Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:Toby

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Toby

WP:NOT censored. Userfy, fail that DeleteKeep (just a note that I am somewhat sympathetic, but just don't think this is the way to do it. Maybe a campaign to get more scientific images... but not censorship) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Interesting idea, though hard to understand, which is probably why people are calling it censorship. (Hint - it's opt-in.) --SPUI (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I'm strongly opposed to the proposal, however there's no reason to delete policy proposals. Just because it's a proposal doesn't mean it will become policy if we don't delete it ;) It will soon become what it deserves to be, a failed policy proposal. -- Joolz 14:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - It obviously won't make it into policy, and we will need it as a historical reference the next time someone tries to censor wikipedia. Should be about two weeks after this fails? Oh, and RN, I think our images are pleanty scientific enough, except a few like autofellatio. --Phroziac ^(talk) 14:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, all proposed policies - including those that fail - should be left for historical purposes. Alphax ^τεχ 15:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this isn't the method we use to oppose policies we don't like. 86.133.214.36 15:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, despite its tone it seems to be a serious proposal. It doesn't seem to have much support though, and its first test run was considered vandalism and reverted - so marking it as {{rejected}} sounds appropriate. Radiant_>|< 16:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

That is a lie. The Simple Toby demo is nothing close to vandalism; nobody has had been foolish enough to so label it; and it is now alive and well, and available for your viewing pleasure. The comment above is FUD. — Xiong熊talk* 19:00, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Radiant! was referring to Toby's outing last night with SPUI. He was reverted very quickly. -Splash 19:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep all failed serious proposals. ~~ N (t/c) 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NOOB -- this nomination is invalid, a violation of The Wiki Way. — Xiong熊talk* 18:55, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
  • No, the nomination is not invalid, and citing some document that you wrote a few does ago does not make it so. -Splash 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The nomination is invalid, a violation of our most cherished principles. I did not create The Wiki Way; I only put a page full of words together to describe it. This cornerstone of Project and Community was here long before you or I ever came on board. — Xiong熊talk* 19:03, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

• Keep, a good object to point the next attemptor to. -Splash 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN 70.119.150.127 19:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC) User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 19:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and watch it fail on its own. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, delete, keep and mark as rejected, in that order. It isn't funny, and it's not sensible, and it is our business, Xiong. [[smoddy]] 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - no deletion of failed policy proposals kthxplz. Haven't we've been through this before? -- grm_wnr Esc 20:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Erwin
• Keep so long as it is labeled {{rejected}}. — Dan | Talk 21:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with the policy, but I wouldn't be able to express this as well as I do if it wasn't articulated somewhere. Insert suitable reference to Voltaire. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. [1]. -- Norvy (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and reject. I agree with the rejection of this proposal. It needs to be kept as evidence that censorship tags -- even minimal content-free ones! -- are rejected. The "Toby" system is necessarily the least offensive system of censorship tags, since it does not impose any specific bias ("POV") as to what is censorable (nudity, violence, sex, etc.). Any system which does carry a bias is more offensive against Wikipedia principles than Toby. Therefore, the rejection of Toby carries with it the rejection of every system of censorship tagging. --FOo 21:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Reject. Goodfaith policy, terrible idea. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Fail (== Keep and mark as {failed}). (New page, new specialism, so why not new and more useful shorthands?) Ah oh yeah, the reason why is because we should never delete policy proposals you see, it's always a good idea to keep a record of what's been tried. Since this particular policy seems likely to fail though, it should be marked with a failed tag. Does that all sound reasonable? Kim Bruning 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Using Misc Deletion to determine that a proposal has failed sounds like a bad precedent to set. -- Norvy (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh hmm yes. That was not my intent, but I can see how it might be read that way. Sorry for the confusion! Kim Bruning 02:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Just keep it is, then. Kim Bruning 02:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- DS1953 03:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I like the idea of Toby (especially because of the fact it's opt-in), but I think we need to come up with a method we can all agree on. Hopefully, that'll come. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 03:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to vote ban Xiong from using the acronym FUD :P —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 03:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. No. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, and we don't need Toby around. --WikiFanatic,^{formerly WikiFan04Talk 00:06, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)}
  • This is more of a "I choose to censor" feature than a "you must comply with our censorship rules" feature. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 06:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Aaah, the first really contentious nomination at MD... it makes me feel proud. :) As for the topic at hand, keep as rejected proposal. As far as I know, Toby didn't get much support, but the "Disable inline display of images" option did sound like a good proposal. Maybe that could be split from it, but that is beyond the scope of this debate. Titoxd 07:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep failed proposal and ban Xiong from using the acronym FUD Ashibaka (tock) 18:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or Keep as a record. Xiong can Toby his own user page if he likes. Karmafist 19:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I actually nominated this after cleaning up SPUI's toby images, so I probably saw red when I saw the guy. At any rate I'm changing my vote as listed above
• Weak Keep. I hate this proposal with a passion, but that's why I don't want to have to do this discussion all over again, so it should probably be kept for documentation purposes. Please keep that {{rejected}} tag firmly in place, and let's hope this doesn't inspire more bad ideas. --IByte 15:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and mark as rejected. It's a good-faith proposal, and it doesn't advocate vandalism or other disruptive actions. --Carnildo 20:10, 6 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.