Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Inappropriate projects

message: Yes I seen a few. However as long as they are not trying to break or get people to break wikipolicy in some way who cares? If they are then they should be deleted.Geni 12:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate projects

message: I think this whole concept might be easier to swallow if we break it down into categories.  What exactly makes a project inappropriate?  Here's my viewpoint, listed in order from worst to not-quite-as-bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
1). Cow Pies: Projects which directly contradict policy.
Examples: None that I know of, thankfully.
Description: These would be projects created in obvious bad faith, as an attempt to disrupt and harm wikipedia and its editors, or to influence the voting process through clearly devious means.
What to do: A VfD would suffice, and an RfC or Arb case might be made against the orgnaiser(s).
2). Rhubarb Pies: Projects which do not directly contradict policy, but nonethless are apparently not within the spirit of wikipedia
Examples: 
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/FACTS
-Though it promised to be NPOV, it was strongly alledged to be an organised attempt to influence controvesial articles with a certain viewpoint.  Though there is no specific policy against like-minded editors getting together to discuss articles (nor will there likely ever be), an organisation of this scale was seen as detrimental to the inherent NPOV nature of Wikipedia and was deleted by consensus.
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/GRider/Schoolwatch
-The question of whether editors should be allowed to "campaign" for votes has been a controversial one recently.  Campaigning can be done either by spamming (leaving talk messages) encouraging like-minded editors to vote, or by watches (collections of links to votes).  Certainly, it's unlikely that a policy against such measures could ever be totally effective--if spamming talk pages to beg for votes were forbidden, it would be easy to do the same thing by email instead, or ICQ, or even phone.  However, it's easy to sympathise with the viewpoint that trying to swing a vote is against the nature of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy after all, and excessive campaigning could make every vote merely a clash between two forces (generally inclusionist and deletionist) voting on principle, with the victory going to whoever gets more folks to show up.  This would make genuine discussion and consensus-building nearly impossible.
Description: These are projects which seek to accomplish something their creator sees as right, but does it in the wrong way.  Most of all, it is important that these projects be discussed rationally, as any consensus might become policy (or at least precedent) toward similar subjects in the future.
What to do: A VfD, though it may become heated, is probably the best way to handle such a project.  Since these trad the grey area and do not directly violate existing policy, an RfC or Arb case against the creator(s) should not be necessary except in egregious or persistent cases.
3). Undercooked Pies: Projects which are within policy but fail to gain community consensus
Examples: 
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/FACTS
I apologise for making an example of this because it's fairly new, but it does show an example of a project which was created in good faith but very likely will not gain consensus.
Description: These are projects which are created with good intentions and do not violate policy, but don't really have the community consensus to carry them forward.
What to do: Since such a project violates no policy and isn't hurting anyone, it should not be VfDed.  It should be allowed to remain--possibly its creators may be able to trim it into something that could gain consensus eventually.  If the project should lie inactive for an excessive period, it becomes a Stale Pie and should be gently deleted by VfD.
Well, there's my two cents.  It goes without saying that none of the above is policy, and doesn't necessarily represent the opinions of Wikipedia or any editor other than me.  I encourange and welcome all feedback and discussion, whether you agree or disagree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
4) Half-done pies: Projects that promise to create large numbers of stubs, but little else
Examples: WikiProject Pokécruft, User:GRider/Schoolwatch.  WikiProject Pokécruft has generated several hundred articles consisting of a statsbox and a stub tag.  Schoolwatch has a list of school articles "marked for improvement", but improvement does not seem to be occurring.
Description: These are projects that were created with good intentions, but promise to generate very little in the way of quality articles, and large numbers of stubs or large quantities of trivia.
What to do: I don't know.  These projects tend to have large numbers of people behind them who oppose merging stubs into longer articles.
Carnildo 19:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of inappropriate projects 

message: User:Sam Spade/Detective agency isn't a Wikiproject. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 10:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pie? 

message: Contributors turn to Wikiprojects for standard ways of writing articles, and sometimes even for policy guidelines on notability. I fear the existence of inappropriate projects side by side with other ones that have been recognized as legitimate by the community might mislead users (especially newbies) into doing things in ways that are not consensual. 
However, deletion does not strike me as the best solution here. The debate should be kept, if for no other reason to guide future contributors about what kinds of projects may be seen as controversial by Wikipedians. This applies, obviously, only to what Starblind called "Undercooked Pies", i.e., to projects which do not violate established policy or that are apparently within the spirit of Wikipedia. 
Projects that fall in this category but face strong opposition from Wikis could be listed in something like Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Projects under dispute (linked from the main project page) until they are trimmed down to something consensual. If that fails to happen after some amount of time, they could then be listed in another page, say Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Rejected Projects, also linked from the main project page.
This, of course, is just an idea. Comments are wellcome and would be highly appreciated. VladMV ٭ talk 18:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Undercooked Pies 

message: *Cow pies are easy. In the (unlikely) event that we get a bad-faith project like Wikiproject:Vandalism or something similar, this could be easily stopped by blocking and/or VfD'ing the page as nonsensical.
*For anything else, I suppose the appropriate venue would be RFC. Simply put the matter to the community, and see what happens. I don't think VfD'ing would really help.
*What I see as the main problem is if the majority is opposed to a project, but a minority nevertheless keeps it up. RFC doesn't have the power to stop them (nor should it), and the ArbCom shouldn't have to deal with it. Thus the project remains. This, presumedly, is inherent in a Wiki.
*Radiant_* 10:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
How about when the overwhelming majority supports a project, and certain individuals persecute it based on personal grudges? Should that be listed here as well? Sam Spade  07:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, my objections to User:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency are not because of a "grudge", but are based solely on my lack of confidence that Sam is trustworthy with any sort of power. This arises from my personal experience of Sam Spade's insulting behavior, record of cynically exploiting policy loopholes, his creative sidestepping of policy, and extensive history of trying to cover up these facts. Shame on Sam for continuing to add insult to injury by once again mischaracterizing those he wrongs. FeloniousMonk 07:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And shame on you for wasting everyones valuable time with these antics. Kindly do something useful with yourself, I'm here to read and edit an encyclopedia, not to fuck about w personal politics to please your ego.  Sam Spade  08:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confused. It is your User:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency and its appropriateness that is tying up everybody's time here, Sam. Since you bring up egos, I'm still waiting for your apology for your vulgar email. FeloniousMonk 08:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Review my edit history and FeloniousMonk's, and get back to me on the subject of wikipedia usage. Sam Spade  00:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. I encourage anyone reviewing my edit history as Sam suggests to take a moment to consider some relevant information regarding User:Sam_Spade/Detective_agency I present here: User:FeloniousMonk/Disturbing_trends FeloniousMonk 09:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: *Sound advice, point taken. Several attempts by admin's at informal mediation have failed to resolve the matter. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Graphical content problem, which has an objective of "Protect vanruble users, including chidren, from content that might be disturbing." (sic) --cesarb 17:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possibly inappropriate project