Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG (2nd nomination)

SIIEG members
This is a copy from User talk:SlimVirgin:


 * ''Would you be willing to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG, which is in need of some idea of Wikipedia's concept of NPOV ? --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Wow - I didn't realise we had WikiProjects dedicated to opposing the election of Muslim editors and to doing things like de-capitalising "Companions". Is there also a WikiProject dedicated to de-capitalising "Apostles" and opposing the election of Christian or Jewish or Hindu editors?  Now I see where all the organised opposition to Anonyme's RFA came from.  Terribly disturbing.  Guettarda 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Not only that but several of its editors were blocked for openly vandalizing articles and sockpuppetry. Many of them are probably still sockpuppets. And it's probably the only group in which 90% of it's members have been blocked at least once. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it summs up my view of that guild. --Striver 21:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Name and mission
From Revision as of 06:14, 27 July 2005:


 * ''The acronym SIIEG (pronounced "siege") stands for the Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. SIIEG is a writers' guild specifically intended for Wikipedia editors of Wikipedia information relating to Islam.


 * ''SIIEG Policies
 * ''SIIEG members must:
 * ''# be adequately famaliar with one or more subjects related to Islam
 * ''# not have an apologetic point-of-view towards Islam
 * ''# abide by the Wikipedia code of conduct

--Striver 21:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

deletion

 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG (2nd nomination)

lol --Striver 03:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC) bigger lol --Striver 03:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In the discussion of the 2nd nom, Babajobu mentions not being comfortable joining a project where he has to add his name under non-believers. I was wondering why this distinction is made on this page, and if it wouldn't be better to remove the distinction. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, we do not have any "non-Beliver" section here, its "non-Muslim". For the second, there is a "Others" section - he is free to use it if he does not like to share his belief, in the same way the two other members under that section. --Striver 23:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is he free to refactor the page to eliminate the distinction? Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the page has sections for everyone and formatting is already fine. There are spaces for people who want to say whether they are of a religion and others who don't.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I voted merge and delete because of two reasons:
 * I believe that wikipedia needs collaborations and not clans, and collaborations come from virtually being in the same place; (both sides should understand this and apply it);
 * I believe that one project can gather any wikipedian. Therefore, any section can be refactored as we do with articles. It's about common sense, discussion and good faith. -- Cheers Svest 22:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * I believe that anyone who supports "merge" should support merge of this project along with the other 3 Islam WikiSupProjects. I actually think that the membership classifications at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild are a violation of WP policy, since it de facto sets up a division between editors, rather than regarding all editors as equals.  If "merge" goes through (which I actually fully support, far more than either "keep" or "delete"), this discriminatory distinction is going to have to be expunged from that WikiProject, or the Project is going to have to be disbanded...  that distinction is a pretty obscene violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the WM charter.  Tom e rtalk  10:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

closing date request
Can we agree to close this, regardless of the outcome at 00:00:00 Dec. 25, 2005 UTC? Tom e rtalk 10:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a note...I'm only proposing this bcz I don't want the closing time and date to become a matter for further contention. Also, I'd like to request, that upon the request of interested participants in the SIIEG, that if this MfD succeeds, they have 2 days leeway to request a copy of the content of the project page for themselves if they so desire, prior to deletion.  Arguments?  Opposition?  Tom e rtalk  10:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)