Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/District Attorney's Office

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El Sandifer (talk | contribs) at 03:25, 25 March 2005 (Note major revision at top of page, which is important). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office (Now moved to Wikipedia:Office of Investigations)

If we should not have one organization administrated by a self-proclaimed dictator and devoted to identifying and rooting out problematic users (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition), then we shouldn't have any. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: As of 03:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC), the page has been heavily rewritten from the nominated version.

  • Delete Dictator... wtf? Wikipedia should not be adversarial between editors in good standing. We already have mechanisms (WP:AN, WP:VIP) for the real problem users. This page is nothing more than a way to justify intimidation and persecution, without giving proper and fair dispute resolution a chance. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
    • The DAO isn't about "intimidation" or "persecution". It's meant to help the dispute resolution process. We are meant to help users compile cases against users they are having problems with. Compiling an RfC, or ArbCom request, can be awfully challenging to someone who's never done it before. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The WP:AMA group already offers these services. If someone needs help with any step of a dispute, they can get assistance. This is open to both sides (i.e. both parties can get an Advocate). The DAO is nothing less than a vigilante body, picking and choosing its own persecution targets. -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Your "organisation" isn't about investigating "problem users", it's about investigating "heretics". I think that the DAO can fill a real void here. Either way, people should give it a chance before they make assumptions about its value. Keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Heretics are a subset of problem users, and perhaps the worst, since they don't always commit offenses against current policy. I think the SOI can fill a real void. People should give it a chance. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • God, your behaviour is fucking obnoxious. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Your choice to respond to my arguments with irritation and condescension is unfortunate. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • You aren't making arguments; you are being sarcastic and impertinent and destructive. BLANKFAZE | (что??)
        • Sarcasm can be an effective tool of argument. Your choice of the word "impertinent" says a lot about your attitude. Some things ought to be destroyed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One such office could prove very effective; I'm open to renaming. — Davenbelle 19:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Because its aims are vague and there are processes in place to deal with the sorts of problems so poorly alluded to in its mission statement. Why don't you boys just measure penis size and declare a winner? I mean, these revert wars and "Did not!" "Did too!" postings are making Wikipedia look like a sandbox with too much server space to fill up. If you don't have the self-awareness to be ashamed of your behavior, I'll set aside a few minutes each day to be ashamed on your behalf. That goes for BOTH sides in this progressively circus-like dispute. KingOfAllPaperboys 19:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete arrogant self promotion at worst, going over the heads of established proceedures at best. --InShaneee 19:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am assuming good faith on the part of the people who created this page, though it bears close watching to see where this is going, and a different page title might be suggested. Unfortunately, it is harder to assume good faith on the part of the proposer, who prior to this Vfd proposal vandalized the page in question, with both edit vandalism and pagemove vandalism, despite being an admin. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for more discussion of this. -- Curps 19:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Let us be clear: I believe that by "vandalized", Curps means "made changes with which other people disagreed". Readers are free to review my actions, to compare them to the definitions in Wikipedia:Vandalism, and to draw their own conclusions. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No I mean cut-and-dry vandalism and pagemove vandalism. At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I find no mention of editing a page to become a parody of itself, or moving it to a parody title as an acceptable means of resolving a dispute. This conduct did not reflect well on you, and your disingenuous bad-faith "justification" of this conduct only makes things worse. A newbie user doing such things probably would have been blocked without a second thought. -- Curps 20:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I can find no mention of declaring oneself a dictator, or calling disagreement with one's pronouncements "vandalism", as acceptable methods of resolving a dispute. The conduct of those who set up a bully squad and reflexively prevent any dissent or any explicit statement of things they would rather leave unsaid, reflects just as poorly on them. If I saw a newbie blocked for disagreeing with a self-proclaimed dictator, with false claims of "vandalism" as the reason, I would probably unblock that newbie. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Let the record show that I have already asked Curps to explain which definition in Wikipedia:Vandalism applies to my edits. He has not answered that question but has continued to insist that my changes were vandalism. I will ask once again, and if Curps cannot answer this question I ask that he retract and apologize for all his accusations of vandalism: Which definition put forth in Wikipedia:Vandalism applies to the changes I made? —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • How about
            • silly vandalism: "replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles"
            • attention-seeking vandalism: "replacing articles with jokes"
            • page move vandalism: "moving pages to nonsense names"
          But what's the point... you will simply issue yet another disingenuous "justification", and pretend that what you were doing was perfectly normal. So let's just skip it. As a third party I've already wasted far too much time on this. A plague on both your houses. In hindsight, will you at least admit that you could have gone directly to this VfD proposal and skipped all the childish pranks? Your talk page indicates that you strongly dislike the 3RR process. I can hardly wait for you to rename Wikipedia:Three revert rule to Wikipedia:Legalistic bullshit and add inquisition-related content to it. -- Curps 21:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Diffs, please? I find it hard to assume good faith when someone makes serious accusations without providing evidence. --Carnildo 00:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The complete list of edits and reverts made by Mirv is: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Many of the above changes fall under the category of silly vandalism ("adding silly jokes to existing articles"), for instance the reference to "Cardinal Charles P. Ximenez", a name also given at Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition. The pagemove vandalism ("moving pages to nonsense names") consisted of renaming this article to Wikipedia:Congregatio pro Doctrina Vicipediae and then when it was renamed back, renaming it again to Wikipedia:Torquemada Brigade. After re-renaming, the former now redirects to Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition and the latter has been deleted. As you know, no diffs or logs are available for page moves... it was in "Recent changes" at the time.
      • Once again, this was not some earthshaking vandalism that rocked Wikipedia to the core, nobody's calling for an RfC as far as I know, it was quite trivial, but it is indeed vandalism as per the definitions at Wikipedia:Vandalism, and he kept it up long after the joke wore off. It's just minor silly childish pranks that an admin should not be doing, setting a bad example and wasting everyone's time. And the whole thing was compounded by his disingenuous after-the-fact "justification" that these were legitimate edits, that Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition is a legitimate independent article rather than a parody, and that pagemove vandalism doesn't count unless you move 50 pages at a time like Willy on Wheels... actually this smug stonew%2C_Ontarioalling denial bugs me a lot more than the initial pranks. Does he take us all for fools? If he had skipped all the games and gone ahead with proposing this Vfd in the first place, no one would have objected. -- Curps 01:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Yes, it's a pretty clear-cut case of "silly vandalism". I suggest a penalty of being required to track down new Iasson/Faethon sockpuppets. --Carnildo 03:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete And a warning - these constant attempts by some Wikipedians to make our dispute resolution process like a lawsuit will only end up with us getting sued in real life sometime. The proposal is an unreasonable attempt by some users, including one Arbitrator!, to hound users they personally dislike. This is a dangerous step forward - we should be developing an encyclopaedia, not an archocracy, jguk 19:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in the strongest possible terms. If we keep moving in this direction, the only people left to contribute will be the miniature dictators, because everyone else will be driven away, either by force or out of disgust...unfortunately, it's "everyone else" who actually writes the vast majority of our content, and the mini-dictators just spend their time harassing them. Everyking 21:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We are supposed to be working together. Other users should not act as if they own the Wikipedia. Mike H 21:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is an obvious retalitory nomination following the nomination of the Sacred Office of the Inquisition, as can be seen from the nominator's comments. Also, I don't see cause to delete as this page adheres to policy, if you want to see their process changed, you can start a discussion. -- Mgm|(talk) 21:57, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Neutralitytalk 22:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Userful function, bogus nomination made to make a point. RickK 22:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if it is to make a point, it is not disruption of Wikipedia. Don't misuse WP:POINT. -- Netoholic @ 22:30, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • Delete unless renamed. If some folks want to get together and help people prepare RfAr's, they certainly have a right to do so. They even have a right to set up an organization and structure it as a dictatorship. This project, however, crosses the line by using a name that conveys a very strong impression of an official imprimatur for their status. It's somewhat like the Association of Members' Advocates, and, like that group, should use "Association" or "Society" or some such in the name. JamesMLane 22:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 22:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:The universe does not revolve around you. Advice that all would-be prosecutors, inquisitors, dictators, and assorted other petty lordlings, along with all those seeking to dethrone such, would do well to heed. Also suggest that the Arbitration Committee try out one of its nice new remedies and order the major participants to write 1,000-word essays on the importance of WikiLove. --Michael Snow 22:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No valid reason for article deletion given. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and move to userspaces. Seems to me this is more of a "law firm" than a "DA" anyway. If they want to help users bring cases to Arbcom who might not be too savy with WP policies then that's fine, but it shouldn't be presented as an official arm of wikipedia administration. Announce this in your personal userspaces, not here. -R. fiend 23:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Divisive, abrasive, provocative. Cannot do Wikipedia any good. Snowspinner has made his point, now let's erase the blackboard. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Dpbsmith, Mike H, and Netoholic (especially re redundancy) said. Second choice rename and re-focus (and probably userfy per R. fiend)--the project's aims, as stated in this discussion, are different (more constructive, among other things) than those stated on the actual page. Niteowlneils 23:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm an Association of Members' Advocates (AMA) member and as far I know we are not a counterpart of this thing and, somehow, we're 'recognized' by the ArbCom. --Neigel von Teighen 23:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've changed my comment (not my vote) because my non-native English made me say something I didn't wanted. Apologize me --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useful function, but I think WP:AMA already covers most of the functions of this body. Keep. It serves a useful purpose. --Carnildo 00:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because arbcom members pretty much invited Snowspinner to do this sort of thing, and removing the page wouldn't change that (except to make the process less visible, which would be a Bad Thing). --iMb~Meow 01:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though maybe change the name. Law & Order: Wikipedia? WAG (Wikipedia Advocate General)? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to User:Snowspinner/District Attorney's Office, and delete the redirect. There is a place on Wikipedia for pages with self-described dictators, but it's the user pages, not the Wikipedia: namespace. - Mustafaa 01:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Americanism. Dmn / Դմն 01:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, rantish, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, noting specific requests from three arbitrators to create exactly such an office, and the membership of a fourth in said office. Snowspinner 02:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Curps. I'm not sure about the concept of this page, but it shouldn't be deleted.-gadfium 03:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a micronation. Jonathunder 03:24, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)


Comments

  • As a note, I think a lot of the criticisms are well placed. The original version of this was more hostile than it needed to be, and what I had intended as an amusing comment was (understandably) misread as a totalitarian powermad. I've scaled it down considerably to better reflect what I wanted this office to be - a place where people who are feeling harassed and who feel like they're dealing with a problem user and a deliberately hostile editor to ask for help navigating the outlets Wikipedia has set up to help with that. Snowspinner 03:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that whatever title you choose for yourself, the point of this page is still to persecute, rather than truly solve problems. Try joining WP:AMA, which already has a well-respected and supported process for assisting people with disputes and resolution. -- Netoholic @ 03:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/District_Attorney%27s_Office&oldid=11492555"