[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism userbox

Thu Jun 1 05:32:33 UTC 2006

  On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:26:49 +0100 "Tony Sidaway" wrote:

>this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox
>that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds
>that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.

>I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal
>of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging,
>though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the
>like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and
>coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only
>bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse.
>Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where
>traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors
>vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of
>votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be
>appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be
>made for this particular template

  This is what I was talking about. When admins consider themselves empowered to completely ignore community consensus on the ground "I know better". The userbox debate has provided the highest amount of this shit, with admins speedying templates kept the day before at TfD. Don't give me that crap about best interests of the encyclopedia, it's subjective and you have no right to overrule community by the virtue of being an administrator. This makes me sick. Thankfully someone with good sense has restored the debate.

  Molu, disgusted

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 