Content deleted Content added
NikoSilver (talk | contribs) how else? |
neutral |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
*'''Comment:''' Merely noting that the page is definitely ''not'' racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("[[WP:OUTING|outing]]"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question -not to be discussed here- is how should Wikipedia handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Comment:''' Merely noting that the page is definitely ''not'' racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("[[WP:OUTING|outing]]"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question -not to be discussed here- is how should Wikipedia handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev|talk]]) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Neutral''' The list met its purpose from its very beginning, deleting it will change nothing. Besides, the straw poll will be closed even before this MfD, so Caspian blue couldn't really have thought of a better way for wasting people's time with yet another discussion that will have no practical effect. Last but not least, deleting the list will not delete the compiled record. Let me remind that the list was first published on [[Talk:Greece]] and can be easily accessed by opening e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece&oldid=280703799 this version]. Plus, should anyone ever need this list as evidence for arbitration, they can easily recreate it themselves (the poll will be archived, like the names of the participants, and all the info from their userpages - all so easily retrieved and assembled). Sorry but this MfD was just pointless and petty. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:Husond|Hús]]</font>[[User:Husond/Esperanza|<font color="green">ö</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User talk:Husond|nd]]</font></strong> 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:04, 31 March 2009
User:Husond/Straw Poll
Because it has served as a drama generator. See WP:ANI##OUTING by User:Husond at Talk:Greece--Caspian blue 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - This whole subpage is a violation of WP:UP#NOT. I'd was about to MFD this page but you beat me too. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious ethnic profiling page. Very close to an attack page. Directed to point toward an ethnic group. Dr.K. logos 00:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep I'm leaning towards supporting a deletion, as the straw poll seems to have served its purpose and users are offended by it. I'd prefer for Husond to delete it himself, but if he feels that this is going to be a useful tool for future editing, I see no reason for it to be deleted against his wishes. AniMatetalk 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)- Switching to a reluctant delete per Dragons flight and Enric Naval, though I really wish he'd just delete it himself. Much of this outrage seems overblown and slightly manufactured, but the page has served its purpose and Husond can easily keep a copy off-wiki. AniMatetalk 10:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I strongly objected to this straw poll approach from the beginning. Look at my vote on the talk page of Greece. Read my rationale. First I objected to the straw poll because I found it divisive, and I quoted WP:VOTINGISEVIL. Also look at my record. I rarely take part in any FYROM related debates and at times I act as a peacemaker and edit-warring preventer. Yet I am lumped as an ethnically motivated voter, just because I did not choose to hide my Greek origins. This is offensive on many levels. First this makes a mockery of WP:AGF. Second because it betrays an anti-intellectualism and an assumption of bad faith just because I am Greek. According to this attack page I am not deemed to be capable of independent thought due to my ethnic background. This ethnic blame game approach represents an absurd oversimplification of a very complex and contested issue. Also why have a straw poll if you deem only one answer to be acceptable and if you are going to accuse your opponents of ethnically-induced voting? I mean I go into a poll and If I don't tow the line I am clobbered with my ethnicity used against me as a weapon. I am also an eponymous user. As a Wikipedian I deserve no ethnic stigma attached to my name in mainspace or userspace or anyspace. As an administrator, the author of this drivel should have done the right thing and erased it a a gesture of goodwill. If this is what Wikipedia has come to, then this is not the project I signed up for and happily served for more than three years. This whole experience reads like a nightmare with ethnic overtones, (I hate to use the word "racial"), not like the dream of building an encyclopedia. Dr.K. logos 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I have read the ANI page, the nominated page, WP:Outing and Talk:Greece -- it is obvious this is a very passionate issue with both sides - I personally do not have an opinion at this point due simply to lack of knowledge. That being said, I think Husond's page is perfectly acceptable compellation of information that is publicly available and/or reasonably inferred from publicly available information. Raising the specter of WP:OUTING is nothing but a straw man. In my reasoning, this nominated page is creating a visual aid to understanding Husond's argument not a personal attack against anyone or a group. As far as I can see there is nothing unfactual or problematic; anyone viewing it can make their own informed opinion of the page's usefulness. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I am in agreement with the nominator and Dr. K -- it provokes unnecessary drama and ethnic profiling. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Against the spirit of Wikipedia. That some of the individuals were qualified as "probably" makes it worse. To do this on the basic of openly declared ethnicity at WP is bad enough and divisive enough. To do it on the basis of what one can infer from a user page is truly wrong. And wasn't the author aware that people sometimes adopt a persona that can be deliberately other than in the RW? I am aware of the AN/I: considering it, the only good solution is for the editor to voluntarily withdraw the page. DGG (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Inflammatory and unnecessary. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Husond is compiling publicly available information on a specific pool of users (notably, those who voted in a straw poll). I don't see any reason to not allow him to do this in his userspace. Prodego talk 03:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment let's see, if we allow this silly drama page filled with "assumptions" under an "admin's user page", I can draw very similar images in other situations. Some can excuse for distinguishing (actually discriminating) opponent editors who edit Obama page into WASP, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Indonesian-American, Kenyan-American or Republicans, Democratics, or Illinois, Hawaiian or Alaska locals etc as referring to this racial profiling. Others can also excuse themselves when to make a racial profiling if conflicts between users are intensified on Israel-Palestine related articles. However, I doubt if non-admin editors who creates such sub-pages could be free of high risks from immediately getting blocked. --Caspian blue 04:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep compendium of user page statements. Husond has been quite cautious in assigning nationality; at least one editor who uses we and our of Greece is marked as of uncertain nationality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The point has been made. There are currently two factions that don't get along and don't agree. If the alignment of those factions was not obvious before, it is now. That said, this sort of analysis is not going to foster civil discourse. It only reinforces the us vs. them mentality and will make collaboration that much harder in the future. The point about the nationalistic nature of the disagreement was a fair one to make, but now that the point is made, I think the continued existence of that page is detrimental to our encyclopedic mission. Time to move on. Dragons flight (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete since it's no longer useful. As Dragon indicates above, this page has already showed the problem with the poll, and it has been already analyzed enough for errors. Keeping after this would only serve to generate pointless drama. "outliving its intended purpose" and stuff.
- Additionally, there are no outing problems, Husond used publicy-available info and was very careful on making assumptions.
- This is a problem of people of a nationality being annoyed because someone has pointed out that they think in a certain manner because of being from that nationality. Well... honestly... what can I say... this situation reminds me a lot of the catalan users in the Spanish wikipedia :P ... or the Pakistan users saying their territory was never in India... or people from certain non-Pashtun tribe trying to change their article to say that they are Pashtun... or homeopaths insisting that Homeopathy is biased.... or the owner/writer of a software program trying to remove negative stuff from its article... seriously, this sort of problem exists and it's necessary to point it out when it happens, in order to understand the situation better. We can't just pretend that all those POVs don't exist and are not affecting polls and causing pile-ons. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as per Enric Naval and Dragons flight. The point has been made and is legitimate, but we didn't need this page for it. Trout-slap for the nonsensical "outing" allegations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Further comment: it's funny, indeed. Here, people are wetting their pants because we had the impudence of describing the obvious fact that they were voting as Greeks. And on my page, I just this minute got a message where one of precisely those Greeks tells me: "that most of us who want [...], do it because we don't want history monopolization and appropriation (not from our side or anyone's side)." (my emphasis). So, here's his own confirmation, black and white, that their identification with their side is what drives them. Of course, we all knew that, it was plain obvious from the start, so why the fuss? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Tries to make the point that a particular viewpoint is less valid if the person holding it is Greek. Although Greeks may have a different perspective of the political issues, their arguments should be based on merit, not on nationality. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody denies that there are arguments that should be evaluated based on merit. The point is: if there is one set of arguments that for some mysterious reasons only editors of a single nationality find convincing, and another set of arguments that everybody else finds convincing, what does that tell us about the validity of those arguments? (Especially if those arguments, by some freak of coincidence, happen to be those that lead to an outcome more favourable to the political preferences typical of that nation.) And what consequences does it have for the Wikipedia model of decision-making, when this isolated faction then thinks it can push its isolated view through by sheer force of numbers and tenacity? We have a situation where the consensus-based model of governance reaches its limits, and risks being perverted into a mob rule, that's the issue here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The most likely reason is that editors in Greece get there information from predominantly Greek sources, those in other countries get their international news from CNN, BBC or similar international outlets. Each of the sources may well display biases, and these may well affect the viewpoints of all the editors. This is not an implication that anyone has behaved badly (everyone is affected by biases of the sources they use, including myself, although we try our hardest not to) and there is no really good solution to reconcile such differences. I reject the notion that the Greek sources are less (or more) valid, and thus reject a page which tries to make a point of which nation the editor in question is from. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The difference here is not about information and its sources. It's purely about preferences. And the Greek editors know perfectly well that they are alone in this. The question is not about what we or they believe to be true, it's purely about what they politically want. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- With "sources" I mean that all the media they are reading refers to Macedonia as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and therefore that is how most Greeks refer to the country (and that this is a matter of fact, not opinion). I feel that the FYROM name is rather contorted, but I cannot dismiss one side of this as invalid, especially when the article in question is Greece. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- According to Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia#List of countries and entities with no formal diplomatic relations with the country, Greeks may not be alone.--Caspian blue 11:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- With "sources" I mean that all the media they are reading refers to Macedonia as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and therefore that is how most Greeks refer to the country (and that this is a matter of fact, not opinion). I feel that the FYROM name is rather contorted, but I cannot dismiss one side of this as invalid, especially when the article in question is Greece. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The difference here is not about information and its sources. It's purely about preferences. And the Greek editors know perfectly well that they are alone in this. The question is not about what we or they believe to be true, it's purely about what they politically want. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The most likely reason is that editors in Greece get there information from predominantly Greek sources, those in other countries get their international news from CNN, BBC or similar international outlets. Each of the sources may well display biases, and these may well affect the viewpoints of all the editors. This is not an implication that anyone has behaved badly (everyone is affected by biases of the sources they use, including myself, although we try our hardest not to) and there is no really good solution to reconcile such differences. I reject the notion that the Greek sources are less (or more) valid, and thus reject a page which tries to make a point of which nation the editor in question is from. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody denies that there are arguments that should be evaluated based on merit. The point is: if there is one set of arguments that for some mysterious reasons only editors of a single nationality find convincing, and another set of arguments that everybody else finds convincing, what does that tell us about the validity of those arguments? (Especially if those arguments, by some freak of coincidence, happen to be those that lead to an outcome more favourable to the political preferences typical of that nation.) And what consequences does it have for the Wikipedia model of decision-making, when this isolated faction then thinks it can push its isolated view through by sheer force of numbers and tenacity? We have a situation where the consensus-based model of governance reaches its limits, and risks being perverted into a mob rule, that's the issue here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Dragons flight, but I recommend that Husond should keep a copy of it off-wiki - it will be useful evidence if this ever needs to go to arbitration. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Have you thought that it can be a good counter evidence? How does the mere guessing of voters' nationality and ethnicity from their name could be "accurate" information? Ironically, he admits he was mistaken as Icelandic because of his screen name according to the accessible information. Of course, off-wiki saving is not our concern though.--Caspian blue 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Both the recommendation, and its rationale are really unbelievable. As Jack Forbes correctly states below, if you go to ARBCOM with such "arguments" and such "proofs" (?!!!), then the fun would indeed begin then!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Have you thought that it can be a good counter evidence? How does the mere guessing of voters' nationality and ethnicity from their name could be "accurate" information? Ironically, he admits he was mistaken as Icelandic because of his screen name according to the accessible information. Of course, off-wiki saving is not our concern though.--Caspian blue 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for a while (as per Stifle below) I'm not involved in the Greece page but read all the debates for fun (pleased for once its not raging on a Basque page). I cannot see how this straw poll violates anything. None of the info given was info that wasn't publicly available anyway. If you edit wiki and give out your IP and/or state your ethnicity/nationality, you place it in the public domain. Therefore you cannot moan if someone else goes and collects that info. Secondly, the ethnicity of people in an off-wiki debate or an on-wiki debate/edit war is of relevance if it shows a pattern. Anyone who has ever been involved in an article that touches "nationalistic" nerves knows that and while that of course does not preclude the member of ethnicity X bein perfectly capable of being rational, cool calm and collected, if a large number of them start behaving similarly, there's normally something afoot. I think this is actually a very good page, even if it ruffles some feathers - perhaps people might think twice now before making grand statements thinking themselves 100% anonymous. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for a reasonable length of time as it is relevant to an ongoing discussion. However, I would expect Husond to delete it when it no longer serves a purpose. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as it is a clear violation of wp:out rdunnPLIB 10:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Chris0's comment that Husond should keep a copy of it to use in evidence if it goes to arbitration is mindblowing. Does he think the arbs will dismiss them because they are Greek? If so, that will be some precedent that is set throughout wikipedia. The fun would really begin then! Jack forbes (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Where a person has self-identified as of a nationality, is is clearly allowable to note it. The only issue I see is the parenthetical statements appended in a couple of cases, which clearly should be removed. Collect (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. These "parenthetical statements" are a disgrace for Wikipedia, Nothing more to add.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I can't be the one to cast the first stone, because I've fallen in the same sin in the very distant past. But at least I was linking primarily the arguments that should be avoided, not people! Anyway, my reasons are: First, I refuse to accept the value of ethnic profiling in any form. Second, I refuse to accept the connection of the two, and its value as an argument of any sort. Third, and actually what makes this page most disgusting, there are people listed in it that have not declared their nationality themselves, and Husond uses languages they speak or any other arguments of the sort to "classify" them! How appalling. NikoSilver 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Merely noting that the page is definitely not racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("outing"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question -not to be discussed here- is how should Wikipedia handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - Ev (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral The list met its purpose from its very beginning, deleting it will change nothing. Besides, the straw poll will be closed even before this MfD, so Caspian blue couldn't really have thought of a better way for wasting people's time with yet another discussion that will have no practical effect. Last but not least, deleting the list will not delete the compiled record. Let me remind that the list was first published on Talk:Greece and can be easily accessed by opening e.g. this version. Plus, should anyone ever need this list as evidence for arbitration, they can easily recreate it themselves (the poll will be archived, like the names of the participants, and all the info from their userpages - all so easily retrieved and assembled). Sorry but this MfD was just pointless and petty. Húsönd 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)