Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 delete, but because someone found it funny, BJAODN. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiSupremeCourt

I believe this page to have been fully founded in good faith, however I feel it goes against Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and I feel it should not be portrayed as such. I am therefore nominating this page for deletion. Ian13/talk 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As a note, "Take down Willy on Wheels and find him guilty, by giving him a fair trial." - how can you give someone a fair trial if you aim to find him guilty? Ian13/talk 09:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there really any question that giving Willy on Wheels a fair trial would result in him being found guilty? Jimpartame 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I very much doubt it possible - but it isn't really a fair trial if you are pushing for a judgment either way. Ian13/talk 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and archive. Reject it, but don't delete it. As we've established on this page a number of times, these things should be archived after rejection, not deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a court room. Vandals are dealt with by Admins not juries that dont even hold the slightest bit of weight in the Wikipedia community. There is no need to keep - • The Giant Puffin • 20:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete though I agree with Johnleemk, this was never released as a proposal. Also, this has been falsely associated with my organisation. Computerjoe's talk 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with Computerjoe and Giant Puffin, as this was created without the consensus of anyone else in the Community Justice project --TBC??? ??? ??? 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That is not grounds for deletion. We could simply disown it. Computerjoe's talk 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I honestly can't tell whether this was intended seriously or not. If it was intended as a serious proposal, we do not typically deleted failed policy proposals. If it's discussed and it fails, it should be properly tagged with {{rejected}} or {{historical}} and kept as a record of the discussion. Either way, it should probably be tagged with {{proposed}} for now. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Although I am not sure about the idea, I think if CJ is going to have one it should be planned by the members so it needs to be re-done (if its going to be created) -- - K a s h Talk | email 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and reject per Rossami. FreplySpang (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject and Keep per Rossami and Johnleemk. - Pureblade | Θ 23:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's purpose (which is fairly ambiguous as it does not go into any further detail about it other than saying it is for "bringing vandals to justice") is already covered by other branches of Wikipedia and it does not seem very professional. - Conrad Devonshire 23:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary. We already have procedures for stopping vandalism; and judicially we already have the Arbitration Committee. What extra functions would this serve, from where would it derive its legitimacy (Jimbo and elections like ArbCom?) and anyway, why would vandals participate in the process?! Batmanand | Talk 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I say we give it a shot, see how it goes. Scienceman123 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete, but save'. Agreeing with Johnleemk. Although this page was founded in good faith, it is not practical, as there are systems in place. See the arbitration committee page for details. (^'-')^ Covington 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject and archive per Rossami. I agree, it was founded with good intentions, but it has an almost witch hunt feel to it. More importantly, it tries to duplicate a number of means through which vandalism is dealt with — WP:AIV, WP;AN/I, arbitration, RfC, etc... feature creep. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and do not save. Not neccessary and covered by other bases in better ways. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 05:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is somebody making a game out of Wikipedia policy; that's different from a rejected proposal. -- SCZenz 06:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to General Eisenhower for now, let him see if he can flesh it out with more members and material, etc. Also, if and when it's ready for re-introduction into public space, it should probably be a WikiProject not a straight-up Wikipedia: page. Herostratus 06:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject (using {{rejected}}), but keep or userfy per above. Misza13 T C 10:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems very questionable on many levels. --Ashenai 10:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Borisblue 12:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't really worthy of an historical/rejected tag, because it was mostly a vanity page to begin with. Xoloz 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I disagree. I think that General Eisenhower is just extremely flamboyant. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • General Eisenhower is very dead, and was anti-flamboyant while alive. User:General Eisenhower, if flamboyant, has chosen an ironic namesake. :) Xoloz 16:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems vain and dubious, also, don't vandals get a fair trial here? --Knucmo2 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The page says vandals get a fair trial. Jimpartame 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought that was what admins and ArbCom was for. American Patriot 1776 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xoloz. DarthVader 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, reject and archive per Johnleemk. Septentrionalis 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. The idea is completely stupid, bordering on facetious. - Richardcavell 22:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Completel hopeless proposal but we don't delete proposals just because they haven't a chance of becoming policy. Keep it because we might learn from it, and I certainly would wish to refer to it in future. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Downright bizarre. Ambi 08:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is no longer a part of Community Justice, consensus was gained that it never was! Computerjoe's talk 19:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:General Eisenhower/WikiSupremeCourt. BD2412 T 21:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a good idea - will waste more admin time. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 23:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN as "other deleted nonsense". NSLE (T+C) at 00:59 UTC (2006-04-23)
  • Delete on the basis that it is not written seriously enough to be taken seriously enough. Tyrenius 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and just go forward with hanging WoW without a trial. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Archive. Keep for historical interest. GChriss 17:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN as "other deleted nonsense". --Quiddity 21:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject but don't delete altogether. Admins are trusted to judge vandals fairly. Any disputes can go through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Keep, since the proposal is in good faith. --TantalumTelluride 00:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you want to reject the proposed policy, isn't there an established procedure for that? Trying to delete proposals instead of discussing them isn't the wiki way. Jimpartame 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy/BJAODN No offense, but it made me laugh pretty hard. Ashibaka tock 02:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and reject as per Johnleemk ConDemTalk 02:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN per Ashibaka. Kimchi.sg | talk 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/BJAODN, nothing but nonsense. --Terence Ong 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN per TerenceOng. Second choice is to keep, reject, and archive. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Dan | talk 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, lmaocopter. --Rory096(block) 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I LOL'D, keep for posterity (on BJAODN, that is). As if vandals were our biggest problem... -- grm_wnr Esc 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the project, although not a good idea, was clearly made in good faith, it seems a little insensitive to recommend adding to BJAODN. By all means vote delete or keep, but please be aware that the creators of the page will be reading this. ConDemTalk 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Reject, Archive. This proposes a massive and unnecessary shift in policy and structure but as time was taken to think it through and type it up, it should be saved. DougOfDoom talk 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with extra-hot fire. Vandals are not entitled to "a fair trial by jury", and neither are people who create junk like this. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Delete --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If this is meant as a serious project, can someone tell me exactly is it going to do? Otherwise, send it to WP:BJAODN. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Tag with {{rejected}} --LV (Dark Mark) 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • BJAODN "Find him guilty, by giving him a fair trial." -- jeffthejiff 00:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I joined. Tennessee Wood
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.