Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship


 * 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 Keep. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 03:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship
Why I think this should be deleted: I call on editors to see this page rightfully buried in the graveyard of deletion. NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It's a vehicle for ideological POV grouping, and the orchestration of POV voting. Such "cabalisation" on Wikipedia should be avoided at all costs. This quote is particularly telling: "The notice board is to inform project members of votes or other current Wikipedia events which warrant their attention with regards to this project."
 * 2) Runs contrary to WP:NOT; Wikipedia isn't a democracy, nor a vehicle for free speech. This project clearly has an aim of advocation of free speech as evidenced by its title and "blue ribbon" logo/userbox.
 * 3) Would seem to be against WP:POINT by disrupting the process of creating an encyclopaedia in the process of campaigning against perceived "censorship". Wikipedia is stated as not being censored as per WP:NOT and thus advocacy is unnecessary and liable to be conducive towards conflict.


 * Delete. I'm in the middle road. I don't want topless shots of supermodels in their writeups solely because they *did* topless shots, but I don't want The Sims-style blurs in sex/biology articles either. If you don't like seeing certain body parts don't visit pages concerning them. This Wikiproject is doomed to end up being a POV fortress. GarrettTalk 04:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The WikiProject explicitly states vote stacking as one of its objectives, which is not conducive to building consensus. Consensus shouldn't be about spamming more people than The Other Side. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no explicit mention of vote stacking. The policy asks you to vote on important issues, it doesn't say how to vote. Members sometimes vote differently, sometimes the same. The only uniting factor is that they are members of the same free speech group. Nonetheless, it could be worded more explicitly so as not to incite mindless voting. Peace. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  12:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject causes unfair sampling of the community. Imagine that there are exactly 50 users who would vote delete and 50 users who would vote keep. Ideally, we'd tell the entire community so that every person who has an opinion could comment. In a real world, that's not possible. Wikipedia works on the idea of fair sampling; that no one side of the debate is notified more than the other, and that users vote on the pages they (as opposed to an advocacy organisation) are interested in. (This is in fact biased towards keep, because a notice is placed on the page itself.) Ideally, everyone who is interested enough in the page to use it will comment, as will those concerned with the page. "Vote stacking" refers to notifying a large number of users on one side of the debate; where normally twenty of both sides of the discussion would comment, suddenly one side has fourty. The only way to rebalance such unfair sampling would be to have a "WikiProject Wikipedians for censorship" which would then spam an exact number of opposite-voting users. This leads to a situation where each vote is determined not by consensus, but by the superior ability to spam users one is expected to vote one's way.  Although there's nothing wrong with notifying users of the vote per se, only notifying users who are likely to vote on one side of the debate (a WikiProject "against censorship" is likely to attract keep-voting users) is. The only ways to fairly notify users is to advertise on official, neutral process pages like the community discussion page, or to notify all users indiscriminately (not just those who frequent one WikiProject). The latter solution is impractical and frowned upon, as many users do not enjoy recieving unsolicited or irrelevant messages. The former solution (advertising on neutral pages) is common. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to you saying wikipedians against censorship is one side of the debate. It is a page for users interested in enforcing a policy, no matter what side of the debate they are on and no matter what their personal feelings or interests are. Everyone is welcome. Your statement is POV, unprovable, and unproductive. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  22:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinions, but I don't think you addressed any of my arguments. The page itself declares that "It was started as a response to WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency..."; its founding principle is to rally one point of view and oppose another (The Other Side), escalating the situation I described above. Note that WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency was later renamed to WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit, then became inactive. Thus, The Other Side doesn't even exist anymore. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments below. I respect your opinions also, but I think you're inventing principles that don't exist. It's just as likely that the WAC group includes members that were originally involved in Wikipedians for decency. These two sides you're trying to say exist simply don't exist. The issues aren't that simple. I for one am just as likely to belong to either of those groups. Divisive discussion like you are asserting is both untrue and unhelpful to resolving issues of censorship. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  00:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy WP:NOT censored for minors has been policy for some time, and making a Project in support of policy is fine; on the other hand, the content of the page is not ideal, and it could be seen as divisive. As written, it doesn't belong in namespace, but I'm sure some user would take its content.  References to vote-stacking are awful, but are essential to the existence of this thing, and can be edited out. Xoloz 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I started this project back in August last year. If you look back through the old notices, you'll see we used to actually do good work, such as educating editors about wikipedia policies and fighting against blatant unjustified censorship. It seems that around February though, the notice board got taken over by people with agendas. Is the project still a useful tool? I don't know. I would like for it to be. Maybe with a little work we could make it into something redeemable. Any suggestions? Kaldari 10:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I feel much the same way as Kaldari and Xoloz and I would like to see a less divisive incarnation of this group. A couple of beligerant editors got out of hand for a little while but we're not all censor bashers. I see nothing wrong with having well trained users informing people of their policy breaching behaviour on WP:NOT when it is appropriate to do so. We have users patrolling for all sorts of policy enforcement everywhere else. How is this different? &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  12:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - --Phil 12:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete vote stacking and the comments on the page are mostly complaints about editorial decisions they disagree with not censorship. Trödel&#149; talk 16:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Changed vote due to Kaldari's efforts to move project back to original direction.  Trödel  22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - -- There are examples of the no-censorship policy being violated by Wikipedia admin (examples include explicit statements by admin that members of a given sexual orientation would not be allowed to edit certain articles regardless of the content they provided - Talk:Justin Berry). For Wikipedia to be objective without having any democratic processes of any sort (not that it should be entirely democratic) is a contradiction in terms.  And the only POV I've seen stated recently is Wikipedia's own goal.  If Wikipedia admin no longer agree with that goal then it should no longer be stated in print.  And are there any other projects to actively monitor compliance with the no-censorship policy?  Catherine N.X. - catherinenx@yahoo.com
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.157.212 (talk • contribs) -- Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (duplicate vote struck) user Catherine N.X. is same voter as HolokittyNX below &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  10:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, my email address is catherinenx@yahoo.com. I thought the above vote had been removed, as I wasn't logged in when making it and didn't see it on later visits.  That and I'm a stoopid n00b.  Thanks.  HolokittyNX 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Many admins are trying to censor wikipedia(look at the mass-deletion of userboxes). We are the only ones stopping this, and quite a few support us. The Republican 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not censored, this project is simply trying to project that, and make people aware of it -  • The Giant Puffin •  18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is already censored. We can't write stuff that is POV. We can't attack other Wikipedians. We can't plagarize material. We can't have hateful usernames. We can't spam. And who cares if there are Wikipedians against what they consider censorship anyway? I'm against Halle Berry in films, but I don't see a whole group about that here. Wikipedia may not have cabals, but this sure feels like a clique. Jennifer 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no Wikipedia isn't censored, it's a consensus. The WAC project isn't trying to enforce anything that isn't already policy. You're mixing censorship issues with sociological standards. As it appears quite a few don't see the difference I see that as confirmation that this group is entirely necessary, as per Catherine N.X.'s comments. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  22:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's not a consensus; otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think the problem is that a lot of you have forgotten a very important fact: THIS IS JIMBO'S HOUSE. Not yours, not mine, not anyone else's (except for maybe Angela and/or anyone else who started this place), and that the rules can change at any given time. If the WAC has problems with the current rules, why don't you just leave and start your own Wiki? Is there something stopping you that I'm not aware of?


 * I applaud Jimbo - a man I've never spoken to or even ABOUT until last week - for even letting there be a debate about it. If I owned this place, my word would be law and all of you WAC kos would be out of here so fast that you wouldn't know what hit you. This has been Jimbo's baby from day one; why can't you trust that he knows what's best for his own project? Why can't you all give him the benefit of the doubt, if only for a while? Jennifer 23:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A little off topic, but I had to respond to this. Wikimedia is run by its members, as indicated in the Bylaws. Jimbo's exalted position comes from consensus. --  127 . * . * . 1  03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Some statistics on voting preferences from the WAC group: In the recent poll on censorship policy.
 * Of those in support, 4 of 20 were WAC members (%10 of the vote).
 * Of those in opposition, 2 of 16 were WAC members (%5 of the vote).
 * Of those abstaining, 1 of 4 was a WAC member. (%2.5 of the vote)

These percentages cover all viewpoints. It's far from the assertion that vote stacking is taking place. I think the idea that the WAC has an agenda other than enforcing a policy is unsupported propaganda. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  23:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasons below. I personally would like to see some of the more inflammatory things removed, and I wouldn't mind this project turning into a neutral message board. Copysan 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Answers to NicholasTurnbull:
 * Vote stacking is clearly not the case here, per the evidence provided by Metta Bubble. The only vote stacking that would occur would be on cases of blatent censorship, which is abhorrant to the entire idea of Wikipedia (if you read WP:NOT). If you think this is vote stacking, then you might as well delete WP:NOT, and other policy for "stacking" the votes against something that is not policy. Vote stacking does not occur on the grayer issues of censorship, like the debate about decency. Some of the WAC like the idea of putting objectionable material behind one link, some don't. THere is no real ideology that governs this group other than the ideology that already surrouds Wikipedia because of its WP:NOT censorship provisions.
 * This project advocates material that is "encyclopedic and appropriate in the context of Wikipedia" (1). This is far from free speech. Free speech is where somebody gets up on a box and screams "the end is near." Appropriateness and encyclopedic is Wikipedia.
 * This project accomplishes one of the main ideals of WP:POINT. Quoth WP:POINT: "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies." WAC simply makes discussion among a greater number of people possible by informing those who may be interested and who signed up to be bothered about interseting news.
 * Answers to Pathoschild:
 * You say: "users vote on the pages they (as opposed to an advocacy organisation) are interested in." WAC members vote on pages they are intersted in. They are interested with the issue of censorship that is being discussed. As for the "as opposed to an advocacy organsation" part, anybody is allowed to put an issue on there and nobody is telling mindless sheep to vote one way or another. Those who are interested in the issue will click the link to the relevant page and vote according to their own beliefs. All WAC is is a way to easily collect information into a single focused place to make it easier for those interested to comment.
 * "only notifying users who are likely to vote on one side of the debate" Those who are for the other side can hit the "watch" button and look for incoming articles to vote on the other side. Nobody is excluded from being notified about censorship issues.
 * I hope this semi essay did a copule things for people. Copysan 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I will assume good faith in this nomination, even in spite of the fact that the more cynical among us might believe that it was designed to be a retaliation to the posting of the Justin Berry debacle to the notice board. Corax 02:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is allegedly not censored. This project helps keep Wikipedia honest in that regard.  Deleting this project would be politically tone-deaf. Self-Adjoint 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * User's 7th edit. Sockpuppet of User:Hermitian who is currently blocked for particlualy nasty personal attacks. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Da hell? Hey, I don't agree with or even really like Wikipedians Against Censorship, but... there are so many things wrong with this nomination, where to begin... EVERY project takes an interest in the articles under its purview. If you go to delete (say) the article "14th Century Turkish Poetry" then Wikproject:Turkey is going to be interested in that... I guess that would be "vote stacking"? Well, Wikipedians Against Censorship is interested in a group of articles too, those that are subject to possible censorship. It's just a slightly diffrent way of organizing. Slightly different. Jeez but this would be bad precedent. This would put every project right in in the firing line as a source of potention vote-stacking. There are many many other reasons to keep, but that'll do for start. Herostratus 08:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepThere are examples of the no-censorship policy being violated by Wikipedians and Wikipedia admin. Examples include explicit statements that members of a given sexual orientation should not be allowed to edit certain articles regardless of the content they provided, and article edits to that effect (Talk:Justin Berry). For Wikipedia to be objective without having any democratic processes of any sort (not that it is or should be entirely democratic) is a contradiction in terms. While Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free speech, it does attempt to practice free speech.  Meaning that it should not censor itself or its information in a manner inconsistent with its goal of being an objective encyclopedia.  And the only POV I've seen stated recently on WAC is Wikipedia's own goal. If Wikipedia admin no longer agree with that goal then it should no longer be stated in print. And are there any other projects to actively monitor compliance with the no-censorship policy? HolokittyNX 08:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By "sexual orientation" she means pedophiles. By censorship she means WP:OFFICE actions whereby the above article was deleted by Jimbo after a complaint from Justin Berry and a request for the article to be rewritten by uninvolved parties. Whether this Wikiproject is deleted or not OFFICE actions will still take place from time time. Also this vote is her 14th edit on Wikipedia and she has no edits in the article space whatsoever .Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what orientation - a POV is a POV. Your characterization of how I define censorship is correct and I stand by it.  I have not stated that the OFFICE serves no purpose at all, but the fact that an action is undertaken by the OFFICE does not mean it is consistent with Wikipedia policy.  And I wrote the bulk of the current article on 13th March at 07:35(revision history link), with further editors including yourself choosing to preserve nearly all of it.  You're welcome.  HolokittyNX 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am simply providing the closing admin with relavent info. Often very new people's votes are not counted. The closing admin (who will not be me, you have nothing to worry about there) needs to have this info to hand. I apologise for stating you have no article edits, you clearly do ( I have struck my comment) Never the less, so far you are a one issue editor and a complete newbie. Because you are a newbie you do not understand how things work around here. The existance of this wikiproject will not have any effect whatsoever on OFFICE actions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Chill out! You should know better than to let your flame war spill over like this. &#2384; Metta Bubble <sup style="color:red;">puff  19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Remember fahrenheit 451? Censorship gone mad. Without someone to fight for free-ish speech I think that wikipedia could end up like the world from that wonderful worst-case-scenario book.--Acebrock 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can point to many articles, some I'm even involved in at the moment, where a group of people interested in the subject matter at hand have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally restrict and revert edits to a page because they didn't want to include relevent material that they felt tarnished the subject or person the article was about, and then called upon friends of theirs through blogs and newsgroups etc to join in on the debate. I don't think Wikipedia should be hijacked like that. - mixvio 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is only fitting that someone has sought out to remove this project from Wikipedia.  It should of course be kept because Wikipedia's existence depends on it.  Silensor 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia existed before this wikiproject started. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep unless you are going to argue for censorship, you have to admit that this group has a purpose and that there is a need for it, now if you disagree with some of the activities of this group then I would encourage you to join that group and help shape the direction of the group. AdamJacobMuller 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think there should be some instances of what some have described as censorship but one faction's trying to delete another faction's project is the kind of politics we could do without. When is it going to dawn on editors that saying "x is divisive" and then doing something designed to stir up division is not necessarily a great route to reducing diviseness? Grace Note 22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:NOT a forum for advocacy. Even though I agree with the POV implied by the project's title, it's still POV advocacy.  Note that the project was created in reaction to the "Wikipedians for Decency" project which no longer exists except as a redirect to an inactive "Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit" WikiProject.  If this project, which shows some activity and some useful encyclopedic purpose and not much active POV-pushing, gets some of its goals and its title revised to be more about "interested in the topic" and less "on one side of the debate on the topic", then I would be more inclined to support a keep.  Barno 23:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep- I dont see too much POV to be honest. Reyk 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the language used by the project participants is neutrally toned, and anyone who is interested in the subject is free to participate. Yamaguchi先生 01:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per i support anything that goes angainst deletionist.--Striver 01:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - This seems like a good project if properly run. --  127 . * . * . 1  03:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. a) Such groups are meant to provide people with a vehicle for being more aware of potential problems in the area of free speech, not for brainless block voting. b) Wikipedia is a vehicle for the verifiable, and any free speech project must (at least when it comes to the wikis themselves) operate within the bounds of editorial policy; but by the same token, Wikipedia is doomed to become POV nonsense unless there is a vigilant commitment by some (and all) members to make sure that items which genuinely hit the verifiability mark are given their due weight, and that their proponents are not attacked and harassed for making verifiable, but controversial, claims. Lucidish 04:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in order to remain fair and balanced since we kept Wikiproject for decency... we need to keep this one as well.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 06:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Look again: we didn't keep the "decency" one.  It's dead and the substitute project to which its name redirects is also dead.  Barno 14:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You sir need to learn the difference between DELETED (which is what we're voting on here) and DEAD (as in unused). DEAD is fine, DELETED shows a clear double standard.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a reasonable position for editors to hold that the best encyclopedia is an uncensored one, and to press for it. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons listed by the other "keep" voters. --Myles Long 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Tomyumgoong 19:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Censorship of any non opinionated information is the the first step in a VERY dangerous slope of decedance and dictatorship. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 21:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I agree with The Republican, many administrators such as MarkSweep are deleting many things Wikipedians think they shouldn't be deleted. Without this WikiProject, censorship will rule over Wikipedia, thus destroying the very fabric of democracy! We are the very few people protecting our own voices.Funnybunny 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT a democracy. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT censored.--Acebrock 06:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He's right! Wikipedia is not a democracy! --  127 . * . * . 1  15:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. My reasoning:
 * WP:NOT a vehicle for free speech doesn't imply that any user/project who advocates free speech should be deleted. If this logic stands then it follows that all users who support free speech should have their user pages deleted.
 * It is simply an abuse of page deletion to annihilate a user organisation just because of what the organisation is and what it represents. The reasons advanced for the deletion of this page concerns not with the content of the page itself, but with the actions that the organisation may bring.  This is simply unacceptable and is taking things too far.  If you think the members of this organisation are violating WP:POINT, go combat them on the articles concerned, and/or bring a mediation or even an arbitration case with the users concerned.  If you think a user is "cabalising", complain to an admin and, if appropriate, get the user banned for some time.  It is retaliation and vandalism to go remove a user's user page in response to a WP:POINT violation or cabalising.  It is pure insanity to go remove a user's user page in anticipation of future WP:POINT violation and cabalisation.  --Pkchan 17:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP on the grounds of there's plenty of room for opposing notification group, one who wants a wikipedia that is kid-friendly --ZachPruckowski 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep acts as a good balance for pro censorship groups, also not really POV since it's main goal (as I see it) is enforcing WP:NOT policy. Jtkiefer T   23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The group in question is composed of Wikipedians interested in protecting the project from censorship, just as we have other groups that work to protect against other policy-violations such as vandalism. This is not "ideology"; it is helping to enforce Wikipedia core policy. --FOo 06:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Grouping by important tasks in line with the policies at WP:NOT is not POV. KimvdLinde 14:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Ouuplas 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have edited the project somewhat to address concerns of vote stacking, POV-pushing, and personal attacks. Further edits may be necessary, but it's a start. Regarding vote-stacking, I would like state that I have never seen the project successfully used for vote-stacking. For the most part the editors involved in this project are simply interested in upholding existing Wikipedia policies. If policies are being violated, the editors vote accordingly. We are certainly not blindly promoting unencyclopedic content. Kaldari 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per all the good arguments above. Pegasus1138 Talk 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored and this group makes sure the site lives up to its own rule. Noneforall (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (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.