Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

This project/organization is an attempt to fix the content of wikipedia along the lines of the religious pov's of the participants. This is an attempt to disrupt consensus finding by deliberately targetting specific deletion votes, in the hope that possible opponents will simply be outnumbered. This attempt at voter canvassing has already happened in two afd's (of Student LifeNet and Gay rights in Iraq) and a cfd (Pro-choice and pro-life celebrities) prior to the creation of this alliance. In all three cases, outsiders were canvassed in order to cast a desired vote. In the case of the cfd, this has worked: the vote was turned from an overwhelming delete to no consensus. Wikipedia has no religion, and the content of wikipedia should never be subject to what a group of followers of a certain religion deem permissible in the eyes of their religion. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further consideration: Shanedidona has described the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia to user:Darthgriz98 as "a CAtholic organization for the preservation of conservative values, basically, CAoW is a redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened. ... Vote Pro-Life!" [1] Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should give this group a chance, for it has just started. --Shanedidona 01:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I, Chooserr, Agree with the above statement by Shanedidona. Chooserr 01:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user and Aecis. Deckiller 01:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "...outsiders were canvassed in order to cast a desired vote." I never told any of them which way to vote, indeed a few even voted against me on the matter. So with informing any user you must be prepared to be shot down. And it isn't and shouldn't be against wikipedia policy to ask fellow wikipedians to be involved in a dispute. Especially since they might have an opinion that couldn't be expressed if they were unaware that it had been nominated for deletion. Chooserr 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed been quite neutral in informing outside users of the afd's. My main beef in this is with Pitchka, who requested 57 users to stop "abortion zealots" who "don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life." This is a clear and blatant request to vote to keep the nominated categories. But although you have been quite neutral in your messages, the behaviour of you, Pitchka and Shanedidona shows a concerted effort to outnumber other voices and fix wikipedia content along pov lines. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm Catholic and pro-life but this should be under the Meta-Wiki system. Endomion 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is no different than some Web forum up for deletion calling on its members to try to swamp the discusssion. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are ways in which this could work, but an organization "for rallying votes" specifically violates WP:NOT a democracy. Also, a WP:POINT problem. This is needless partisanship. Xoloz 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator. JeremyA 01:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Xoloz.--SarekOfVulcan 03:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The group just started. I believe that it is unacceptable that it was nominated for deletion shortly after is materialisation. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I already voted, but let me just say that this is an NPOV wiki. Sure, there should be balanced information, but I'm afraid that this group will add POV without seeing it at first. Normally I would NEVER vote for deletion on something like this, but I just feel that there is no need for this one. Deckiller 03:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant POV pushing organization that also is trying to undermine AFD and push their own overall POV. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move or Keep Would a wikiproject be of more use? Look guys, don't WP:BITE. We don't have that many people knowledgable about specialized groups like Catholics, and there is a serious gap here in people ready and willing to work on articles of this nature. I can count a few who work now, but new blood to help clean up Catholic articles is needed. I can't say we need people here to block LGBT or whomever from speaking, but, we do need people who can work on the many stubs we have in Catholic topics. As far as a faith based group, it doesn't require a Vatican ID card to join and help. Anyone interested would be welcome, unlike some other groups here. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is simply about adding information to articles relating to catholicism, why is this "a pro-life ... organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion"??? Why is this "a redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened"??? After all, rallying votes on afd's has nothing to do with what you described above. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a pro-life catholic, but I'm going to have to say delete, because it's too biased. There are sites for this kind of view and I encourage you to check them out, but this is an encyclopedia, not a government bill. If celebrities want to say they are prolife, they can get a wiki and get some userboxes that say they are. Although I encourage Catholics to get involved on wiki and start cleaning up articals about the reilgion and make sure nobody puts utter crap in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthgriz98 (talk • contribs)
Delete per Xoloz. Since this is a discussion, not a vote, I hope the closing admin notes the vagueness and poor relevance of Shanedidona's (the creator of the page) argument "You should give this group a chance, for it has just started", which is the only "keep" reason I see above— Chooserr and Hollow Wilerding merely repeat it. "It has just started" doesn't say anything about the merits of this specific page, but seems to suggest that any new "alliance" page in the Wikipedia space should be kept because it's new, irrespective of merit or harmfulness. Really..? (Edit conflict: Dominick actually argues for the page, I see, though I don't understand why he thinks this "alliance" is anything to do with working on Catholic articles or expanding stubs. Its stated, single, purpose is to votestuff on AFD.) --Bishonen | talk 03:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing collective. Consensus votes every are already tenuous, this basically just makes them more likely to become an organized ochlocracy. karmafist 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you have totally misunderstood the reason for the creation of this article; We can easily rally votes without it. As for an "organized ochlocracy" I think you might not know what an ochlocracy is. An ochlocracy is a government by the Mob. A mob is never organized. One person attempts to tip the car & everyone starts attempting to tip the car. They don't count heads and vote if the car should be tipped. Chooserr 04:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so have you.

The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion. This is a pro-life group. [2]

That is the reason for its creation.--SarekOfVulcan 04:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So they should start an "Association of Pro-life Wikipedians" on Wikipedia:Meta, that's what its for. Endomion 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't looked into this group enough to vote, but I will note for those who suggest that it become a WikiProject, there is already the WikiProject Catholicism 101. Gentgeen 04:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,

No you have. That was reverted as VANDALISM, by the creator of this page, and to the best of my knowledge was made by a USER WHO WASN'T LOGGED IN. Chooserr 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on all counts. Use the page history, please.--SarekOfVulcan 05:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not wrong on all counts just on the part about the user, who turned out to be SPUI (not a Catholic), not being logged in. I came here to change it. So SarekOfVulcan, unless you know what you are talking of please don't. Chooserr 05:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from page history, "(cur) (last) 23:42, 24 December 2005 Shanedidona (rv vandalism)" Chooserr 05:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chooserr, you're the one that's wrong, please stop with the guessing and actually use the page history (=click on the links called "last" and look at who wrote what). The only thing SPUI added, and Shanediona reverted, was a link. All the text on the page was by Shanediona, including, in fact, practically consisting of, the sentence you call "vandalism", until you recently started editing it yourself. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I Chooserr, have moved a keep comment by glenncando from the articles page where it was placed by accident. This is Glenncando's opinion, and is quoted in full. "I am voting not to delete this organization. glenncando, catholic wikipedian."
- Comment - It would be nice to properly link to Glenncando (talk · contribs), since he didn't sign properly. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I'm sure this was created in good faith, the simple fact is that a group named with POV terms is going to be a breeding ground for POV pushers. --InShaneee 05:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the group is trying to POV-push. --King of All the Franks 07:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's give it a try. Everybody has right for his own views. Maltesedog 09:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. - This is has nothing to do with any right to hold or express viewpoints, it has to do with an attempt to overwhelm the AfD process in support of a particular point of view. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Happy holidays to everyone =P Deckiller 12:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV AFD ballot-box stuffing should be discouraged in the strongest manner possible. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's early days. Avalon 13:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The comment below was originally posted on the talk page. I have copied it over to the main vote because I feel it is extremely relevant. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The keep votes so far:

Chooserr - asked to do so by Shanedidona
Hollow Wilerding - asked to do so by Shanedidona
Dominick - asked to do so by Shanedidona
Glenncando - asked to do so by 65.188.159.140
Maltesedog - asked to do so by Shanedidona
Avalon - asked to do so by Shanedidona

Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the pattern is obvious here. Wikipedia is not a place that should have factions like this, that require recruitment of members after the group is set up. Deckiller 13:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this as "Not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted this until consensus can be reached here. Tony's action was disrpectful to the opinions of all who have come here, and on his behalf, I apologize. While I agree with him on the lack of neutrality in this project, you don't use your administrative powers to push a content POV. karmafist 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, Tony Sidaway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This serves only to promote factionalism Pilatus 16:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tony Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The purpose of their group, as stated, threatens NPOV, and I cannot see a positive use to the project. It would be one thing if they were solely interested in improving information about the catholic church and related topics, but this is instead about pushing values in the decisionmaking process on Wikipedia. This runs directly counter to the project goals of Wikipedia, and regardless of the result of this vote, should be deleted for those reasons. As a sidenote, wikipedia should've probably been capitalised. --Improv 17:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Tony. That being said, I do think we should let vote finish, and the more deletes we accumulate the stronger the message that the community as a whole thinks this is rubbish. But WP:NPOV is quite non-negotiable. -- SCZenz 17:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Catholic Alliance should be dedicated to well written articles about catholicism, not about maintaing POV forks on Abortion. Serves no clear purpose focused on Accuracy or Neutrality, and can easly damage both.--Tznkai 18:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Divisive, operates against WP:NPOV, and most of the other reasons people have given above. FreplySpang (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I have serious NPOV questions about this page. Ral315 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamaliel 20:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the wub "?!" 20:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone is entitled to thier own views. It wont hurt to have this page. --Activision45 21:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]