| Revision as of 19:09, 2 March 2007 editCorvus cornix (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,190 edits ←Undid revision 112134452 by Mackensen (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:10, 2 March 2007 edit undoPolarscribe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,997 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| *:] is not a criteria for deletion. You should have referenced ], which applies (emphasis added) to "Pages that serve no purpose '''but to disparage''' their subject or some other entity". The page is not serving that purpose, it is serving the purpose of letting Essjay know that a significant fraction of the established community of editors does not trust him, and the purpose of providing the community with a forum for seeing what they, as a whole feel. There is no applicable speedy deletion criteria. ] 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | *:] is not a criteria for deletion. You should have referenced ], which applies (emphasis added) to "Pages that serve no purpose '''but to disparage''' their subject or some other entity". The page is not serving that purpose, it is serving the purpose of letting Essjay know that a significant fraction of the established community of editors does not trust him, and the purpose of providing the community with a forum for seeing what they, as a whole feel. There is no applicable speedy deletion criteria. ] 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *::Sounds like you're rationalising an attack page, with all due respect. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] (])</span> 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | *::Sounds like you're rationalising an attack page, with all due respect. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] (])</span> 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *:::What part of "not an attack page" do you not get? This is a page which is interested in exposing and punishing a fraudster. Yes, Essjay is a |
*:::What part of "not an attack page" do you not get? This is a page which is interested in exposing and punishing a fraudster. Yes, Essjay is a ]STER. That's not a personal attack, that's a FACT. F.A.C.T. Fact, and there are a great number of us in the "community" who believe that his kind should not be accepted on this project, much less in positions of power and authority. Trying to delete their opinions isn't going to change that. ] 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' There is no precedent for this glorified personal attack page. If your going to RfC him or RfAr him, bloody well do it, but there is no justification for a page full of thinly veiled personal attacks where there's no chance of a decision and which really isn't going to achieve consensus. Nobody can even prove his claims led to his holding positions and there is NO suggestion of any abuse of powers. <font face="Arial">-- ''']]</font>''' 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' There is no precedent for this glorified personal attack page. If your going to RfC him or RfAr him, bloody well do it, but there is no justification for a page full of thinly veiled personal attacks where there's no chance of a decision and which really isn't going to achieve consensus. Nobody can even prove his claims led to his holding positions and there is NO suggestion of any abuse of powers. <font face="Arial">-- ''']]</font>''' 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy keep''' — Don't like the way the discussion is going, so try to ''delete'' it?! Ludicrous! Show some common sense. You can't make this issue go away by deleting it and pretending it didn't happen. --] 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | *'''Speedy keep''' — Don't like the way the discussion is going, so try to ''delete'' it?! Ludicrous! Show some common sense. You can't make this issue go away by deleting it and pretending it didn't happen. --] 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:10, 2 March 2007
Please do not attemt to close this unless you are an admin.
Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard/Essjay
Nothing but an enormous Personal Attack page. If people want something done which has any chances of getting anywhere, they should file an RfA. Corvus cornix 17:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The contents are not personal attack. If there is another reason for deleting the page, cite it. --Nlu (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, WP:POINT nomination. – Chacor 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Trolling. —Cryptic 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for assuming good faith. Corvus cornix 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - useful for gauging community opinion, while being non-binding, quite similar to a Misplaced Pages:Request for comment. --AnonEMouse 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure now is the time for an RfA... —Doug Bell 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Breaks down the issues nicely. 65.127.231.23 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- — 65.127.231.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The reason this is a subpage is too keep the main noticeboard a manageable size. This is certainly an appropriate community noticeboard straw poll. A Train 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No different than a user conduct RFC, and those have long standing precendt. GRBerry 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- A user conduct RFC allows for open-ended comment. This just invites people to vote "flay Essjay alive" because they are angry. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Imposture of an admin is not a trivial matter - Skysmith 18:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Polling is evil, but discussing is not. The discussion is not binding, but is meant to give the higherups an impression of the feelings of the community. Aecis 18:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- So then discuss. That page is not a discussion, it is a straw poll. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This is a place for constructive criticism, aslong as no personal attacks are being made againsy him its fine.Tellyaddict 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - It's not an attack page; it is a perfectly legitimate straw poll to see what the community thinks; deleting it will only exacerbate things. Tom Harrison 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Catchpole 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:NPA is not optional. Those who disagree with Essjay's actions should file an WP:RFAR. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: This matter has already blown way out of proportion, at least let it blow over before strawpolling. I know many members of the community are staying away from it, so it's not going to be representative of widespread opinion at this time. --Sagaciousuk 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete • Per m:Polling is evil - in such a sensitive situtation such an insensitive and crass approach just amounts to a bloody lynch mob. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not representative. --Dirk Beetstra 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It is improper to have a poll when the community is still incensed about this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:NPA we souldnt turn this into a witch hunt and "straw polls" are not discussions or File a RFC then . Betacommand 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NPA is not a criteria for deletion. You should have referenced WP:CSD#G10, which applies (emphasis added) to "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity". The page is not serving that purpose, it is serving the purpose of letting Essjay know that a significant fraction of the established community of editors does not trust him, and the purpose of providing the community with a forum for seeing what they, as a whole feel. There is no applicable speedy deletion criteria. GRBerry 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're rationalising an attack page, with all due respect. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- What part of "not an attack page" do you not get? This is a page which is interested in exposing and punishing a fraudster. Yes, Essjay is a FRAUDSTER. That's not a personal attack, that's a FACT. F.A.C.T. Fact, and there are a great number of us in the "community" who believe that his kind should not be accepted on this project, much less in positions of power and authority. Trying to delete their opinions isn't going to change that. FCYTravis 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're rationalising an attack page, with all due respect. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NPA is not a criteria for deletion. You should have referenced WP:CSD#G10, which applies (emphasis added) to "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity". The page is not serving that purpose, it is serving the purpose of letting Essjay know that a significant fraction of the established community of editors does not trust him, and the purpose of providing the community with a forum for seeing what they, as a whole feel. There is no applicable speedy deletion criteria. GRBerry 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is no precedent for this glorified personal attack page. If your going to RfC him or RfAr him, bloody well do it, but there is no justification for a page full of thinly veiled personal attacks where there's no chance of a decision and which really isn't going to achieve consensus. Nobody can even prove his claims led to his holding positions and there is NO suggestion of any abuse of powers. -- Heligoland 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep — Don't like the way the discussion is going, so try to delete it?! Ludicrous! Show some common sense. You can't make this issue go away by deleting it and pretending it didn't happen. --Cyde Weys 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above. community wants to discuss. - Denny 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)