271:, despite it also being created at the same time. His own statements regarding "grandiose dreams" is I believe a direct misrepresentation, probably conscious, of a statement I made earlier, when I was addressing the fact that the bots would tag the articles. I said nothing about the articles page, which is one I generally develop while doing the assessments to ensure that only relevant articles are included. Under the circumstances, however, I am adjusting that practice. I also tried to ensure that all nations have the name, if not the function, of separate projects, while territories would be named work groups, to take into account the geographical and political "parents". All of this was explained to the editor above already. The fact that I took exception to his high-handed tone and did not include the Mongolia assessments in the new Central Asia banner after his imperious remarks, baasically to ensure that the only one he had joined not be adjusted without his prior consent, is I believe the proximate cause for this deletion request.
849:
three months, set unofficially by the guy who has proposed most of them for deletion or taken part in the deletion discussions for the past year, me. I can verify that by links elsewhere as required. Beyond that, however, I honestly do not see any reason to believe
Latebird is even capable of reasonably discussing much anything, certainly not on the basis of my limited acquaintance with either. If that were to change, and it would have to change dramatically, I wouldn't have any objections.
159:- I've tried very hard to just describe the situation as factually as possible, but maybe I should have waited until I'm not pissed anymore. Just that it's hard to maintain one's cool if someone tells you: "Look, I know what I'm doing, I've made the same mistake a hundred times!"... Ok, I can laught about it now. In any case, I'll step back for a while to see what other people think. --
802:
please note that I asked for reasons to not delete, indicating that I thought they could exist. However, there is clear precedent that any wikipedia space pages which are used as a platform to violate policy can be deleted. I did not however necessarily state or even imply that such would be forthcoming if evidence to not delete were put forward.
673:
the way. All the other drama may be somewhat related, but at those times when I'm not pissed, I usually prefer to deal with editing questions rather than user conduct. I now somewhat regret to have introduced so much context here. The first three words of the nomination rationale are really the core of what this debate should focus on. --
120:). Btw: This is just the tip of the iceberg: The same user seems to have created around 100 seperate country related projects, and will clearly be unable to actively maintain even a small fraction of them. Grandiose dreams of "categorisation by robot" are bound to fail, because categorisation is a task that simply cannot automated. --
257:
should be deleted until at least several months of inacitivity, and at this point the projects were only created in
December, with me being tied up with the various other multi-national projects in the interim. It clearly could be the case that they might take off, and in fact some are even currently included on the
603:
When individuals repeatedly pass of as fact statements which clearly are not, it is not judgemental to say that one is surprised by the repeated lack of accuracy of comments. It should also be noted that the only reason there has been no activity is because of my delay in modifying the banner, as per
687:
If the above statement is accurate, then I believe that the nomination is actually premature. The existing norm is three months of inactivity before deletion of a project. Also, given the recent activity on the pages, I believe that, in all honesty, the first three words no longer apply to many, and
307:
Several of us (myself included) have worked very hard rating, ranking, and categorizing articles for
Wikiproject Central Asia. We do so because this helps us improve articles and the project. John Carter, however, is now trying to unilaterally create a double layer of ratings for each project, which
923:
It should also be noted that that comment on the talk page occurred about two months after the pages were first created and linked to on the main project page, and after he had substantially reorganized one of those pages himself. Presumably, he had known of them before then, otherwise he wouldn't
848:
Actually, there is a precedent for deleting projects which violate policies, productive or not. I do think that both of the opponents have acted in a way which is, at best, in violation of at least one or more policies. And, for what it's worth, the basic standard for nomination of WikiProjects is
801:
Producitivity is, unfortunately, an entirely different issue than violation of policy, which cannot be countenanced. There have been at least one, I think more than one, projects related to the former
Yugoslavia which produced content, but which were hijacked for the purposes of violating POV. And
672:
There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Actually, I had considered submitting the unused workgroup pages for deletion for quite a while, and just never got around to do it. John's recent activities now motivated me to go ahead (maybe still too early) and get this very specific issue out of
520:
It doesn't. However, at least one of the projects above has gotten at least one other member, and the bots can be set to run later today, if required. On that basis, they do not necessarily qualify as unused. Since when do you get to determine that they must qualify by your own, clearly conflicted
266:
on setting up the categories for the new draft banner. Personally, the projects were created along with several other projects to assist wikipedia in general in knowing which articles were most relevant to existing subjects of notable importance, specifically including extant national entities. It
831:
uncharitably be described as a feeling of ownership over the
Mongolia workgroup. Even if such a user blatantly acted in violation of WP:OWN, the proper response to that is to tell that user to stop and to remove any article content added by that user as a result of the sense of ownership that may
299:
These workgroups were created without consulting anyone else in
Wikiproject Central Asia. While it's great to be bold, there are certain reasons individual country projects do not exist and a regional project works better. Had John Carter taken a moment to talk to anyone else on the project, this
261:
page, even if doing so would require separate banners, a possibility the proposer evidently did not even think to consider before making the nomination. I personally believe that the purpose of the nomination is the fact that I took exception to the nominator's imperious tone when he told me to
256:
on the basis of nominator's own COI and failure to abide by existing protocols. The fact that the bots have not yet been sent out to tag the articles is the only point against the majority of the projects. Betacommand has already more or less agreed to be very helpful in that regard. No project
604:
the reasons outlined above. If there is no agreement to changing the existing banner, of course, I could create others later today and start tagging relevant articles by the end of the day, with entirely separate banners. I would however regret having to create such unnecessary templates.
876:- it's only been a short time since these projects were created, so deleting them on the basis of lack of use is not justifiable. We need to wait until the bots are involved and see if they become useful to editors. That's a process that should take a number of months, imo. --
928:. It should also be noted that the one objection he expressed to me, that he didn't want to create separate templates, is irrelevant, because no separate templates were even being considered for creation, and he had even been told that in advance of this nomination.
303:
No one has joined these new workgroups/projects (except the
Mongolia project and a previously-existing Tajikistan project). There has been enough time for people to join if they wanted to (again, see the Mongolia group). The projects listed here are just taking up
327:"The fact that the bots have not yet been sent out to tag the articles is the only point against the majority of the projects". I hope by reading the above he can understand how incorrect this statement is. In the meantime, these unused projects need to be
315:
As far as I can tell, the reason these projects were created was that "maybe", "in the future", "someone" might try to create these projects. Therefore (this is my understanding), we should create them now to preempt that - even if they just sit
72:
without prejudice to bringing it back here, if necessary, after the underlying dispute has been resolved. Parties are encouraged to try to work this out on the respective projects' or parent project's talk page or by using any of the various
748:
Well...that would never fly since the
Project is productive and active. That nomination would result in nothing but a speedy close as disruptive. But if that is your impression of the Project, then you should definitely initiate some sort of
115:
Unused project pages. All were created by the same user without consulting any of the editors actually working in the respective areas (he originally created them as "work groups" within the otherwise well-coordinated
819:- I can see how such a precedent can make some sense in the former Yugo example you mention, but as I said on the project talk page, it simply doesn't make sense to delete an entire project based on the violation of
290:- Reading this, it is clear that John Carter is completely missing the concerns here. He is trying to present this as a personal issue between another editor and himself (along with ridiculous accusations like
753:
before things get any further out of hand. As things are right now, this MfD is nothing but a snip-fest between the interested parties and only going downhill. Would John Carter and
Latebird, et al., consider
233:- Those are really two seperate issues. The question of WikiProject vs. work group/task force is only relevant to those items that have active users, none of which is nominated here. The nominated items are
423:
639:(or three, or whatever) agree as to what the best course of action would be. If you do come to an agreement to merge or delete, then no MfD is necessary, as the creator (John) can mark the pages
168:
147:
827:
of its participants. What's going on here is nothing like what you describe in your former Yugo example. It's simply two or three editors having a disagreement, with one editor expressing what
441:
355:
711:
697:
613:
598:
584:
566:
530:
280:
778:
743:
459:
405:
649:
or move them back to task forces. Mediation should also minimize the amount of drama imposed on third parties. Essentially, right now you are using MfD to mediate this dispute for you. --
682:
515:
246:
221:
129:
937:
858:
841:
811:
796:
665:
189:
963:
575:, you will see that I did in fact create it. I am continuously surprised by the amount of inaccurate and judgemental opinion passed of as fact by several of the parties involved here.
497:
340:
323:. Obviously some people feel these projects are not needed now, and John Carter needs to stop (am I imperious now?) and discuss these ideas with the Wikiproject Central Asia community.
369:
918:
885:
205:
and the nominator, rather than MfD. If worse comes to worst, they can be reverted back to task forces. I do not foresee any of these
Projects being deleted at this time via MfD. --
446:
And your own statement above, which contains a comment which is clearly in violation of fact, cannot be taken as being anything other than uncivil, and possibly as an unfounded
475:
Still sounds like a dispute to be settled elsewhere. Suggest speedy close and try to keep a cool head to reach a consensus on the Project talk page; if that seems futile, try
897:
dislike of the way in which they were created (hence the above comment, "maybe I should have waited until I'm not pissed anymore"). As you can see, he or she made
787:
of its participants are violating WP:OWN makes absolutely no sense at all to me. The project has been in place for a year and a half and is clearly productive. --
389:
392:. Also, there is no specific need to propose new projects with relevant groups. I strongly urge the editors above to read several extant policies, including
898:
429:
557:
He hasn't done anything else with it since then either, so that still qualifies as an unused project for me. But we'll see what other people think. --
81:
949:
944:
764:
702:
I remember seeing a page mentioning those three months somewhere, but can't for the life of me find it again now. Care to provide a pointer? --
651:
483:
207:
360:
And yet John Carter, who has called people ignorant for disagreeing with him, gets no warning from you. Anyway, back to the issue at hand...
308:
has the potential to make things quite confusing, especially if they will be included on the same Wikiproject Central Asia banner. Again,
905:
from its previous status as a workgroup. The next day he or she filed this deletion request for all the projects John Carter created
94:
86:
53:
258:
198:
414:
You're offense, he's defense, and you're the only one to use the word "ignorant" anywhere in this discourse. Check it yourself.
893:- Although this does not directly affect the merits of this MfD, it is rather obvious that the motivation for it is Latebird's
635:, etc.) does not decide deletion debates; they help editors come to an agreement as to what to do. In this case, they can help
64:
is not a proper MfD issue. There is no reasonable liklihood that this issue will result in consensus that these projects are
909:
Mongolia. It's tit-for-tat, bad faith stuff - certainly not the right way for something like this to be dealt with. --
817:"there is clear precedent that any wikipedia space pages which are used as a platform to violate policy can be deleted"
731:
117:
104:
450:. Your own behavior, I regret to say, is probably more demonstrably problematic than that of almost anyone else here.
17:
832:
violate other policies. Choosing the "nuclear option" of deleting the whole project is way beyond excessive, imo. -
552:
537:
109:
99:
87:
902:
388:. I had in fact posted a question about the new proposed banner several hours before this posting was made, at
268:
759:
572:
977:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
924:
have been able to adjust the Mongolia one. On this basis, I have to assume that his actions were explicitly
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
376:
This statement "John Carter continues to push ahead with this, trying to set up bots and new banners, but
68:
during a content and policy dispute among several very experienced editors, therefore I'm closing this as
506:
Since when does the mediation cabal decide about whether unused WikiProjects should be deleted or not? --
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
346:
I'll ask you as I did the original poster, watch your tone, several comments can be taken as uncivil.
978:
477:
419:
351:
180:- I agree with Latebird. These workgroups/projects were created in an ad hoc style, then never used.
143:
36:
933:
925:
854:
807:
739:
693:
609:
580:
526:
455:
401:
276:
726:
pending discussion elsewhere. Otherwise, I regret to say that, given the tendencies toward
548:
541:
415:
347:
267:
should also be noted that the editor is not including one of the other projects I created,
139:
319:
John Carter continues to push ahead with this, trying to set up bots and new banners, but
8:
707:
678:
643:
594:
562:
511:
242:
164:
125:
432:. Check it yourself. And please don't call me offense - it could be taken as uncivil.
310:
he has never asked if creating these groups or ratings would be helpful to the project
960:
783:
Suggesting the deletion of an entire regional project because one editor thinks that
775:
755:
750:
662:
494:
218:
312:, and I have not seen anyone actively involved with the project who thinks it would.
929:
850:
803:
735:
689:
605:
576:
522:
451:
437:
397:
365:
336:
272:
202:
185:
730:
of the content displyed by at least two parties above, I may well have to propose
57:
69:
138:
to workgroups, but watch your tone, several comments can be taken as uncivil.
914:
881:
837:
792:
727:
703:
674:
590:
558:
507:
447:
393:
385:
291:
238:
160:
121:
61:
331:
until a consensus at some point (if ever) decides such projects are needed.
632:
74:
433:
390:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Central Asia#Proposed change to project banner
361:
332:
197:
This seems to be more of a disagreement that should be sorted out on the
181:
237:
and thus pointless to keep independently of their technical status. --
396:, considering that they seem to believe that they "own" the content.
78:
589:
Thanks for pointing out my mistake in such a non-judgemental way. --
384:, and a gross misrepresentation of policies, specifically including
910:
877:
833:
788:
688:
on that basis the nomination should now be closed as a faulty one.
378:
still has not started a discussion about the need of these projects
321:
still has not started a discussion about the need of these projects
971:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
294:), which is not the case. There are several real issues here:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
981:). No further edits should be made to this page.
60:and the debate over content, proliferation, and
54:Knowledge:Miscellany_for_deletion#Introduction
945:What we've got here is failure to communicate
734:for deletion as a vehicle for pushign POV.
95:Knowledge:WikiProject Kazakhstan/Articles
544:a bit later than you created the others.
571:Actually, in all accuracy, if you look
259:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Proposals
199:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Central Asia
14:
201:page between the users in question,
23:
732:Knowledge:WikiProject Central Asia
105:Knowledge:WikiProject Turkmenistan
24:
993:
18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion
553:Knowledge:WikiProject Kyrgyzstan
538:Knowledge:WikiProject Kyrgyzstan
110:Knowledge:WikiProject Uzbekistan
100:Knowledge:WikiProject Kyrgyzstan
88:Knowledge:WikiProject Kazakhstan
56:). This nomination amounts to
903:Knowledge:WikiProject Mongolia
269:Knowledge:WikiProject Mongolia
77:methods. (non-admin closing).
44:The result of the debate was
13:
1:
555:a bit after you created them.
964:20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
938:20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
919:20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
901:questioning the creation of
886:20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
859:17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
842:21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
812:20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
797:20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
779:17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
744:16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
712:17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
698:16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
683:16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
666:15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
614:16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
599:16:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
585:16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
567:15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
531:14:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
516:08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
498:03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
460:15:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
442:06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
424:04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
406:14:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
370:01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
356:01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
341:00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
281:16:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
247:03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
222:02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
190:01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
169:00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
148:00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
130:00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
82:21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
7:
762:, or am I off-base here? --
722:Agreed. Propose once again
631:to Latebird: Mediation (or
10:
998:
300:could have been explained.
478:Knowledge:Mediation Cabal
974:Please do not modify it.
118:WikiProject Central Asia
32:Please do not modify it.
540:has been created by
66:entirely undesirable
50:entirely undesirable
760:request for comment
52:to be deleted (see
756:dispute resolution
751:dispute resolution
551:has indeed joined
416:Chris (クリス • フィッチ)
348:Chris (クリス • フィッチ)
140:Chris (クリス • フィッチ)
536:More accurately,
48:Projects must be
989:
976:
958:
955:
952:
773:
770:
767:
660:
657:
654:
648:
642:
492:
489:
486:
264:STOP IMMEDIATELY
216:
213:
210:
203:User:John Carter
34:
997:
996:
992:
991:
990:
988:
987:
986:
985:
979:deletion review
972:
956:
953:
950:
771:
768:
765:
658:
655:
652:
646:
640:
490:
487:
484:
214:
211:
208:
91:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
995:
984:
983:
967:
966:
942:
941:
940:
926:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
888:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
846:
845:
844:
781:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
501:
500:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
409:
408:
373:
372:
358:
325:
324:
317:
313:
305:
301:
296:
295:
284:
283:
251:
250:
249:
225:
224:
192:
174:
173:
172:
171:
151:
150:
113:
112:
107:
102:
97:
90:
85:
42:
41:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
994:
982:
980:
975:
969:
968:
965:
962:
961:
959:
946:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
889:
887:
883:
879:
875:
872:
871:
860:
856:
852:
847:
843:
839:
835:
830:
826:
822:
818:
815:
814:
813:
809:
805:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
780:
777:
776:
774:
761:
757:
752:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
664:
663:
661:
645:
638:
634:
630:
627:
615:
611:
607:
602:
601:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
554:
550:
545:
543:
539:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
502:
499:
496:
495:
493:
480:
479:
474:
471:
470:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
322:
318:
314:
311:
306:
302:
298:
297:
293:
289:
286:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
265:
260:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
220:
219:
217:
204:
200:
196:
193:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
175:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
154:
153:
152:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
127:
123:
119:
111:
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
92:
89:
84:
83:
80:
76:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
973:
970:
948:
906:
894:
890:
873:
828:
824:
820:
816:
784:
763:
723:
650:
636:
628:
547:
535:
482:
476:
472:
381:
377:
328:
326:
320:
309:
287:
263:
253:
234:
230:
206:
195:Speedy close
194:
177:
156:
135:
114:
65:
49:
46:SPEEDY CLOSE
45:
43:
31:
28:
930:John Carter
851:John Carter
804:John Carter
736:John Carter
724:speedy keep
690:John Carter
606:John Carter
577:John Carter
546:Correction:
523:John Carter
521:standards?
452:John Carter
398:John Carter
273:John Carter
254:Speedy keep
823:policy by
382:a flat lie
380:" is both
235:not in use
899:this post
644:db-author
895:personal
728:ownershi
704:Latebird
675:Latebird
591:Latebird
559:Latebird
508:Latebird
239:Latebird
161:Latebird
122:Latebird
58:WP:POINT
891:Comment
637:you two
629:Comment
473:Comment
428:It was
329:deleted
316:unused.
288:Comment
231:Comment
157:Comment
70:WP:SNOW
907:except
448:WP:NPA
434:Otebig
394:WP:OWN
386:WP:OWN
362:Otebig
333:Otebig
304:space.
182:Otebig
178:Delete
136:revert
62:WP:OWN
829:might
758:or a
633:WP:3O
549:Chris
542:Chris
79:Doug.
75:WP:DR
16:<
951:12 N
947:. --
934:talk
915:talk
882:talk
874:Keep
855:talk
838:talk
808:talk
793:talk
766:12 N
740:talk
708:talk
694:talk
679:talk
653:12 N
610:talk
595:talk
581:talk
573:here
563:talk
527:talk
512:talk
485:12 N
481:. --
456:talk
438:talk
430:here
420:talk
402:talk
366:talk
352:talk
337:talk
277:talk
243:talk
209:12 N
186:talk
165:talk
144:talk
126:talk
911:Hux
878:Hux
834:Hux
825:one
821:any
789:Hux
785:two
292:COI
954:oo
936:)
917:)
884:)
857:)
840:)
810:)
795:)
769:oo
742:)
710:)
696:)
681:)
656:oo
647:}}
641:{{
612:)
597:)
583:)
565:)
529:)
514:)
488:oo
458:)
440:)
422:)
404:)
368:)
354:)
339:)
279:)
245:)
212:oo
188:)
167:)
146:)
128:)
957:n
932:(
913:(
880:(
853:(
836:(
806:(
791:(
772:n
738:(
706:(
692:(
677:(
659:n
608:(
593:(
579:(
561:(
525:(
510:(
491:n
454:(
436:(
418:(
400:(
364:(
350:(
335:(
275:(
241:(
215:n
184:(
163:(
142:(
124:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.