Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Votes for banning


 * 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. Far more persuasive arguments were advanced in favour of deletion, especially given the target is now a historical page. If this redirect was created to make a point, it appears the point has been made... WjBscribe 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Votes for banning
Not really needed... its more of a statement via redirect, than a redirect itsself. M er cury   00:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's a statement. It's (mildly) funny. It's largely accurate. It's not even a crossnamespace redirect. The fact that it isn't a dire necessity isn't reason enough for deletion in my opinion. Keep until reason for deletion is established. Picaroon (t) 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about speedy delete as patent nonsense/attack page?--WaltCip 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the redirect meets WP:CSD and/or WP:CSD. Picaroon (t) 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. It's a sarcastic attack on the community sanctions process.  The joke isn't funny.  Durova Charge! 05:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CSN is a bigger joke than the redirect. 68.223.3.52 13:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per 68.223.3.52. WP:CSN is a complete joke, and I'd actually support a move from its current title to Votes for banning, as it is a more accurate description of what that board is used for.  ^ demon [omg plz]  16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, good description of what the CSN shouldn't be. A pretense of rightous indignation that someone dare call CSN "votes for banning" indicates either an underutilized sense of humor or (for conspiracy theorists out there) a cover-up of CSN's potential faults (criticism? nooooooooo). Grace notes T § 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty fair assessment of the "community" sanction board. I'd say keep (plus "redirects are cheap")... or redirect to Quickpolls (since that's basically what it really has become). --Ali&#39;i 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete to make way for move. Srsly. --- RockMFR 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What is "Srsly"? M er cury    02:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Votes for Banning was proposed for deletion months ago, at which time it was determined that there was no consensus for keeping or deleting it, because of problems like people using it to try to ban foes, the noticeboard representing an insular community of people creating a self-proclaimed bureaucracy for bans, including reconfirming old bans and demanding that all discussions of bans be forked to VfB for an "official" hearing, and, of course, people using the noticeboard as a place to vote on bans. Shortly after the MfD was closed with Phaedriel recommending changes be made to fix these problems, some of us tried to make the necessary changes, got stomped on by its defenders, and here we still are, and it's worse than ever (cf. useless forking, voting, and more voting, all going on today). So yes, let's delete Votes for Banning, and then we could even delete this redirect to it, too. Dmcdevit·t 03:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really quite clear that any discussion here will devolve to "delete CSN pl0x". -Amarkov moo! 01:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, why not wait and see if Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard_(second_nomination) is closed a delete, in which case this becomes a speedy R1 candidate?  Daniel  03:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold Off until the CSN MfD closes. No need to nuke a redirect to a page whose future's hanging by a thread until that page's judged. - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ) 09:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * pointy redirect
 * Friends, do we really need to use a mainspace redirect on this? Additionally, this statement, and poke, is it not slightly divisive?  I think we all know the feelings on this, lets think about the project here, and the CSN MFD points that were brought up.  I have to believe it is everyones goal to try and keep the votes from banning from occurring, so if it is, then we need to address this on the talk page of that project.  Its no secret that I've helped with CSN since its inception, so the redirect, feels like a poke at the least, and a slap in the face at most.  Is it really worth it?.  Regards,  M er cury    02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Votes for banning is in the Wikipedia: space, as demonstrated by the Wikipedia: prefix. Picaroon (t) 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I stand corrected. M er cury    02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Clear violation of WP:POINT. If users have a problem with a page (I personally wouldn't be sorry to see CSN go- it looks to me like a Wiki version of a lynch mob), then they should raise the issue on the talk page, or suggest deletion. Creating a sarcastically-named redirect is infantile. Wikipedians should deal with any issues they have over this page in a constructive manner. Lurker  (said · done) 12:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I believe CSN is actually one of the best processes on Wikipedia; it gives direct power to the community as a whole, and is therefore far better than ArbCom (who are an unaccountable élite group). I also don't see why the idea of "votes for banning" is necessarily wrong. The community, not ArbCom or any other body, is sovereign on Wikipedia, and the community should be able to vote on whether to ban users; each individual voter should read the arguments and make an informed decision. Therefore, I believe we should keep this redirect, and possibly move CSN itself to the title "Votes for banning". We should get rid of this irrational fear of the word "voting". Voting is a fair and equal way to make decisions. WaltonOne 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:POINT-a-licious. SirFozzie 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. This redirect is a bit too petty for me to waste much time on (interesting, though, that some people prefer expend their energy deleting this accurate, if unpleasant, redirect, rather than making any necessary changes to CSN), but could you and the other two who have made a similar claim not make accusations of disruption? WP:POINT doesn't just mean "I disagree with it," and it's a strong and, frankly, unhelpful comment. Dmcdevit·t 23:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No-one is misusing WP:POINT. This redirect was created to attack another page. WP:POINT specifically advises against use of parody rather than discussing policy. Lurker  (said · done) 10:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can find all of the discussion you want about why CSN might be considered "votes for banning" at its MFD. This is not a random criticism; it has been argued many times. Based on how CSN is looking now, it may be argued many times more. Grace notes T § 15:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed my point. How, exactly, is this silly redirect disrupting anything? You are making a needlessly combative accusation here. Dmcdevit·t 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete it is about to become a redirect to a page soon to be deleted.  Yahel  Guhan  04:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep unless it's a really stupid redirect (Book -> Running, for instance) we should keep it-- Phoenix 15 10:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no opinion on CSN, I'm barely aware of it, but if helps people getting where they want to, good for them--Victor falk 11:41, 10 October 2007 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.