Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was delete. --- RockMFR 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs
I was poking around in some of Wikipedia's more controversial quarters when I came upon this horrific example of Big Brother's watch over Wikipedia. I feel like I've discovered some secret classified document. I'm not even sure what I'm looking at here as it's all in some sort of code, but it appears to be a logging of past (and present?) editors and their potential conflicts of interest with the project. Just looking through the list of "reasons" gives such statements as "damage to Wikipedia's Reputation", "general obnoxiousness", "possible pro-paedophile activism", and so on. This page violates such core principles as WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:NPOV. Of course we have to block/ban editors for POV pushing, edit warring, and the like, but we don't need to lump them into general categories and keep logs of it. This page is no help to the encyclopedia and might even damage the reputations of any innocent editors who are lumped in with the clearly fringe POV pushers. What good is this for? Themfromspace (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If an account for why a user was banned needs to be posted, it goes to WP:BANNED, more pages to document this just adds confusion. If the disruption is clearly vandal-related we just block them, without more description than what the block log says. The page is also rather cryptic, what is "Ham" and "Eggs" supposed to mean anyway? Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think "Ham" and "Eggs" mean "you're not allowed to know what we're doing here", which is reason enough to delete it. I note that there's no evidence (that I'm aware of) of a current issue in this area that's in need of being "watched". — Gavia immer (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Violation of WP:NPA; I would assume that reasons for blocking and banning are logged well enough elsewhere. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I've been aware of and concerned by this list for some time. It is a way to keep an enemies list for WP:PAW by not directly naming either of the groups of users as enemies; The effect is the same as if it were explicitly stated. This is an outgrowth of ArbCom's practice of banning users on the basis of pro-pedophile sentiments by way of a closed, off-wiki discussion. I've inveighed against the practice, and against the existence of this list because it appeared to be used as a hit list in disputes over content in articles concerning pedophilia. The policies I see as applicable are: WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN, the application of all of which is made more difficult by the presence of lists like this. --SSBohio 01:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: Ham is a list of alleged pro-pedophile activists banned from Wikipedia, while Eggs is a list of alleged anti-pedophile activists banned from Wikipedia. I never was able to tell what Toast was used for, except for accessorizing breakfast. :) --SSBohio 02:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Upgrade to speedy. Article should be speedy under G-10 — Ched ~ (yes?) 19:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy. it's not an attack page - the folks on it were put there for reasons that had plenty of evidence behind them. 'Those days' were pretty ugly around here.. That said, I've courtesy blanked it and applied a noindex tag. I really think it's outlived it's usefulness and should either be moved to the ArbCom wiki or deleted, but I'd like to see this MfD run it's course. -- Versa geek  19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - McCarthyism at its worst. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - I can't believe this page existed for so long. - Fastily (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (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.