Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign

There are very few situations in which I believe it's appropriate to nominate a user's page for deletion, but this is one of those rare instances. This page actively works against everything that Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. It advocates a boycott of Wikipedia and proposes that it "should be ended rather than amended", "Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc.", "...actively discourage everyone from using Wikipedia as a research tool..." and "...encourage professional organizations to officially denounce Wikipedia as a research tool." I asked User:JuanMuslim to remove the page, but he declined, stating that a vote was ongoing. As this page doesn't help Wikipedia in any way and, in fact, has the potential to harm it, I believe deletion is warranted. Carbonite | Talk 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, harmful to the project. Userspace is not blogspace. -Splashtalk 04:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the actual page begins with...Wikipedia Boycott Campaign: The purpose of the "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" would be to call attention to the systemic issues plaguing Wikipedia as explained within the Criticism of Wikipedia article. This boycott would consist of refusal to participate in contributing to Wikipedia as well as encouraging others to do so. You may offer your suggestions, make comments, etc at the talk page....--JuanMuslim 1m 05:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I stated that I didn't want to delete the page because the vote was currently occuring. Please do not interfere with a vote on my own subpage. If the oppose votes outweigh the support votes, then such a boycott wouldn't occur. The voting began last week. There is no such boycott at this point. --JuanMuslim 1m 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom (myself). Carbonite | Talk 05:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no such thing as the Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. It's totally hypothetical. Note the would's and could's found in my talk page. It's not even an article. --JuanMuslim 1m 05:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The boycott itself may not exist, but this certainly looks like a campaign to me. Even with the conditionals, this is something that should be on your personal web page, not for your Wikipedia talk page. Carbonite | Talk 05:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There are many more offensive talk pages that could be deleted.--JuanMuslim 1m 05:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That's probably true, but most of those pages don't focus on boycotting Wikipedia. The whole point of this project is to build an encyclopedia. User pages are meant to assist users in achieving that goal. Pages that actively work against creating an encyclopedia should be hosted elsewhere. Carbonite | Talk 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete @Juan: You are proposing a boycott, so calling this a policy/guideline proposal is somewhat of a contradiction. Basically you are using Wikipedia as a webhost. Ashibaka (tock) 05:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that my vote is neutral. Have you seen other people's talk pages? --JuanMuslim 1m 05:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this page helps the project but I also don't really see how it hurts the project either. This is no worse than the final rant we see from many users who decide to leave the project. Weak keep. Rossami (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this falls directly under Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Under "personal homepages:" "Wikipedians have their own personal pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." This page obviously isn't being used for working on the encyclopedia since it's about boycotting the project. Carbonite | Talk 05:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's relevant to Wikipedia because it is totally about Wikipedia. --JuanMuslim 1m 05:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • When you first nominated my talk page for deletion, you stated that you nominated it because it is detrimental to Wikipedia. --JuanMuslim 1m 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • It is detrimental to Wikipedia, because instead of being about working to improve the encyclopedia, it's about not working at all on the project. The whole point of a boycott is to encourage people not to do something. Carbonite | Talk 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Detrimental to Wikipedia in your view, but clearly relevant to Wikipedia. WP:NOT does not judge whether other users are being "helpful to" or "detrimental to" the project, nor should you be making such a judgment when deciding what user-space pages to delete.
  • Delete. Agree with Ashibaka that JuanMuslim is trying to use Wikipedia as a webhost, and the fact that he's voted neutral in his own boycott makes it even more bizarre. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You could potentially delete any subpage you are against based on such reasoning. --JuanMuslim 1m 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose potentially one might, but a consensus for deletion is likely only to arise where the page has no conceivable encyclopedic purpose. Xoloz 06:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia could become even better as a result. The terms of the boycott are negotiable. Note the could's and would's. That's why I am looking for some input. --JuanMuslim 1m 06:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A boycott isn't designed to help the subject of the boycott, it's designed to harm it. If Nike is boycotted for labor violations, is the purpose of that boycott to help Nike? Of course not. How could a proposed boycott ever help Wikipedia? In any case, your user space isn't the place for proposing a helpful or harmful boycott. Carbonite | Talk 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A boycott seeks to better a social, political, etc situation. A beneficial outcome would certainly benefit researchers, students, etc, and thus, Wikipedia as a whole. As mentioned before, there is no such thing as a Wikipedia Boycott Campaign. --JuanMuslim 1m 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Arguing for reforming WP is okay, criticizing WP is ok... but these suggestions must be constructive to be within the bounds of project participation. Saying "Everyone Leave WP!", even as some form of diluted hypothetical, isn't constructive. Still, this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Feel free to write a user essay discussing your worries about WP, together with "positive" suggestions for reform. Just an ill-conceived execution of an idea with a germ of good-faith at its heart, I suspect. Xoloz 06:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I added the could's and would's after someone stated that the boycott should have more details...specific purpose, etc. --JuanMuslim 1m 06:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Suggestions must be "constructive" to be "within the bounds of project participation"? Constructive in whose eyes? +sj +
  • Keep. Deleting such things only lends credibility to accusations of cabalism. If people disagree, let them talk about it on the talk page. Friday (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's stupid and harmless, and deleting user subpages because they're stupid puts a chilling effect on Wikipedia political discussions. Ignore it and it will go away. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a endless supply of stupid user pages, but I've never nominated any of them for deletion. This page goes beyond stupid to being a disruption and working directly against the goals of Wikipedia. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a community second. This isn't a social experiment or a democracy. When pages go from being stupid to being detrimental, deletion is often warranted. This page would be entirely appropriate for someone's personal web site, but it doesn't belong here. Carbonite | Talk 15:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • In what way is it disruption? It seems to me that by putting this as a user-space subpage, 1m is very specifically not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; rather, he's trying to make his point without disrupting the community as a whole. If he was trying to call a lot of attention to his campaign, that might be disruptive. If he was spamming pointers to the page onto other pages, that might be disruptive. Instead, he appears to have quietly mentioned it to a couple of other users. The disruption caused by this MfD (as small at it is) is greater than whatever disruption the article has caused. People get to talk about Wikipedia politics on Wikipedia; would you be happier if this were in User talk: space instead of in User: space? I look at it as a thought experiment. He posits the question, "should there be a movement to boycott Wikipedia", and then says he's not sure, let's talk. This is entirely within the sphere of Wikipedia community discussion. I know I'm not the only one who, on occasion, reacts to some of the Wikiuglitude with "I've got much better things to do with my life. Why am I here? Why is anyone?" I think we should let people talk about their issues with Wikipedia on Wikipedia user subpages, as long as they abide by our general policies of witiquette. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. While it's absurdly ridiculous, Friday and Jpgordon make good points. I agree with Xoloz in that it could easily be converted into something more constructive. However, as it stands, it has little to no value, and could be harmfull.--Sean|Black 07:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Many articles of little value that aren't subpages can be found on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many are harmful to the interests of Wikipedia, certainly, much more than a subpage found within my own personal user page.--JuanMuslim 1m 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per Sean. I can't see anything beyond its little value and the potential to harm Wikipedia to justify a full delete vote. But then I can't see any good reason to keep it. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's just one of my subpages. A right that everyone should have. It is not an actual website, because a website would contain subpages such as for links and library, a left side menu, and other features common to a website. My personal subpage that you want to delete only has one page along with its talk page.--JuanMuslim 1m 17:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You have a really weird idea of what a website is. Jpgordon's argument is rather convincing but I'm not changing my vote because your page is really confusing. Ashibaka (tock) 17:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to neutral. I'm too confused to give a proper vote. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Wikipedia is not a web host, and is under no obligation to carry users' content that is not related to improving Wikipedia. Moreover, this appears to be dedicated to harming Wikipedia. Do it off-site, if you must. — Matt Crypto 11:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    By this reasoning, any commentary critical of Wikipedia could be removed from the site. This isn't what you meant to suggest, is it? +sj + 00:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    No; criticism of Wikipedia is beneficial to the project. However, a boycott is going beyond saying "Wikipedia is bad because of X", a boycott is saying "harm Wikipedia using method Y". — Matt Crypto 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless and a relevant use of userspace. The question "can Wikipedia ever become a reliable source?" is a totally valid one. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a relevant question, but the page doesn't ask it. Under "Aspects the boycott could include:" are "Acknowledging that Wikipedia is an inherently flawed system that should be ended rather than amended." and "Acknowledging that Wikipedia can never become encyclopedic regardless of changes, recommendations, etc.". If this was a discussion about the problems of Wikipedia and how best to solve to them, of course that would be a valid and relevant page. If JuanMuslim wants to create that page instead, no one is stopping him. Carbonite | Talk 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't understand why you insist on censoring debate on a relevant subject about Wikipedia. Well, my original idea was to leave everything as broad as possible; now it looks like I've given a too narrow focus for people to vote on. Check out the original page...[1] My original idea would allow boycott participants to select different levels such as 1 to 5 based on their temporary, boycott involvement, but then I decided to take a different approach, and that's what my current subpage looks like.--JuanMuslim 1m 17:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Presumably he's asking for a response, so it seems that this IS that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • A glance at the talk page confirms that there is plenty of quite reasonable discussion going on. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • OK, how about copying the talk (discussion) page so that it replaces the main boycott page? I think that would be acceptable since it would actually be relevant to improving Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 17:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • What I feel is the most inappropriate is having the details of this proposed boycott all laid out and asking people to support or oppose a particular plan. There's even a logo for the boycott. If this could be transformed into the discussion that's taking place on the Boycott talk page, then I'd agree that it would have some purpose. Carbonite | Talk 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if he hadn't made other contributions my vote might have been different, but I don't see it as harmful to wikipedia. I'm not sure I understand the point but if he wants the page I don't see why not. So many users have pages not fully related to the project and I don't find this one particularly special. I understand the "wikipedia is not a webs host" argument, but I would say if we are going to delete this then it should come in the context of more sweeping changes in policy of what users can host or not. gren グレン 20:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am embarrassed that this "Miscellany for deletion" exists. It's very heavy handed and is strong evidence that Juan has a point. Censoring the talk pages of JuanMuslim will only drive the discussions of harming Wikipedia underground. I like this discussion better here where we can see it and counter hype with factual information. --Peter McConaughey 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Erm...how is this "very heavy handed and strong evidence that Juan has a point"?--Sean|Black 01:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and using Wikipedia to bad mouth Wikipedia is both ironic and hypocritical at the same time. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • User:JuanMuslim is out to prove that Wikipedia cannot work without censorship. By censoring him, you are giving him the evidence he needs that he is right. You are helping him create a fascist regime in what could be a very successful pure democracy. It's the oldest trick in the book. Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag to create the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State. Bush used the destruction of the trade towers to create the USA PATRIOT Act, and JuanMuslim is using the threat of a "Wikipedia Boycott Campaign" that he won't even support to convince editors to give more power to administrators. --Peter McConaughey 06:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, but that makes even less sense. I don't see anything about censorship or giving more power to admins on that page.--Sean|Black 06:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Even if you haven't read how Germany lost its civil rights in 1933, how the United States lost its civil rights in 2005, or any of a thousand similar stories throughout history, surely you must have seen Star Wars. Remember how the chancellor convinced the people to make him an emperor? He created a system of terror and then got JarJar Binks to propose "emergency war powers" for him. Now, look at the emergency war powers that JuanMuslim implies are needed to deal with problems like his hypothetical Boycott Campaign: pure despotism. It's the oldest trick in the book. --Peter McConaughey 07:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Again, that doesn't make sense.--Sean|Black 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
              • So, you have an apple and a pear both on the same tree. The apple thinks the tree is dying; the pear believes the apple is trying to kill the tree but the tree is alive and well. The orange on the other tree thinks that if the pear kills the pear cuts off the apple the tree will die. That's Peter. The raspberry (you) is on a bush. I hope this clears things up. gren グレン 08:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Exactly. That's how stupid this whole "Miscellany for deletion" is. If someone wants to make a point about Wikipedia on his talk page, let him. We can't control what people think about us, or what conclusions they reach, and JuanMuslim has gone out of his way to allow alternate opinions to exist alongside his. --Peter McConaughey 19:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant misuse of a talk page, I don't normally endorse deleting a person's own userspace pages but this page crosses the line. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It does not seem fair that you are willing to abrubtly end an ongoing voting process as well as relevant discussion, such as what is occurring on my personal userpage. --JuanMuslim 1m 08:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah well life isn't fair. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page baggles me thoroughly--what is he riddling? My initial response to its many layers of self-contradiction is "Delete". Yet, it is a User: space page. If JuanMuslim were to join in a boycott, he would not have the right to use the page User:JuanMuslim or any of its subpages. Even if JuanMuslim did not join such a boycott, leading or directing such a movement would be sufficient grounds for this page's deletion. This is a worthless and outright harmful page, and I wonder what good faith could have led JuanMuslim to create such a thing. However, I cannot vote for its deletion--yet. NatusRoma 05:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per jpgordon. Also agree with Rossami: "This is no worse than the final rant we see from many users who decide to leave the project." TacoDeposit 08:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is worse than that. This is an active (or would-be active) campaign by an active editor, not one who has left in a huff. -Splashtalk 18:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I am an active editor who has dedicated many long hours to Wikipedia. We must not become complacent. I am not surprised that the possibility of a boycott frightens those who feel insecure about the status of Wikipedia. --JuanMuslim 1m 19:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is very sad, these 2 articles criticizing wikipedia, are themselves "self-interesters". Lets just keep these 2 articles to show everyone how stupid it is. JedOs 11:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I heard there's an encyclopedia around here somewhere. If these rumors are true, maybe working on that is a better use of time than worrying about what's in user space. Friday (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • An encyclopedia, you say? Interesting. :)--Sean|Black 21:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore: it's in his user space. If a user wants to make an idiot of himself in his user space, let him. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Not if he's trying to make an idiot of Wikipedia too. We allow wide latitude in userspace, but that is no excuse for wilfully trying to boycott the project. Wikipedia is tolerant: it is not stupid. -Splashtalk 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's only a user page. This is not a big threat to Wikipedia. Don't we have better things to do than worry about this? As a previous voter stated, deleting this page will only give ammunition to cabalism accusers. It would be absolutely silly to delete this page.--Alhutch 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain I guess I can't vote delete because I voted their, and I think it is pretty crazy to try to delete something on his userspace anyway. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't like it, but it's his user space and he can do what he wants with it!--Irishpunktom\talk 11:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment, I can't vote to boycott something that I spend a lot of time and effort on, but the incident regarding "65.81.97.208" and John Seigenthaler Sr. proves one thing true: DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA AS A TRUE SOURCE IN ANY PAPER RESEARCH OR DOCUMENT don't even believe some of the things you read unless you have another source, for the love of God!. That is one of the many reasons I have voted abstain here and on the deletion page. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keeep, raises issues that frustrate many Wikipedians, shows that most of us have faith these issues can be overcome. As such, the page is good for wikipedia. Babajobu 11:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I dislike it, but it's all about Wikipedia and appropriate for userspace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since when does criticism of Wikipedia have to be constructive to be allowed? If User:JuanMuslim wants to disparage the project in his own userspace, that's his right (many others have). Chick Bowen 13:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trolling. Gamaliel 16:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not an Internet troll, because according to Wikipedia, "In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants."--JuanMuslim 1m 17:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's pretty much what you are doing. Gamaliel 17:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, a new sort of troll: one who does his trollery quietly, in an area that generally won't be seen except by new pages patrollers and people reading WP:MFD. A secret troll. Disruption by being quiet. Awesomely effective. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • labeling someone is not going to help anyone. He has a right to an opinion on his userspace. I do not believe his user space is hurting anyone, that is not to say I dont agree with him, as I believe a boycott of wikipedia would do no good. JedOs 00:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I was not aware that 'trolling' on one's user pages was grounds for deletion. In fact, I am pretty sure it isn't. If you find the trolling to be really annoying, you can file an RfC or submit a case to mediation. But voting to delete someone's user page on these grounds is out of line. +sj + 00:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A harmless user page which is nominally relevant to the project. Scott 04:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC) I like Ignore better. -- Scott eiπ 07:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore - It is user space, people are critical of wikipedia all over the place all the time, I don't see how that matters though. Dalf | Talk 06:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ignore - Does not contribute to wikipedia, but is related to the project. Unfortunately, it is a waste of server space and time that could be spent on bettering the Criticisms of Wikipedia page. Seriously, buy a domain, it's $7. Vanessa kelly 07:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Wikipedia should be strong enough to withstand criticism from both within and from outside the Wikipedia. If it is not, then maybe it should die or become replace by something better. My hope is that the Wikipedia can improve, but we can only do that if we are willing to seriously consider all complaints about the Wikipedia. BlankVerse 09:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a constructive page IMO, but the attempt to censor such pages is far more harmful to Wikipedia than the pages themselves. We should be able to withstand such criticism. Andrewa 14:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep User pages should not be censored. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. User pages should definitely not be censored. "Wikipedia is not a webhost" is meant to refer to pages with content unrelated to Wikipedia; not pages with content about Wikipedia which in other editors opinions is 'harmful to' or 'not improving' the site. +sj + 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well said.--Alhutch 23:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I just find it ironic that he's using Wikipedia to plan a boycott of Wikipedia. karmafist 00:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it certainly is. Wikipedia's openness could ultimately be the cause for its own demise. --JuanMuslim 1m 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So you agree we should delete this page? Either you're trying to bring it down from the inside, or you're not. If you are, then it should be deleted as harmful, if you're not it should be deleted as pointlessness with potential for harm. -Splashtalk 03:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No. My vote is still keep. I don't like your option 1 and option 2.--JuanMuslim 1m 04:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - The fact that Wikipedia has trouble tolerating criticism is a grave and dangerous problem. The points brought up on this "boycott" page should be welcomed, not deleted. To Juan: I am glad you moved your site to BluWiki and would like to let you know, as the owner of BluWiki, your content will never be censored. --SamOdio 18:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have started a website on BluWiki at http://www.bluwiki.org/go/BoycottWikipedia. I want to thank all of you for your kind words of encouragement. Because you all have worked hard to fight for "subpage rights", I will keep my current WBC subpage for some time to come. Also, I need the assistance of Wikipedians to make Wikipedia better. You know Wikipedia better than any librarian, engineer, etc.--JuanMuslim 1m 05:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Criticism is necessary to improve. We should read, dicuss, and learn from it not delete it.--Chemturion 21:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't believe that the BoycottWikipedia.jpg image that I use for my subpage is up for possible deletion.--JuanMuslim 1m 07:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia needs to embrace and respond to criticism. However, this is not the correct response. David D. (Talk) 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a blatant attempt at censorship for political control. Barnaby dawson 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep No problem with criticism inside a userpage. It's presented fairly reasonably too, even if I totally disagree with it! -- Jgritz 00:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You have my vote. Эйрон Кинни 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just a way of highlighting core problems. Not harmful at all - just shows that we allow internal debate/dissent -- Eug 02:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Ignore. The actual content is pretty incoherent (calling on Wikipedians to boycott Wikipedia? Asking for support of a campaign the organizer himself calls hypothetical?), but I don't see any inherent reason why it should be deleted. The concerns about Wikipedia's reliability are legitimate ones the community needs to respond to (even if this presentation of them isn't particularly articulate). Plus, the points raised above about allowing internal dissent are important ones. Speech on a userpage isn't disruption. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Let them rant, it is good -Nv8200p talk 14:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep without attributing more value to it than that an editor put it on their page, and that it is no slam dunk to decide that a boycott is harmful to WP in the long run, which is all that should count.
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMO voting "ignore" is an abuse of MfD and verges on a personal attack. Comments within xFD pages, on how good or bad the page at issue is, are tolerated, presumably bcz it's tough to draw the line between when they aid compactly expressing one's reason and when they are just efforts to shame a colleague for their editing or vote. You failed to ignore no later than when you learned enough to edit this page, and saying "ignore" as if casting a vote is neither participation in this process nor ignoring it. Rather, it is either amusing yourself to the detriment of this serious process, or an effort to deliver an insult, or probably both. Given the ambiguity, an insult is delivered, even if you were just vandalistically amusing yourself. And the insult is the worse for being ambiguous about whether you are really insulting voters on one side (the Keep side, i would guess), both sides who take this process seriously, or the colleague who created the page. For shame.
    --Jerzy•t 22:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this page in now way assists in the creation of an encyclopedia, and is in effect using a user page as personal web space. DES (talk) 00:00, 13 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.