Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 6

Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 6

Banned editors are not permitted to post or edit. The definition of posting can be extended to meet the spirit of our banning policy, that in fact, they are posting voice material ono the English Wikipedia. We have already showed them the door, now we permit them to call us on the telephone. This page would appear to meet our criteria for speedy deletion on reposting by banned users. An administrator has recommended MFD, and I agree. Its not clear cut. Thank you all for looking at this. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This nomination is ridiculous as is the nom's threat to remove any links to this skypecast. This skypecast does not harm whatsoever and attempting to extend our policies regarding banning to this extreme is harmful and closed-minded, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I am the most open minded when it comes to things, but not banned users. Please reconsider some of your characterizations about me, I really do try to do good for the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, so you're open minded about everything except banned users, which is what ElKevbo basically just said. Hardly an attack, especially when you just admit it yourself. Majorly (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could be like the Party in Orwell's 1984 and expunge all references to banned users, except when we need to keep them around for Two Minutes Hates. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reality check for the Wikilawyers: banned users are banned for good reasons. And banned means -- wait for it -- banned. And if Dan wants another vehicle for his whacky crusade, maybe he ought to look elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be in the majority here and now, and you seem to be in the minority, so maybe you should show a little less cockiness. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, never heard anything so ridiculous. They aren't posting, please leave it be. Majorly (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does Wal*Mart carry the same model of nuclear-powered hair-splitter you're using? I need to get me one of those. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems to be "Son of BADSITES: BADPODCASTS!" *Dan T.* (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is screaming "BADSITES! BADSITES! WAH! WAH! WAH!" the only arrow in your rhetorical quiver? --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I also like throwing in references to Orwell's 1984, Scientology's Suppressive Persons, and various relevant Twilight Zone episodes, when they seem apt. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and close this frivolous waste of time. The skypecasts are on Commons, we don't prohibit links to Commons for reasons that ought to be obvious to anyone. You need to press the play button to hear them. If you lack the selfcontrol not to do that there is little enwiki can do to help you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you need a better argument than "no one has to read it", as the same "logic" applies to every spam page, personal attack, divisive userbox, or miscellaneous deletable piece of crap on Wikipedia. I'd also suggest that welcoming the banned kinda defeats the purpose of banning them in the first place, don't you think? --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you look up my username over there or look at this before you question my understanding of what to do with banned users on Wikipedia. Your accusations of Wikilawyering aren't exactly helping you either. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• strong keep this is a good faith attempt to discuss wikipedia, and even if discussion of wikipedia is somewhat critical, it should be encouraged and not hidden. special, random, Merkinsmum 15:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A deeply stupid and/or naive idea; namely, a vehicle for people who were banned for good reason. You Wikilawyers above ARE aware of the meaning of "banned", right? A little common sense would go a long way here. --Calton | Talk 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• What policy is an audio interview violating? Lawrence § t/e 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAN. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• And shouldn't this include Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-01-07/WikBack as well, since BADPEOPLEbanned users post to that forum? --Random832 (contribs) 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, take it to deletion requests on commons and see how far you get. --Random832 (contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons is a project I'm not really active on, and Commons is not the English Wikipedia. I don't understand your argument. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument is that the media in question are hosted on Commons, not en-wp, so any deletion argument should take place there. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Bad faith nom by sockpuppet who stated intention to remove all reference to the oggs, and when reverted ran here. No policy-based or supported reason to delete. Lawrence § t/e 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? In the nomination, I addressed the banning policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're grasping at pedantic straws, but don't let me stop you from creating a massive disruptive wave to prove a point. Carry on with trolling. Why are we not nominating references to Wikbak, which also enables banned editors? Lawrence § t/e 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your really assuming bad faith here. Don't call what I do trolling. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You stated that you intended to remove all references to these ogg files on WP:AN, and when reverted ran here. AGF except when a user is obviously disrupting Wikipedia: You/disruptive sockpuppets. Cheers. Lawrence § t/e 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This has absolutely nothing to do with the long-dead BADSITES horse which some people seem intent on flogging still, and everything to do with banning policy. A banned user is banned. We don't give up server resources to allow said banned user to continue to soapbox, and we never have - nothing has changed in that respect. We have already heard everything Greg Kohs has to say about his ban, and his ban has withstood an awful lot of scrutiny. He is free to continue telling the world how misjudged he is, but not using Wikimedia Foundation resources. If PM wants to take this offsite, to some place which (unlike Wikipedia) is a free web host, then he's welcome to do so. That will not, of course, make the input of banned users any more welcome. Talk to Uninvited Company=, who seems to have no problem with these guys,I am sure he will host it on WikBack. But not on Wikipedia, thanks, because the input of banned users is not welcome and never has been. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• By this rationale, all links to Wikbak, which welcomes banned users, must be removed. Lawrence § t/e 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• You are really kicking that strawman's ass. Consider using the uppercut! Archfailure (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)