Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klonimus/AINB

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:Klonimus/AINB

 * Welcome to the anti-idiotarian notice board. This notice board is established for the purpose of coordinating work on removing apologetics/political correctness ...

Organised POV pushing. Particularly concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. Totally inappropriate.


 * Delete     ( ! | ? | * ) 18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Very POV, but crackpots should be allowed POV in their own space, and should be allowed to coordinate their own efforts. Deleting users' own pages for unpopular opinions is nasty stuff.
 * unsigned edit by Preczewski (38 prior edits)     ( ! | ? | * ) 19:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * POV shouldn't be co-ordinated whatsoever. See WP:NPOV.     ( ! | ? | * ) 19:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This user-space VfD campaign of User:-Ril-'s is becoming tiresome. -Splash 19:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If you're not allowed to be POV in your own bloody user space somebody better go tag User:Soltak/Views Soltak 19:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with expressing your own opinions in your user space. What is wrong is organising in your user space POV pushing in articles.     ( ! | ? | * ) 21:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep User page does not disallow this type of discussion. - Thatdog 20:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says "material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed". POV pushing is contrary to the goal of NPOV.     ( ! | ? | * ) 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and try to discuss your issues with user, amicably. Failing that, take user to RfC. VfD is not for solving user disputes. dab (&#5839;) 20:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; someone should remove inflammatory wording and move to a more appropriate name. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tony above. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:20, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
 * Keep. A declared POV is better than stealth warring. JFW | T@lk  22:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Query :: where, please, is the ~paedia policy statement on user pages, so that newbies like myself know what we can and cannot do with them, without being RfC'd by the Cabal ? --Simon Cursitor 07:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) No longer relevant. Novote --Simon Cursitor 13:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not part of the Cabal. There is no cabal.     ( ! | ? | * ) 14:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a lot of POV stuff in user spaces (including one I looked at today that's being considered for admin).  You can't selectively complain about NPOV in user spaces just because you disagree with what's written. BrainyBroad 09:30, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see that there is any basis for this vote.  I think user-space pages should be subject to the same policy as comments on talk pages, i.e. unless they are a rampant personal attack you leave them the heck alone.  Is there an actual policy on this?  ObsidianOrder 10:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extreme POV (and I don't know if this is "extreme") is perfectly acceptable on userpages. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. User page is not the business of other users. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 13:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is just silly. --Briangotts (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Do I get to vote. Klonimus 11:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes of course - I'm going to assume you aren't a sockpuppet and have over 200 edits to prove it.     ( ! | ? | * ) 13:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: Users can put whatever POV they want on Talk Pages or User Pages, as long as they don't break other Wikipedia policies. The word "Idiotarian" in itself is a Weasel Term for the word idiot, which if used against another member of the Wikipedia community would be a violation of Civility, and since Klonimus is putting the actions of other user on this board, he is indirectly calling them idiots. Klonimus is a right wing POV pusher(if needed, I can give several examples), and he'll no doubt continue to do this in articles, but this is not an article. If Klonimus changes the name of this subproject, I will change my vote to Keep. Karmafist 18:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion states: "The community is far more lenient towards what happens in the Wikipedia and User namespaces, allowing for such things as chess competitions in the former, and extreme POV in the latter. You should not nominate pages from either namespace unless you have a very strong case." {my emphasis} User:-Ril- has not stated a very strong case. I do not believe the AINB is necessarily POV (let alone extreme POV) either: "idiotarian" is pretty close to a synonym for "irrational POV", and hence AINB is an anti-POV project. I believe that this VfD is inappropriate based on that policy, and recommend that (a) the VfD be delisted immediately and/or (b) the page be kept regardless of VfD voting results. ObsidianOrder 11:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not the POV that bothers me. Its the pushing. If it wasn't for organising POV pushing (explicitely stated in the page, b.t.w.), and was just POV, I wouldn't have a problem with it. ( ! | ? | * ) 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, anti-Idiotarian refers to a specific POV (discussed at that article), and not a general "anti-irrational POV" but a "anti-what-certain-people-think-is-irrational POV", which is POV. ( ! | ? | * ) 14:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This may be somewhat similar to Sam Spade's "detective agency". If I recall correctly, that was frowned upon by many, but not deleted. If a user is seen to indulge in witch-hunting and bullying, it is a case of user conduct, and clearly WP:DR applies. I.e., you do not discuss what you perceive as a user behaving unconstructively on vfd. That's not saying your concerns are not legitimate (I don't know if they are), I am saying this is entirely the wrong channel to adress it. That would be like nominating talk pages for deletion because you don't like the way a discussion is going. dab (&#5839;) 06:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you do that without taking the article the talk pages are attached to with them? ( ! | ? | * ) 13:48, 13 August 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.