seemingly based on religious biases) should not be encouraged. --Ragib 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It is, in essence, an enemies list.Timothy Usher 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Misplaced Pages not being a battleground. FCYTravis 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Extremly strong delete Misplaced Pages is not here to harbour or protect your views or ideals. Organising a project to systematically push your view of your religion or critcise other is against everything that Misplaced Pages stands for and keeping a list of users to watch because you don't like their views/edits is a sign of very bad faith. Similarly sentences like "not really islamist but bible thumpers" personal attacks and are a major violation of wikipedia policy. The same goes for watching user because of their religious orientation (Rushdie Islamist POV). The goal stated "to make sensitive history-related articles in tune with the historian's POV and get them "protected status" is an indication of a massive missuse of policy. To what end do you want them protected? So your views stand and other editors do not get a say in it? This is ridiculous. Viridae 08:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch/Watch List should be included in this nomination. Viridae 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC) As should this and the pages included on this: User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch/Distortion Assesment. Viridae 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. I've already seen this abused, when an editor who never displayed religious sentiments one way or another and just mirrored a mainstream scholarly opinion was labelled a dangerous fundamentalist. CRCulver 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Move to Wiki namespace The idea of the project was to have a list of controversial articles and strong POV pushers. Currently it appears to be anti-Islam yet that shouldn't be the case. It is meant to be a peacekeeping ground for all controversial areas such as Serbian-Crotian, Israeli-Lebanon, India-Pakistan etc. These areas can get very emotional for some editors here. It is a fundy (aka Fundamentalist) watch project and has potential to help Misplaced Pages. I encourage non-Indians to join the project. Gizza 10:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)- I give up. Delete But I may think about starting a WikiProject along these lines, perhaps a sub-project to WP:CSB. Gizza 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I find it hard to see a way that any wikiproject along those lines will avoid edit wars over articles due to it highlighting articles that are frequently subject to controversy (basically anything religion based) and exposing them to a higher traffic of editors who will be prepared to argue the case. Perhaps you could make WP:1RR a rule for membership to that wikiproject. It would certainly avoid those problems and perhaps foster communication in those high traffic articles rather than waring? Good luck, I will be interested to see how it goes. Viridae 14:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I give up. Delete But I may think about starting a WikiProject along these lines, perhaps a sub-project to WP:CSB. Gizza 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Despite Da Gizza's unfortunate and surprising attempt to defend the indefensible. --kingboyk 11:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I find it hard to AGF. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep--It is a necessity for Hindu pages. Many who make changes are not even wiki members or many people using one IP. Just land up on a hindu page and vandalize it. Aupmanyav 14:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep -- The ones opposing this are the people who battle it out with Netaji and D-Boy.