| Revision as of 23:19, 15 December 2005 editDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:25, 15 December 2005 edit undoSmmurphy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers14,831 editsm →[]: answer to JdavidbNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| *'''Delete''' ]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' ]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''No opinion''' What in the world is ? Why do I care? I don't know anything about this AFD, and I have nothing to say about it. But I'm very curious why this user thought I would want to know about it. ] (] • ]) 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | *'''No opinion''' What in the world is ? Why do I care? I don't know anything about this AFD, and I have nothing to say about it. But I'm very curious why this user thought I would want to know about it. ] (] • ]) 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| **I think Diatrobica;l gave everyone on ] a message to vote keep on this, and that is why you were contacted. This type of campaigning is, I think, perfectly acceptable and normal. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' almost redundent with WP:Islam, nearly the same mission statement. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Dunc. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' almost redundent with WP:Islam, nearly the same mission statement. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Dunc. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''delete'''. what "censorship"? Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. If a Wikiproject is unencyclopedic, it needs to go, that's our only standard. Wikiproject Islam will do for both apologists and critics of Islam. ] <small>]</small> 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | *'''delete'''. what "censorship"? Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. If a Wikiproject is unencyclopedic, it needs to go, that's our only standard. Wikiproject Islam will do for both apologists and critics of Islam. ] <small>]</small> 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:25, 15 December 2005
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG
I'm proposing this for deletion again. The previous vote is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which closed with no consensus.
There is already a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam so there's no need for this additional project. Whatever the original intentions, it has turned into a platform for bigotry, and a magnet for people who arrive at Misplaced Pages with the sole intention of causing trouble at Islam-related articles. Editors associated with the project have included Chaosfeary, Existentializer and Ni-ju-Ichi (aka Enviroknot), Zeno of Elea, Urchid (aka CltFn), Exmuslim, Germen, and OceanSplash, all anti-Islam POV warriors, some of them highly offensive and disruptive. (In fairness, some decent editors have signed up too e.g. Babajobu and Briangotts, with the perfectly correct intention of ensuring that well-sourced criticism of Islam is included in articles, and any criticism I make here is not directed at them).
The project's stated aim is arguably not consistent with NPOV: "Document and include ... the known objective facts about Islam ... while ensuring that Islam related articles on Misplaced Pages are written in an encyclopedic style free from apologetics and non-neutral POV." Sounds good in theory, but there's actually nothing wrong with including material that is sympathetic to and respectful of Islam (so-called apologetics) within certain limits, so long as it's well-sourced and not stated as fact. The idea of relying on some of these disruptive editors to determine what the "objective facts" about Islam are is absurd. I'm therefore asking the community to vote against bigotry and delete this page. SlimVirgin 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. SlimVirgin 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Nomination out of process. Take this to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion.howcheng 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)- Delete. This is just plain bigotry with a superficial gloss of intellectualism.Cberlet 20:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - it doesn't matter where it is, we can't have pro-bigotry WikiProjects which do things like rally to block Requests for Adminship against Muslim editors. Guettarda 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete an organization of pov pushers and several trolls which make it harder for editors who want to edit Islam-related articles seriously. It is not secular, it's just anti-Islamic and few of its members over the last few months have even been blocked for openly vandalizing wikipedia articles. A completely useless and bigot project. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Guettarda and Slim Virgin. The name "SIIEG" seems to be a subconscious mindset of the majority of its members (not all though, Babajobu is a good guy), they feel like they're under "Siege" from Islam. It's basically a POV pushing committeee. karmafist 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this is wrong, IMHO it should be establised as policy that those with all viewpoints may join a wikiproject and that pro- and anti- wikiporjects aren't allowed. This isn't the first time a similar thing has happened. — Dunc|☺ 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not cool. FeloniousMonk 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete BYT 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, POV pushing, hateful bullshit.--Sean|Black 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete AnnH 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete --Striver 21:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Brimba 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Gee, is it any accident SIIEG is so close to sieg? Uberrima, while correct, is certainly no accident either. This piece of trash needs to go. Jim62sch 21:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. --MPerel 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Of course. And someone please ban a few of the above voters for extreme incivility and personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 21:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason I voted keep for the WP Decency project: Disagreeing with what you say, defending to the death your right to say it. (per BDAbramson) Tomer 22:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- While I agree that they have a right to say the horrible, hateful garbage that they do, they don't need the WikiProject equivalent of a POV fork to say it— if they wish to contribute to Islam-related articles they can join the actual project.--Sean|Black 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, a bad-faith attempt at pushing a POV. «LordViD» 22:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this is the WikiProject equivalent of a POV fork. As others have said, the WikiProject Islam is more than open to them. Someone should keep a list of the members however, for future reference. --bainer (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this attempt at censorship makes me sick--Diatrobica;l 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- User's second edit. SlimVirgin 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Yuber 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No opinion What in the world is this? Why do I care? I don't know anything about this AFD, and I have nothing to say about it. But I'm very curious why this user thought I would want to know about it. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think Diatrobica;l gave everyone on a message to vote keep on this, and that is why you were contacted. This type of campaigning is, I think, perfectly acceptable and normal. Smmurphy 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete almost redundent with WP:Islam, nearly the same mission statement. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Dunc. Smmurphy 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete. what "censorship"? Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. If a Wikiproject is unencyclopedic, it needs to go, that's our only standard. Wikiproject Islam will do for both apologists and critics of Islam. dab (ᛏ) 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)