Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Membership shenanigans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An attempt to form a list of members[edit]

This is a non judgemental effort to list members who have expressed interested in contributing to the project. Erwin Walsh

We went through User:MONGO's unfortunate effort to autocratically declare who was a "true member". Happily, MONGO has gotten much better behaved since then. But now, User:Erwin Walsh has decided to start pulling the same nonsense, and deleting users he decides she doesn't like. Cut is out!
The way to determine if someone is a member is by looking at the membership list. If a name is actually forged (i.e. added by someone else "on behalf" of a user), that's illegitimate. And sockpuppets are also not appropriate. Other than that, each user's decision whether to join or withdraw must be left at their own sole discretion. There's nothing wrong with discussing with individual user whether they wish to join or withdraw on their own user talk pages. But the decision must be left to the user/member. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:46, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
You best take a chill pill and now would be a good time for you to start. Your accusation of my violating 3RR and using sockpuppets [1] is dead wrong. Referring to me as a troll etc. is also wrong. So before you refer to my edits as unfortunate take a close look at your own actions. The Anon in bold is a troll FYI...172 AOL IP, probably same person haunts numerous articles and isn't interested in doing anything here constructive. Likewise, people that became "members" of this project stating they want to see an obscene image on every page couldn't possibly be in agreement with the focus of this. Lastly, your alteration of this project into some legal inspection of of images is not where this thing should be focusing. That aspect of the project should be about 10 percent of the issues addressed here. I sated before, get 3 to 5 lawyers to argue this issue and put it to bed. The remainder of the discussion needs to center around how to ensure Wikipedia gains university level respect...this transcends imagery...it is also about content, referencing and strict enforcement of NPOV. You like the title encyclopedic merit but think that applies to simply a discussion about imagery...it doesn't and that focus is entirely too narrow.--MONGO 01:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Look MONGO, I appreciate your moderate move in a direction of less abuse of this project; but the belligerence really needs to stop. You are welcome to politely argue for a different focus than other editors favor, but this project is still not your personal user page. If you have ideas, propose them with rational arguments, minus the abuse of other editors. If you want a page that you (almost) wholly control, edit your user page.
FWIW, You might want to read my comments on this talk page (where I actually try for feedback and cooperation; something you would do well to try). I am rather clear, without your belligerent tone, that I have argued against only inspecting images. In fact, if you look at my contributions to the project page, you'll see that I modified several phrases to clarify that images were not the sole concern. Both types of actual cooperation are something your edit history has sorely lacked. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:21, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
Gee, condescending one, I don't appreciate your slanderous commentary in 3RR. You are as abusive as anyone here, referring to me as a troll and a sockpuppet, yet no apology. Gee, the title was my creation, the focus was my remedy. I deleted the templates, I began the refocus, not you and you come along, accuse me of violating 3RR, being a troll and using sockpuppet accounts and you expect civility...fat chance. Your edit history shows almost zero article creation effort...what purpose do you serve? None.--MONGO 04:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)