Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result of the debate was Keep.

In my judgment, there is no consensus to delete this. I will close this early, even with the delete votes, because consensus will not likely develop anytime, anytime in the next five days. I think we all see that. I don't think anyone can say any different. Anyone could have closed this keep earlier.


Additionally, my side opinion, all of this could have been determined without all the bad faith stuff thrown around. I don't care if NTWW gets *MORE* publicity. If everyone has no problem with this [NTTW being a vehicle on Wikipedia] , than I accept that as consensus, I won't fight it. I have no axe to grind. I just want to ask certain people to remember why we are here. When the editing / discussion gets heated, best to go on to something else. Comments like "Bad faith nom, are never helpful. WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and all that. And I'm talking to myself in this lecture as well. I also could have done better. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 06

Banned editors are not permitted to post or edit. The definition of posting can be extended to meet the spirit of our banning policy, that in fact, they are posting voice material ono the English Wikipedia. We have already showed them the door, now we permit them to call us on the telephone. This page would appear to meet our criteria for speedy deletion on reposting by banned users. An administrator has recommended MFD, and I agree. Its not clear cut. Thank you all for looking at this. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This nomination is ridiculous as is the nom's threat to remove any links to this skypecast. This skypecast does not harm whatsoever and attempting to extend our policies regarding banning to this extreme is harmful and closed-minded, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I am the most open minded when it comes to things, but not banned users. Please reconsider some of your characterizations about me, I really do try to do good for the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, so you're open minded about everything except banned users, which is what ElKevbo basically just said. Hardly an attack, especially when you just admit it yourself. Majorly (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we could be like the Party in Orwell's 1984 and expunge all references to banned users, except when we need to keep them around for Two Minutes Hates. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Reality check for the Wikilawyers: banned users are banned for good reasons. And banned means -- wait for it -- banned. And if Dan wants another vehicle for his whacky crusade, maybe he ought to look elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I seem to be in the majority here and now, and you seem to be in the minority, so maybe you should show a little less cockiness. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The both of you know better and ought to dial down the rhetoric a bit. srsly. ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, never heard anything so ridiculous. They aren't posting, please leave it be. Majorly (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Does Wal*Mart carry the same model of nuclear-powered hair-splitter you're using? I need to get me one of those. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm allowed to split hairs, because I disagree with the part of the banning policy that states banned users can't edit at all. If this is a convenient loophole, so be it. Majorly (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Elaboration: this is a vote to keep the page. There's no edits by banned users there. The only thing connected to banned users is some links to audio conversations on an external site. Since the files are harmless, I don't see the worry of linking to them. As someone has said, if you don't like the idea of hearing banned users talk, don't download the file. Simple. As. That. Majorly (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems to be "Son of BADSITES: BADPODCASTS!" *Dan T.* (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is screaming "BADSITES! BADSITES! WAH! WAH! WAH!" the only arrow in your rhetorical quiver? --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I also like throwing in references to Orwell's 1984, Scientology's Suppressive Persons, and various relevant Twilight Zone episodes, when they seem apt. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
ooh, suppressive persons - that's much better than the term (BADPEOPLE) I've been using. --Random832 (contribs) 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and close this frivolous waste of time. The skypecasts are on Commons, we don't prohibit links to Commons for reasons that ought to be obvious to anyone. You need to press the play button to hear them. If you lack the selfcontrol not to do that there is little enwiki can do to help you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you need a better argument than "no one has to read it", as the same "logic" applies to every spam page, personal attack, divisive userbox, or miscellaneous deletable piece of crap on Wikipedia. I'd also suggest that welcoming the banned kinda defeats the purpose of banning them in the first place, don't you think? --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest you look up my username over there or look at this before you question my understanding of what to do with banned users on Wikipedia. Your accusations of Wikilawyering aren't exactly helping you either. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • strong keep this is a good faith attempt to discuss wikipedia, and even if discussion of wikipedia is somewhat critical, it should be encouraged and not hidden. special, random, Merkinsmum 15:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A deeply stupid and/or naive idea; namely, a vehicle for people who were banned for good reason. You Wikilawyers above ARE aware of the meaning of "banned", right? A little common sense would go a long way here. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What policy is an audio interview violating? Lawrence § t/e 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:BAN. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, take it to deletion requests on commons and see how far you get. --Random832 (contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Commons is a project I'm not really active on, and Commons is not the English Wikipedia. I don't understand your argument. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The argument is that the media in question are hosted on Commons, not en-wp, so any deletion argument should take place there. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Bad faith nom by sockpuppet who stated intention to remove all reference to the oggs, and when reverted ran here. No policy-based or supported reason to delete. Lawrence § t/e 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Toned down wording - I have it on very good authority that Nonvocalscream is a good person (but I still say 'keep' based on lack of policy grounding to delete). Lawrence § t/e 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? In the nomination, I addressed the banning policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're grasping at pedantic straws, but don't let me stop you from creating a massive disruptive wave to prove a point. Carry on with trolling. Why are we not nominating references to Wikbak, which also enables banned editors? Lawrence § t/e 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Your really assuming bad faith here. Don't call what I do trolling. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You stated that you intended to remove all references to these ogg files on WP:AN, and when reverted ran here. AGF except when a user is obviously disrupting Wikipedia: You/disruptive sockpuppets. Cheers. Lawrence § t/e 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested that I run here. I've also consented to a checkuser here. Please reconsider your personal attacks. We don't do that. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling them personal attacks does not make it so. Your account is clearly a sock account, and this nomination is clearly disruptive. Stating a truth is never a personal attack. Lawrence § t/e 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has absolutely nothing to do with the long-dead BADSITES horse which some people seem intent on flogging still, and everything to do with banning policy. A banned user is banned. We don't give up server resources to allow said banned user to continue to soapbox, and we never have - nothing has changed in that respect. We have already heard everything Greg Kohs has to say about his ban, and his ban has withstood an awful lot of scrutiny. He is free to continue telling the world how misjudged he is, but not using Wikimedia Foundation resources. If PM wants to take this offsite, to some place which (unlike Wikipedia) is a free web host, then he's welcome to do so. That will not, of course, make the input of banned users any more welcome. Talk to Uninvited Company=, who seems to have no problem with these guys,I am sure he will host it on WikBack. But not on Wikipedia, thanks, because the input of banned users is not welcome and never has been. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By this rationale, all links to Wikbak, which welcomes banned users, must be removed. Lawrence § t/e 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are really kicking that strawman's ass. Consider using the uppercut! Archfailure (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC) — Archfailure (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • When presented with a ridiculous disruptive strawman deletion nomination by an obvious sockpuppet account (look at the contributions), reply in kind. It's bullshit games like this which generate fantastic disruption. If people just put their heads down and wrote articles--the only damn reason we're supposed to be here--this wouldn't matter. But until we toss all the children out, that won't happen. Lawrence § t/e 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The quality of the nominator should not inform the quality of the discussion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Phil, you're smarter than that weak attempt. Then why do revert banned users on sight? Good strawman reply there. We're deep in the hay now. Lawrence § t/e 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lawrence, I happen to know that NonvocalScream is an OTRS volunteer and has provided the necessary identifying information to the Foundation. Your attack on Scream is egregious and completely unworthy. I suggest you apologise or redact that statement. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, I do believe this nomination is disruptive, since it's just going to generate absurd conflict over something no-one would have given a shit about otherwise, two days from now. Scream's editing history and OTRS status, and alleged Foundation connection also indicates he's a sock of someone established, given the newness of the account, so my calling him a sock is spot-on. My point is that we can't gauge who it is, for histories of sanction, biases, or problems, and thus something this inflammatory is suspect to many. Lawrence § t/e 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are being a disruptive twit. Please stop or accept our 24 hour all expenses paid vacation to somewhere other than Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You are out of bounds, Phil--you have no standing to issue this block as an involved user on this page. Refactor. I've already said on ANI I'm done. Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Threats of blocks are unecessary. -- Naerii 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ooh, the old 'stop saying things I disagree with, or I'll make you shut up' threat. Please change your name to Phil 'the Chill' Sandifer if chilling effect behaviors are going to become your Modus Operandi. ThuranX (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's ok, guys, leave it. Phil would not have pulled the trigger there, as he would not want to risk losing adminship to get back at me. Lets let it go. Lawrence § t/e 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The proper place for a deletion debate on the grounds of use of server resources is over at Commons, where the files in question are actually hosted, isn't it? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a deliberate circumvention of the banned user policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you can let this discussion proceed without getting too excited about people with opposing views. Avruch T 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think, I object to using our servers to host it on en.wikipedia. But I don't object to linking to it or deferring to another project's decision to host it on their part of WM's servers (that would be a discussion for Commons or Foundation I think). MBisanz talk 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep No edits were made by a banned user, and posting a link to a conversation can't be considered proxy editing I don't think. Avruch T 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a "link to a conversation", it's an editor recently returned fomr a six month ban who has chosen to go out and canvass several banned users, interview them, and then present their views, using Wikimedia Foundation hosting and bandwidth to do so. That's not a link to some other site where they just happened to be talking, it's a deliberate act to present the views of banned users without any form of balance or critique. It is, as Phil notes above, a blatant end-run around the banning policy. It was done, I am sure, with the best of motives and is most likely the product of naivete rather than evil, but it is, nonetheless, wrong, per policy. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How about a compromise where Episode 7 can be rebuttals to the banned users' views? That would be "balance" and "critique", right? --Random832 (contribs) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, PM's ban was 90 days, please refactor "six months". --Random832 (contribs) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The ban policy is, in my view, designed to prevent editors from editing Wikipedia. Is that not the case? In this situation, they haven't edited anything or even visited the site. Are we to ban mentions of these folks as well, or people who know them too well? What is the object you are trying to achieve here? I'm not sure I see it. Avruch T 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the banned users' presence on Wikback can be seen as a deliberate act on UC's part too - I don't know if he specifically invited anyone, but he does personally approve every account before they are allowed to post. --Random832 (contribs) 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. BAN allows users to edit on behalf of banned users if they themselves take responsibility for the edits. PM has clearly taken responsibility for this podcast, so I think the only question is whether the content in itself is appropriate. Having listened to about half of it, I think it is extremely interesting, matter-of-fact, and enlightening. We ought to be able to criticize the system without being accused of proxying. --Zvika (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is ridiculous. "posting voice material"?? Nope, sorry - Alison ❤ 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - the banned editors are not editing, they are being recorded and referenced by an editor in good standing. Why such fear of what they have to say? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Anything that helps facilitate communication is good. Give communication a chance! It is a harmless conversation. Moreover, though this is not a keep reason, it is unbecoming of those !voting delete; it looks petty and at least related to the spirit of BADSITES (the rejected policy that keeps on giving), whether it is or not. The deleters and the nominator are acting in good faith, no doubt, but it is an over reaction to attempt to purge this. The people PM interviewed seemed intelligent enough, I didn't hear any growling or shouted curse words, and PrivateMusings gave them a chance to communicate their grievances with the Wikipedia community...and this the reaction they get! I'm sure they're not surprised. I wonder if talking to a banned user at a Wikimedia related function is circumventing the ban policy too? :-) daveh4h 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've donated money to WMF for the door security. :) </humor> On the serious side... we do have a process for a banned user to appeal be it Requests for arb. I really do think this may be an unintentional end run around the policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP blocking policy states, "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user." I see no indication that Privatemusings was doing this at the direction of any banned user; rather, he invited them at his own initiative to participate in a podcast. This is vastly different from an editor proxying for a banned user on a project page or talk page somewhere, where the conversation is live and usually directed toward or against some course of action. Those are the circumstances where banned users' influence can be disruptive as they interfere with good-faith collaboration, not in an opt-in recorded conversation moderated by an apparently good-faith user. alanyst /talk/ 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep -- Naerii 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Guy and Phil Sandifer who already elaborated on this. In my opinion, too, this is a violation of the spirit of the banning policy. side note: Calling OTRS volunteers 'sockpuppets' is, in a word, ridiculous, as they are subject to close scrutiny before being approved. --Mbimmler (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    If that's the case, then it's a good argument for changing the policy, since policy is supposed to follow community consensus, and the consensus does not seem to be in favor of that interpretation. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While we can all agree that these people are no longer welcome on the wiki, I don't think deleting this will do any good. This is an interview by PM, who -I hope- takes responsibility for what is said there (note: I haven't listened to the podcast). -- lucasbfr talk 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Gregory Kohs has a sexy voice!--HarryPotterWatchDog (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC) user is indef blocked as a sock -- lucasbfr talk 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Policy is quite clear, banned users are not allowed to post and no-one is allowed to post on their behalf. This podcast is, if not against that policy, then at least a blatant exploitation of a loophole in the policy. However, I think it has a net positive contribution to Wikipedia and deleting it would not be in the best interests of producing an encyclopaedia. Therefore, in the spirit of WP:IAR, I think we should keep it and encourage such things in future (as long as the people involved are invited to contribute by a member of the community in good standing, as PM has done here, and that person takes responsibility for ensuring everything is in keeping with our policies on civility, personal attacks, etc.). --Tango (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow me to point you guys to the ignore all rules policy. If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. This improves the encyclopedia; it provides interesting insights into banned users and helps build a sense of community. And after all, we are volunteers — we need something interesting to cheer us up and encourage us to stay here and write articles. IMHO PM has done a good job with this, good on him, and I'd like it kept. Also, I have listened to the podcasts and none of them have been begging to get back in, or flamed, or shown the slightest bit of incivility, they acknowledge they were a bit stupid and all that.--Phoenix-wiki 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:IAR, WP:PPP and WP:EM.--WaltCip (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dan Tobias and Lawrence Cohen. Ripberger (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: on reading this, it seems many votes are of the opinion that they are voting on the skypecasts themselves. They aren't. This is voting on the episode page, and whatever happens here, the sound files will be kept regardless. As has been stated, bring up the issue on Commons if you don't like the files themselves. Majorly (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Dan Tobias and Lawrence Cohen. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has been one of the most concise, least 'drama' oriented summations of the conflicts behind at least three editors(Wordbomb's in the next part for me), and if anything, this can be pointed to for anyone who wants to know how these banned users see the situation. In this internetcast, at least two come across as more stable and reasonable than they do at WR, and all are making their version of events clear and accessible to anyone who wants to hear them tell it through without being agitated by others, or getting them riled up in general. It's far more a resource for editors who want to be more involved and understand the issues behind this stuff than anything else. And since PM is taking responsibility, it meets the exceptions rules for banned users by my reading as well. I highly suggest that more people shut up and listen to it, so they understand what these people think when they attack us. To those screaming that these are bad bad banned users and we must censir them, i can only offer "Know your enemy as yourself", right? ThuranX (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The skypecasts aren't hosted here, they're hosted on Commons. I suspect that a deletion request there would not go very far at all... They include words from non banned editors, after all, and as said, they give a good deal of useful information that is relevant to WP participants. The description page makes the skypecasts accessible. They (the description pages) need not be hosted here, arguably (they COULD be hosted at Commons too) but there is no compelling reason to delete any particular one of them. Privatemusings is a user currently in good standing who is doing things that are interesting and useful and I find this nomination to be, frankly, lacking in good faith, and the arguments advanced by those advocating deletion to be spurious at best... (Phil, Calton, JzG, you guys know better!) I advocate a speedy close, but in any case keep. ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • you guys know better - Accusations of bad faith, deliberate deception, and/or condescension: all winning rhetorical strategies with me! --Calton | Talk 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Honestly this has to be the most bad faith MfD I have ever seen. Have we suddenly dropped into nineteen eighty four here? ZOMG THOUGHTCRIME! ViridaeTalk 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, on account of reasoned discussion of the morality and ethics of Wikipedia usurps most block considerations. Jeff Biggs (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Definitely bad faith nom. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. *Sigh*. There are absolutely no en.wp policy reason to delete a page that are basically simply linking to files hosted on a sister project (Commons). If you feel NTWW should be deleted fine, nominate the whole NTWW for deletion, but not individual "episode" just because you dislike its content or who's in it. If you don't feel Commons should have it on there, nominate it for deletion over there. KTC (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Stop treating wikipedia like a battleground. Banned people are not enemies. Read that again. Some of you insist on falsely believing that banned people are enemies. That belief causes you to treat wikipedia like a battleground rather than like an encyclopedia workplace. Just because someone's contributions are such that they are not helpful to the current processes we use to create an encyclopedia does not mean they are enemies. Brandt's efforts helped us to create WP:BLP. Somey removed some of the worst abusive language at the Wikipedia Review. It is against policy to treat wikipedia like a battleground. It is counter-productive to make enemies. Who is creating drama here? Not the Wikipedia Review people, but instead the people who are playing wikipedia like a game of us versus them rather than like a place to write an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Banned people are not enemies - No, banned people are -- wait for it -- banned. Not a difficult concept I would think. As for "treating Wikipedia like a battlefield", a) that would be the M.O. of the banned if they're continuing their crusades;, and b) giving them access is, ENCOURAGING the use of Wikipedia as a battlefield, or did you miss that obvious effect? --Calton | Talk 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a ludicrous suggestion. If Michaelangelo were to come back from the dead and somehow get himself banned from Wikipedia, should we then delete all his art as being "edits" by a banned user? Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Referring to something as a "ludicrous suggestion" and immediately following it with an utterly ludicrous analogy: my irony meter just pegged. --Calton | Talk 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why spend your time making snarky comments when this discussion clearly disagrees with your position? Take it as lost and move on. (Of note is that your own vote started off calling the page "deeply stupid.") Avruch T 23:50, 4 April 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.