| Revision as of 11:38, 30 October 2006 editIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsm →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:43, 30 October 2006 edit undoIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 editsm →[]: toned down comments.Next edit → | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| :What's ironic is that numerous members of the Conspiracy Noticeboard commented on, and voted to delete the article which you mention. The same article which they objected to me posting - which they said was of no interest to them - and out of place on the board - with one editor commenting at length several times. Odd, huh? ] 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | :What's ironic is that numerous members of the Conspiracy Noticeboard commented on, and voted to delete the article which you mention. The same article which they objected to me posting - which they said was of no interest to them - and out of place on the board - with one editor commenting at length several times. Odd, huh? ] 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::''should also be noted that many projects keep AfD lists related to that project'' I would be interested in a list User_talk:Arthur_Rubin. What article are you two talking about? Please remember that most editors have not been involved in these arguments that you have. If what Fairness/NBGPWS is saying is true, then this statment: ''I see no reason why an individual cannot keep AfD lists related to a topic, as long as '''any''' AfD related to that topic may be included.'' is false. ] (]) 11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | ::''should also be noted that many projects keep AfD lists related to that project'' I would be interested in a list User_talk:Arthur_Rubin. What article are you two talking about? Please remember that most editors have not been involved in these arguments that you have. If what Fairness/NBGPWS is saying is true, then this statment: ''I see no reason why an individual cannot keep AfD lists related to a topic, as long as '''any''' AfD related to that topic may be included.'' is false. ] (]) 11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Delete''' As per Fairness And Accuracy For All/NBGPWS. Many well researched articles have been deleted or been voted for deletion by POV warriors |
*'''Strong Delete''' As per Fairness And Accuracy For All/NBGPWS. Many well researched articles have been deleted or been voted for deletion by POV warriors. See: ] I believe the absolute worst abuse of wikipolicy are those editors who push their own POV by deleting articles whose POV they disagree with. No matter what a persons political perusasion, and the political slant of the article, this should not be allowed to continue on wikipedia. I comment more about this here: ]. Dispite NBGPWS own AfD's, he has some excellent points. This votestacking article should be deleted. ] (]) 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * |
*'''Keep''' --]<s>]</s> 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Comment''' The nominator has been blocked just last week over vandalizing the board he is now attempting to get deleted, you can see his block log under ] the specific block is at: , he has been told so far by another admin that the page is permissable as all AfD groups that cover a specific area, cartoons, war articles, Guantanamo Bay prisoners etc. --]<s>]</s> 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Nominator has a history of blocks relating to this board and vandalism, as pointed out above please see ], I guess when you cannot vandalize it anymore you look for someone to delete it instead. This is clearly a WP:POINT violation as the paragraph listed above doesn't point to a rationale and the user has been told the noticeboard acts as all noticeboards related to a small group of articles, such as conspiracy based ones. --]<s>]</s> 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:43, 30 October 2006
User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard
Violation of user space, Votestacking
Violation of user space, Votestacking:
As Jimbo Wales himself opined : "Using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." What can I not have on my userpage
I am taking the liberty of reposting Derex's succint thoughts regarding this possible misuse of a user page / space. In light of the upcoming Nov 7 elections, and the risk that it could be used in an effort to affect actual votes, or Wiki user's free access to information, I also respectfully ask that it be "Speedy Deleted".
"The Conspiracy Noticeboard has been serving as a de facto noticeboard for people proposing and following AFD's on a particular topic: 9/11. To an extent has begun to broaden its focus into politically related articles in general, serving as an AFD conservative noticeboard. Among several recent examples, the Yellowcake forgery nomination was listed there as it went on AFD. This sort of private noticeboard strikes me as quite counter to the ideal collaborative and neutral spirit of AFD. I doubt, for example, that we would permit a WP:AFD noticeboard on topic X. Isn't that what AFD itself is for? So, I personally take issue with a user-space page which is serving the same role of co-ordinating editors with a particular outlook. There seems to be quite a lot of pre-discussion among editors watching that page, almost all of it off the relevant article talk pages. An unwiki lack of transparency, in my opinion."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (ex NBGPWS)
- Keep as previously kept in an MfD under a different name, and now even less possibly considered POV. Note that the (partial) nominator, as NBGPWS, was adding AfD's not related to conspiracy theories, (some not even started) to the list. If he cannot use the list properly, it may show he does not know what a proper list might be. It should also be noted that many projects keep AfD lists related to that project; I see no reason why an individual cannot keep AfD lists related to a topic, as long as any AfD related to that topic may be included. speedy reject Speedy Delete, if I see it appear, for the reasons given in my Keep !vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- What's ironic is that numerous members of the Conspiracy Noticeboard commented on, and voted to delete the article which you mention. The same article which they objected to me posting - which they said was of no interest to them - and out of place on the board - with one editor commenting at length several times. Odd, huh? The Byron Insert Deletion Discussion Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- should also be noted that many projects keep AfD lists related to that project I would be interested in a list User_talk:Arthur_Rubin. What article are you two talking about? Please remember that most editors have not been involved in these arguments that you have. If what Fairness/NBGPWS is saying is true, then this statment: I see no reason why an individual cannot keep AfD lists related to a topic, as long as any AfD related to that topic may be included. is false. Travb (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete As per Fairness And Accuracy For All/NBGPWS. Many well researched articles have been deleted or been voted for deletion by POV warriors. See: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Clinton_Chronicles I believe the absolute worst abuse of wikipolicy are those editors who push their own POV by deleting articles whose POV they disagree with. No matter what a persons political perusasion, and the political slant of the article, this should not be allowed to continue on wikipedia. I comment more about this here: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically motivated AfD's: the elephant in the room. Dispite NBGPWS own AfD's, he has some excellent points. This votestacking article should be deleted. Travb (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Nuclear
Zer011:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)