Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Death Penalty

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep for now as it is evidence in an arbitration, should probably be dumped when that process is finished. - SimonP 02:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty[edit]

Utter, utter bullshit. Neutralitytalk 01:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've voted 'delete', but I'd like it kept around for the duration of the ArbCom case. If it gets "delete", please don't delete straight away but mark it as to be deleted at the end of the case - David Gerard 16:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An archive, meaning "a preserved page that is impossible to edit" and with a notice saying that this policy is just a "bill" and is not official. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is this particular page worthy of such protection and preservation? Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to edit it? Gamaliel 03:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it a "bill"? How come all stupid policies are always male? - Tεxτurε 14:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bill is a proposal that has not yet (or ever will be, as is the case here) been turned into a policy or law. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Trying hard to ignore sexist and idiotic comment.... → JarlaxleArtemis 01:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • As someone who has informally been the victim of the Wikipedia death penalty, I say keep it, for no other reason than as a useful insight into community behavior/mentality. Everyking 02:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not comprehensive enough policy proposal. El_C 03:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Heathcliff 03:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to meta where humor pages have a place. Snowspinner 03:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 03:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted to say keep and mark as deprecated, as is usual for rejected policy proposals...but the evidence of bad faith gives me pause. I vote meh, for now. It certainly won't be missed if deleted. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only after applying it to the originator. --Carnildo 04:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, created to prove a point - disruption. Megan1967 04:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Please see Netoholic's vote above, and follow his links. The page is a personal attack on Netoholic—the surrounding circumstances make it equivalent to a kick in the teeth. Everyking, do you really not see it? --Bishonen | talk 05:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Protect as evidence in arbcom Delete and Speedily this is the opposite of the inclusive spirit we should have - no contributor - no matter how much we disagree should be devalued as this proposal suggests, unless properly banned through arb policy. Trödel|talk 05:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • execute dab (ᛏ) 05:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Bishonen. --bainer 05:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. utcursch | talk 06:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More LevelCheck nonsense. What a surprise. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, WP:POINT. Radiant_* 07:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as bad policy. Martg76 08:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely ridiculous. --Zero 08:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bad whining joke, personal attack, rubbish "policy" - Skysmith 09:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page says utilized in cases in which a user's behavior is not egregious enough to warrant an official block or ban by administrators, but is strongly opposed by the Wikipedia community as a whole. I am reminded of the tale that in one US state the first person to be executed by electrocution had installed the electric chair for the state government a few months earlier. Grutness...wha? 09:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse ∅ 12:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is what the arbitration committee is for. Dunc|☺ 12:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, biggest load of complete crap I have read in my life --Cynical 13:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the user proposing this has given it a ridiculous name does not provide a reason to delete it. It provides a reason to edit and rename it. It is (or at least appears to be) a rational and reasonable proposal for dealing with a serious problem. I do not support the proposed policy, and object to the stupid name suggested for it, but I fully support the right of uses to put forward policy ideas without censorship. Rename the article and let the proposal die a ... er ... natural death. Tannin 13:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC) PS: Having examined the user's edit history, I now understand the rush to delete this entry, and am tempted to change my vote. But emotion is not logic and the reasons I just provided remain good. BTW, there is a very strong case for sanctioning this user for past behaviour (I myself will certainly block him if he repeats it), but this is an entirely seperate matter. Tannin 13:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a very, very odd idea for policy, and if ever implemented would go against just abouut every Wikipedia policy there is. On the other hand I don't like to delete failed policy proposals. Keep for the history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proteus (Talk) 14:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Kbdank71 14:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I normally think it's wrong to delete a failed proposal, not only is this 180 degrees of basic wikipedia policy, but it seems to be a blatant attack against Netoholic. --InShaneee 14:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what IS this crap?!? It could be taken very, very wrongly. And, yes, seems to be made with a specific agenda in mind... Master Thief Garrett 15:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't use, or further edit into silliness (I like the suggestion about silly hats). As I noted on the talk page, this is very close to the old method for dealing with troublesome logged-in users: see m:Bans and blocks/old#Soft bans aka Rainclouds. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Policy proposals made in good faith but rejected should be kept. This is not one, and I see no good to come of even letting this stick around in record. We have enough ways of alienating community members already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then at least keep until the current arbitration on LevelCheck is over. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's acceptable, but can it then be moved to some evidence subpage or something so no one is under the impression that this is being considered as Wikipedia policy? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no need, the Arbitrators will have access to the deleted page. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
        • Good point, but arbcom evidence should be transparent--that is, it should be visible to everyone. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riddle. I'm smelly, hide under a bridge and dislike goats especially. What am I? JRM · Talk 15:53, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Well you ain't the ruddy icecream man! (and anyone who can't give the real answer to this question is either very foreign or failed Childhood Reading 100). Master Thief Garrett 15:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only possible justification is humor and this is nonfunny. --Michael Snow 17:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More disruption from a disruptive source. Postdlf 17:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete with a silly hat. Probably should move to a publicly transparent evidence page during the arbitration. Barno 18:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Neutrality said it best: Utter, utter bullshit. With silly hats. Delete with extreme prejudice. But I must say, I am deriving a particular bit of entertainment watching the community eviscerate this guy. His "death penalty" of netoholic is hilarious. What a buffoon. Golbez 20:37, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it a lot ➥the Epopt 20:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The author's initiative is something to be encouraged, but this is not a very constructive proposal. – ClockworkSoul 22:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has to be the most beautiful piece of understatement I've ever read in Wikipedia! Grutness...wha? 05:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is fairly obvious that is meant to be disruptive. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - David Gerard 22:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not BJAODN. Obvious attempt at disruption. --cesarb 00:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utter garbage. --Canderson7 01:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is evidence of trolling by LevelCheck, but it has already been submitted for his arbitration case, I gather, so we can just kill it. Don't get me wrong: I do think that Netoholic did some instant reversions and the like and disenguously called it "Be Bold," but he was never as mindlessly petty as this is. It's not a joke, not funny, not just, and not tolerable. Geogre 02:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'd like to keep it around for the AC case - David Gerard 16:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If it is the same as a hard ban, why this new policy? Seems redundant with a silly name. I think a hard ban would do the same with less effort. Comatose51 04:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by hanging, drawing and quartering. Actually, banned by community consensus is already policy. Sjakkalle 08:48, 18 May 2005 UTC)
  • Strong keep and mark notpolicy. Don't destroy arbcom evidence please. Also agree with Tony Sidaway to keep rejected policies as history. Finally, VFD is not a policy vote page. :-) Kim Bruning 00:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- when finished with it. - Longhair | Talk 00:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. This is not a policy and therefore belongs at Wikipedia Death Penalty. This is really the way that some people view process here and is a valid article on social perception of the Wikipedia. The fact that not everyone agrees such a phenomenon is "real" is not relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC) 00:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would mean that this is not a Wikipedia project and that it applies to the "real world." → JarlaxleArtemis 02:47, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Do not move - That would make this "real world" article an original research and not regarding an existing concept such as Usenet Death Penalty since it (a Wikipedia version) does not exist. - Tεxτurε 17:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pefect reason for moving it. Since it's not a WP policy, it can go into the article space. Then we can bring it up for vfd again as original research. Grutness...wha? 08:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never knew you had such a diabolical streak in you... but yes that would get rid of it. hehehe... Master Thief GarrettTalk 09:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If you don't like Wikipedia, go back to your goatse. That's my two cents. Harro5 10:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either pityful attempt at humour (not even remotely funny), or just plainly neurotic. Utterly useless in any case. Rama 22:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Death_Penalty&oldid=1144823981"