Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 23

Can we place the start-Not a ballot-end tag on this project page?

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Rcnet 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

Rcnet: What's the point and what are you trying to achieve? Are you referring to all the categories or just the one you are now obviously picking on here, and trying to undermine by resorting to cheap tricks (for lack of a better word?) to get rid of Category:Anti-Semitic people. If so, then please note that there have been four votes/discussions/debates, whatever you want to call them: (1) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 27#Category:Anti-Semitic people to Category:People accused of anti-Semitism; (2) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 13#Category:Anti-Semitic people to Category:Anti-Semitism .28people.29; (3) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17#Category:Anti-Semitic people; (4) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 29#Category:Anti-Semitic people recently (almost unprecedented and actually tantamount to all-out war against it) yet each time the vote has not shifted it and the category has stayed put as is -- that's pretty much a consensus by any measure according to anyone. Kindly remember that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground and you are now pushing the envelope here. Take a few steps back from your campaign, ok? IZAK 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to all, this banner, or it's content deserves mention on all CfD projects. Rcnet 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me here. I asked for CfD - and someone else started an anonymous campaign in support of that goal. I objected to it being turned into a ballot situation with every extremist on both sides vote stacking and calling in their compatriots. I have a problem with that. Did you read what I wrote in the project page? I want to post that this is NOT an election or Ballot - in fact, if it were I would have won this question hands down. By pushing a CfD I had hoped to push the existence of the category to the brink and force a real consensus on the issue to be talked about seriously, and not just go away to be followed by more endless stupid CfDs. I'm not sure you realize that there. I do not necessarily seek deletion of the Category, I seek a resolution that prevents each new editor that discovers the state of the category and issues a CfD. Regardless of how this pans out, I have no particular interest in this category and will walk away from it afterwards.Rcnet 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately someone will fill my shoes eventually and the whole vicious circle will continue. And extremists of both sides will call in the votes. What I'm about here, on this page is expressing Wikipedia is not a Democracy and that a resulting consensus should not be straight up Keep or Delete. Keep if, and Delete because are options for all CfDs, and this should be expressed in resolution, for all CfDs, otherwise they are doomed to future consideration over and over. Hence the tag question. Rcnet 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What cheap tricks are you accusing me of? You are really missing the point. This is a cross-the-board suggestion for all CfDs, as they seem to have become head counts despite claims to the contrary. Both sides in this particular CfD have run off looking for votes, especially the deletion side. Rcnet 04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]