Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject SpongeBob SquarePants/Board/Vote Booth/Doc glasgow


 * 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 (For the record the page was created in the belief that the election to a board of a minor wikiproject was a joke, a parody, it didn't occur to me that they took themselves seriously. I thought they'd enjoy me adding to their joke. So sorry, now it appears they are serious - I think seriously mistaken - but let them get on with it in peace.) -Grand Quixor 20:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Bah, edit conflict after I had written my nice long speech - might as well say it here for the record, that I deleted the page) -- Speedy deleted, a blatant violation of WP:POINT. If you disagree with their Wikiproject and their methods of selecting people of position for it, then no need to purposely undermine them with a fake election. Doc Glasgow has told me that he originally believed the election was a joke, but now that we know it isn't, it is clear that this page has no use other than to upset those on the Wikiproject and thus disrupt it. I don't necessarily agree with their Wikiproject myself, but this isn't the way to go about getting rid of it - put the Wikiproject itself on MFD if you'd like. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject SpongeBob SquarePants/Board/Vote Booth/Doc glasgow
Fake nomination, is not a member of this WikiProject, and is applying for a non-existant place on the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreniW (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Attempting to use MfD to circumvent community discussion.  Kelly Martin (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Circumvent community discussion? Every active member of this WikiProject has said Oppose and/or Delete.  --AndreniW 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow at time of this there were 4 oppose/deletes, so that's every active member yet you're having elections for President, Vice President, Historian.... --pgk 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If a wikiproject with twelve members needs a president and historian, it definitely needs a Grand Qixor of Quanga minor. &mdash; Dan | talk 15:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, wow, talk about a perversion of basic principles ... if someone is running against you in an election, just delete all of their votes! Brilliant!  -- Cyde Weys  15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This Wikipedian is not a member of the WikiProject in question.  No one is running against him because he is not fulfilling an office inwhich the WikiProject's founders designated for the board.  No member of this project has voted in support. --AndreniW 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: he himself has said that he created this page as a joke. --AndreniW 15:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ref? -- Cyde Weys  15:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Under Oppose:1:1 -- "But I assumed this 'election' to a Spoungpants broad was a JOKE, a parody, like humour. --Doc 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)" --AndreniW 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't joining the wikiproject just a matter of putting his name on a page somewhere? If the founders of the project get to dictate what is/isn't allowable, isn't it rather pointless having a board and vote anyway since if whoever gets elected doesn't do what the founders declare you'll denounce it anyway. --pgk 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was specifically noted that that you must have signed up before 1 Sep 2006 to be able to run for the board per the guidelines. --AndreniW 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And what exactly makes you think you're allowed to make that restriction? -- Cyde Weys  16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Board of Trustees election makes a restriction that you must have 400+ edits to even *vote*. --AndreniW 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it says guidelines, but it also says "You must have spent at least a half a month invobled (sic) in the Wikiproject as of October 1st" which on average I reckon is about 15.5 days, which would actually be mid September. There seems to be a few outher issues with the vote process such as the single election official running for one of the positions and opposing other candidates. --pgk 16:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Even taking that in to consideration, he added himself to the candidates *before* becoming a member. And, see above, he thought it was a joke/parody so he created this page as a joke.  Doesn't that right there just cry out "delete this page", considering it isn't even meant to be serious?  --AndreniW 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused. I read his comment as saying that the WikiProject is a joke, not that him running to fix it is a joke.  And you have to admit ... a WikiProject with only a dozen members trying to come up with a complicated power structure is a bit of a joke.  -- Cyde Weys  16:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I read it as he thought the election was a joke, and his running is a joke also. We won't know until he comments on this though.  --AndreniW 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The election is also a joke. Trying to delete candidate pages of people you disagree with?  People running in the election voting for themselves and then voting against everyone else?  That is a joke.  Doc is running to make it much less of a joke.  -- Cyde Weys  16:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said I disagreed with him; on the contrary, he seems like a very respectible Wikipedian. Obviously we'll both have our opinions on what he meant by 'joke' until he comes around.  Oh and by the way, Doc is the only one to vote for himself.  --AndreniW 16:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why can't the WikiProject, y'know, discuss this internally and figure out what to do without causing a messy fight on MFD? (As an aside, having an election with as many open positions as there are members in the project—of which there are only twelve!—seems rather unusual, in my humble opinion.) Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Kelly Martin. You should be ashamed of yourselves. --Rory096 17:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think Doc should have the same chance of being 'elected' as everyone else. — FireFox  ( talk ) 18:48, 02 September 2006
 * Keep: And I'm sending the constant removal of Doc glasgow's name from the ballot to Lamest edit wars --  Netsnipe  ►  19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kelly Martin. --Maxamegalon2000 19:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Shane (talk/contrib) 19:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete FAST!!! per me. So what, he got an idiot rally who aren't even in our group? Seriously, I'll call the mods in. This is just plain stupid. He just got his friends to join. Guess what? You guys may be blocked. So cease and desist right now. Julz
 * For what? Voicing our opinion? — FireFox  ( talk ) 19:45, 02 September 2006
 * What a nice way to put it. How about disruptive editing, editing war starting, disruption of projects, and being uncivil. Julz
 * Thanks. Well, I don't see any edit warring, I don't see any incivility either. — FireFox  ( talk ) 19:57, 02 September 2006
 * Might I suggest—without necessarily meaning to be unkind—that if you cannot deal with Doc doing something slightly silly in your "election" without going ballistic at MFD, then your WikiProject might have some room for improvement in regard to how it runs itself? Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"My apologies for being a bit whack right there but this is just getting a little out of control. What does he get out of this? Nothing. He just makes us frustrated. It's not doing anything except ticking us off. This is just silly. We were doing great work until we were disrupted by some random user making a spoof. Not really that fun to be doing this argument. Julz
 * 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.