Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/Wikipedia Users' Alliance

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 debate was Delete as I'm going to take the latest post(s) by the page creators as an implicit request to speedy delete per author's request and end discussion so everyone can move on to good faith editing.--Isotope23 talk 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, although this deletion was done partyl due to U1 (and U1 allows for the undeletion of aterial at the user's discretion), this is not the case with this page, as clear consensus exists to delete it outside CSD U1. Please do not undelete this without a deletion review consensus to overturn. Daniel 06:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gp75motorsports/Wikipedia Users' Alliance[edit]

This page declares that it's a WikiProject, yet it lives in someone's userspace and has no stated purpose. It seems to me to be an attempt at a kind of clubhouse. Division into political groups such as "alliances" is not a good idea for Wikipedia, and I'm sure there's a policy or guideline against it, although I haven't found it yet.

Edit - Seems to be intended as an offshoot of WP:CVU, with the added goal of assisting new users. This is their newly-posted mission statement: "Our mission is to make a better Wikipedia by countering vandalism and helping new Wikipedians get started on their way, as well as to provide useful information to anyone in need, but on a more humane level than any other project or agency on Wikipedia, because we believe in a free encyclopedia." Wikipedia is already a free encyclopedia -- in fact that's our slogan, right under the logo. Seems to be a POV fork of WP:CVU, although what exactly the POV is, is anyone's guess.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:48, 10/21/2007
02:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, it's in my namespace, but it's only a temporary page until I recieve clearance to move this project into the mainspace. As for the purpose, that will be up shortly. Best, --Gp75motorsports 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do Not Delete! I gave my reason on the wua discussions page..it is rather long, but if need be i will post it here!--Greenwood1010 03:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh my god…I am in the middle of my vacation/pilgrimage in Bhutan. Lucky I am staying with a weathly family that has a computer and I was on it when I got an e-amil from greenwood1010 saying someone is trying to delete the wua…how dare you! I vote YES, KEEP THE WUA. I can’t believe the numer of people opposed to this great group! I have to go…best wishes to my fellow wua members.--King of Nepal 03:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an alliance that stands out from all the rest, complete with training rooms, a state-of-the-art facility, and an attorney's office that's ready when you are. Keep the page. -Goodshop 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of that is reason to keep anything. --Coredesat 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political?" a political group...are you "for real"..of my god... ... ... we are NOT a poltical group... i think some people are taking this too far by calling it a politcial group--Greenwood1010 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF? Those votes were "oh my gosh do not do not do not delete" sort of votes. I support the principle, but this might not be the best way to keep these articles from being deleted. Please make VALID comments, not the "oh my gosh" comments. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord, Strong Delete. Redundant to WP:CVU and what Wikipedia actually is (it's already a free encyclopedia) in intent, WP:MYSPACEy in function. Appears to be some kind of misguided fork, and cannot be a WikiProject as it is not listed as one, and is located in user space. Also, the "royalty" comment by the editor whose userspace this is in raises some serious WP:OWN-related concerns. --Coredesat 07:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Myspace. --Carnildo 07:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, this is not in any way a Myspace page. It is directly related to Wikipedia and is intended to be a Wikipedia project. Its purpose isn't social networking or self-expression by users. (Btw I have no opinion as to the deletion of this page. I just hate it when people simply repeat trite Wikipedia-is-not-isms, rather than bothering to construct a rational argument justifying why the page should be deleted.) WaltonOne 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel this is one of those cases where despite what the founders think, it basically is akin to a myspace group. The way they are acting and referring to it reminds me, as I said in my nomination, of a clubhouse -- and the wide range of unrelated purposes the project is meant to cover, combined with the fact that other projects and in fact the entire encyclopedia already cover them, tells me that the stated purpose is just an excuse to be the "head" members of something.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:04, 10/21/2007
  • Delete: part duplication of existing wikiproject, and part some sort of self-glorification. Seems to assert or intend to fulfil roles currently filled by the community as a whole. I see good intent, so why not try to do the "training" thing as part of the well-established, well-respected CVU? SamBC(talk) 11:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't do anything not covered by other projects. Contains elements opposed to wiki ideals - "requests for membership" and a meeting room "for members only". Hut 8.5 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a beaurcracy. Used to be, but not now. And as for "political", WTF is that supposed to mean? --Gp75motorsports 15:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Alliance has a new member"... Oh, SURE it's not a bureaucracy.--WaltCip 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure, it's redundant. But have you ever seen an agency with too many employees, a letter with too many words, a house with too many security systems? Thought not. The point is, you never can have too much protection. The only reason the vandals aren't winning at this point is because most of them are too stupid to put together a project, whereas if this project survives, we'd have four, and that may not completely suppress them, but they'd be extremely hard-pressed to find anything to vandalize. --Gp75motorsports 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Clients" meaning those we help. And besides, is the CVU not a beauracracy itself? --Gp75motorsports 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is not. The CVU doesn't have official members, positions, or processes.
      Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:54, 10/21/2007
      • Neither do we. So if we're considered a beauracracy, then you should be too. The only "process" we have is one in case of emergencies such as this. --Gp75motorsports 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a member list on your page and a subpage entitled "requests for membership". And as Moonriddengirl pointed out, another of your members claimed you have an "attorney".
          Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:21, 10/21/2007
  • Delete First of all, although the intentions may be well meaning the previous testimony by the parties involved and by members of the community, the actions of the parties involved as previously provided reference links posted by peers have shown the users of this group lack the communication skills and experience needed to organize and maintain a responsible group even at 4 only members. Second, this group is redundant to groups that already exist in the Wikipedia community I see no reason for another branch of bureaucracy performing the same tasks as those already existing. It is my recommendation that if these individuals desire to be part of a group then they should join one of the many task force groups already in place on wikipedia. If they choose not to be part of a group there are no rules against each of them being an independent and performing the proposed tasks as long as they follow the same set of rules as everyone else must to follow. My 2¢ worth.. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 19:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am amazed at how many people are fighting against wua. These clever people are using words like “a political group” and a “bureaucracy” when describing wua…it seems that they need to learn the meaning of these words, as they most certainly do not describe the WUA. And secondly they keep saying that a group like the wua already exists…so what? I personally believe that many of these people (those who oppose the wua) could be vandals; of course I have no proof of this. However there strong opposition to the wua does raise some questions. And dare I say, but does it matter if there is already a group, the Counter-Vandalism Unit? Someone rudely removed my earlier comment about the wua (which doesn’t surprise me). Ok keep using words like “redundant” “a political group” and “a bureaucracy”, clearly you have an issue with anti-vandalism groups--Greenwood1010 20:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I'd advise against making unfounded assumptions like calling people vandals just because they disagree with you. Most of the people you're accusing are well-established users who have been here for years, are in good standing, and have never vandalized Wikipedia -- some are even administrators. Secondly, it does matter that a group already exists, because Wikipedia has a rule against what we call "POV forks" or "Content forking": see Wikipedia:Content forking. It exists to make sure that only one article or project exists for a particular purpose, and that people don't start their own similar projects just to express their particular Point Of View (POV).
      Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:49, 10/21/2007
  • Wiki is not Wikipedia is not…Wikipedia is not… they keep saying the same stuff over and over again. Then they result to saying stuff like wua members are not experienced enough ex. Instead of making and argument they say the same weak stuff over and over again…wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwood1010 (talk • contribs) 16:25, October 21, 2007
    • The failure of ANY of your "key members" to assume good faith at the moment does not mean well for your credibility in general.--WaltCip 20:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a weak argument. These people are pointing out a policy on Wikipedia that your page is violating. Please take a look at WP:NOT to see the policy.
      Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:35, 10/21/2007
      • Also, "I am here to inform you that you are herby removed from your postion as Vice-Chairman and that I am replacing you." DOES imply a bureaucracy, believe it or not.--WaltCip 20:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone here even visit the pages anymore? You can't simply go off of assumptions gathered off of the user talk pages! And-silly? This thing isn't silly! It's real! --Gp75motorsports 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ridiculous content fork. The creators, despite a show of good faith, show little knowledge of WP:NOT (leadership positions, lack of transparency in so-called "meetings", presence of a bureaucracy, etc.), and it is horribly redundant with four or so odd WikiProjects, namely WP:CVU and WP:RCP. If they truly are interested in the mission statement of this proposed WikiProject, then I'd recommend they join one of the aforementioned existing WikiProjects. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems like nothing more than creep at the project level. Redundant group that seems to be in place only so founders can have positions of power. --Onorem♠Dil 02:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems counter to Wikipedia's purpose to put together a project by making a sub-page in Userspace and claiming membership there. It doesn't help that discussions related to merging it with CVU took place on another sub-page of the user's. It's also discouraging that User:Gp75motorsports claimed the discussion was closed in his favor in less than 24 hours, and counted numbers that frankly didn't match the discussion. Not exactly a transparent, open process. I'll WP:AGF, but this was not well thought-out. As the page has no other purpose, it should be deleted, along with the aforementioned "debate" page. -- Kesh 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not trying to impersonate a MySpace. In fact, this is a UNION. The union is trying to represent people and Wikipedia. If the person can, withdraw it. WP:AGF and WP:NPA -Goodshop 03:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone opposing is assuming good faith. No one doubts that your intentions are good. It is merely the fact that what you are attempting to do contradicts policy and is unnecessary. Until you can refute how this WikiProject is not redundant to WP:CVU, WP:WIKI, and WP:RCP, then it simply is not needed. What you are trying to represent is already represented by these projects. As such, that makes this project irrelevant. Furthermore, many of your project policies (applications for membership, "members only" areas) are violations of policy, as all work on Wikipedia is meant to be transparent, and by definition, anyone who wants to join a WikiProject can. No one here has anything personal against you. Policy and common sense simply must be upheld. That's the bottom line. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't withdraw it even if I wanted to. If the consensus is to delete then that's out of my hands. Everyone here is trying to explain how your page goes against our policies, but I doubt you're even familiar with most of these policies and don't care to familiarize yourself with them (I don't blame you, it's not exciting reading). I think once you have a little more experience at Wikipedia you'll start to get a better understanding of why the page is not appropriate here. Until then, please try to understand that, as Sephiroth said, no one has anything against any of you personally. This is just a matter of upholding policies. PS I changed Goodshop's duplicate !vote to a comment, to avoid confusion.
        Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:40, 10/22/2007
section break[edit]
  • Delete as fork of CVU and Wikify. Per Sephiroth, we don't really need redundant Wikiprojects. While the creators may be acting in good faith, there's no real need for this. --Bfigura (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is need for this. This is an associated union. -Goodshop 04:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Would you care to specify? Do you mean there is a purpose to WUA that isn't fufilled by CVU, or one of the cleanup Wikiprojects? (I'm not convinced that's the case though). Or rather, there's a need for a union of some kind in general? And what do you mean by associated union? --Bfigura (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Whether it is a union, party, group, or whatever you wish to call it, it serves no purpose that is fulfilled by other existing and established WikiProjects. You have not addressed any of the arguments presented in the opposition, and frankly, you really cannot unless you drastically alter the scope of your proposed WikiProject. I apologize, as the zeal of you and your comrades does indeed appear to be genuine, but it is directed in the wrong direction. Join any of the WikiProjects we have mentioned (WP:CVU, WP:WIKIFY, WP:RCP), and you will be able to pursue what you intended to do with your proposed WikiProject. There is no need to squander anything else in this fruitless endeavor. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK First off I would like to point out that I said that I had nom proof that I people I thought where vandels where indeed vandels, I am sorry if I offended anyone. It just can get rather upsetting when you have a few people opposing wua.--Greenwood1010 13:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I have to say I come before all supporters and all opposers now to admit defeat on part of the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance. I first want to say that I no longer will actively oppose the deletion of the WUA article. Secondly I want to make clear that this does not mean that I support the deletion. And, if I may, many of the people here presented valid agreements and some resorted to name calling and saying things like “the founders are just doing this for self glorification” how ridiculous! CVU is bureaucratic and I will not join it. WUA does serve a great purpose…I’ve listed my “sermon” several times on this page (and big surprise it was removed!?!) I shall list it one last time. To conclude I am thoroughly disgusted with the way many people reacted to the WUA and with the way they chose to express their views… however I am sure they may also feel the same about me. I was the co-founder of this group, User: King of Nepal was the founder. He is in Bhutan on a Buddhist pilgrimage therefore was unable to really get into this debate…I have since e-mailed him and he will make a brief statement in a few minutes. Thank you and good day --Greenwood1010 13:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings from Bhutan Greetings from the Kingdom of Bhutan!!! I am having a great time here, got to return to Nepal where I had lived for some time, it is a much better place now that King Gyanendra has been removed from power. I come here today to not talk about my travels…but to make a statement about the WUA. I came up with the idea on October 17, 2007 and got my friend User: Greenwood1010 to join. Then User: Gp75motorsports wanted to join, then User: Goodshoped35110s joined. But of course some opposers, as Greenwood1010 calls them, came along to ruin the day. They made outrageous claims…of course a few made some excellent points (both Supporters and Oppossers). But in the end the small “grass root” WUA was shut down by a few close minded opposers. Please take note however that I wish not to insult or belittle anyone here (though I just did…) I simply wanted to express my disgust and grief at what has been done to the Wikipedia Users’ Alliance. But I too, like my good friend Greenwood1010 admit defeat on the part of the WUA and hereby announce that I will not actively continue to oppose the deletion of this page. Thank you and may Lord Buddha bless. Sincerely, Wikipedia Users’ Alliance Founder --King of Nepal 14:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This will serve only to divide limited anti-vandal resources. --MKnight9989 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know it's probably useless to say this, but no one is trying to "defeat" you. You're talking as if this is a battle (or even a holy war, I don't know where this is coming from from) when nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that this is a community with rules and you must follow them in order to participate. This place has millions of users and without rules things could get out-of-hand very quickly. When you have more experience here you might understand that better, and hopefully even be in favor of those rules and help uphold them. In the meantime it would really do you a lot of good to steer away from the holy militant speak, like "alliance", "sermon", "great purpose", "defeat", as these things do make it sound like self-glorification is your main interest. This place is an academic endeavor, not a battleground or even a contest.
  • PS Your "sermon" was not removed, it was moved to the talk page.
  • PPS I'd like to suggest that the MfD remain and the page not be deleted per CSD. The authors may have "admitted defeat" but that's a bit different from requesting deletion. I think we should steer away from encouraging that combative way of thinking, as if we're trying to "get them to surrender", and we can just "declare victory" because they've "admitted defeat". We should wait for a normal closing and let the authors see that there are real and valid reasons why the page is inappropriate and contrary to the goal here.
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:36, 10/22/2007
  • OK If I could I would just request that it be removed as soon as possible, I am the co-founder of the WUA, but I din't create this page...any how I disagre that " authors see that there are real and valid reasons why the page is inappropriate and contrary to the goal here." Any how I also see that some have resulted to name...I am going to stop. All this has been is a name calling, battle. Supporters write there liitle thing about whatever and opposers do to. Both parties (of course some haven't done this, but i am generalizing here) have not paid attention to what the other has to say and both parties are generating hatred towards one another. Just delete the God Damn page already. Jesus Christ a whole debate over a small group like wua...--Greenwood1010 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking it to far Wow you are saying like we are acting as if this is a holy war... you are taking this too far (sounds like a liberal) but look I just want to be done with it all. It was you and others who were acting as if this was a war...but who cares just someone please remove the page delete it...delete it!!!--Greenwood1010 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too admit defeat, in the interest of preserving the welfare of Wikipedia. --Gp75motorsports 15:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is Much That I Want To Say There is a lot that I would like to say, a lot of anger and grief that I want to express, but people come on...this issue has, it seems turned into a war, both parties are acting wrong. I agree, Wikipedia is not a battle ground. We are fighting each other...just delete the article...lets stop wasting our time fighting over the group and saying stuff like "holy war", labeling me as a holy warrior, making rude little comments, acting like jerks, saying stuff like "let the authors see that there are real and valid reasons why the page is inappropriate and contrary to the goal here". This goes for everyone, myself as well (as I too have done stuff like this). We need to fight vandelism...not each other. May the Buddha bless all of us. Amen. --Greenwood1010 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)"In the name of God continue the fight, untill all opposers are gone...just kidding, I thought it would be funny to add this at the end of this "sermon" (again the word sermon is a joke)[reply]
  • Other groups I know that there where other groups like ours that failed...i know they have a page that briefly talks about them...could some one please send me links? thank you--Greenwood1010 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gp75motorsports/Wikipedia_Users%27_Alliance&oldid=1136450469"