Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While it is somewhat ironic to say so given the arbitration committee itself is elected, Wikipedia itself is not an experiment in democracy. This so-called political party aims to subvert Wikipedia core policies, particularly by undermining consensus building, forming a voting bloc in its place to subvert ArbCom policies. In fact, the stated goal of this party is to remove the community from the process by having party members revamp ArbCom to suit themselves via motion. Creates a significant slippery slope concern, as the formation of one "political party" begets others. It would be inevitable that several other "parties" would be formed, all to push single-purpose agendas, and which would use their central party pages to coordinate canvassing efforts. This party, and all that would follow, will inevitably become disruptive and destructive forces on the community and the concept of collaborative editing. Resolute 00:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now I think it is unlikely that the idea is going to go anywhere good, but that it deserves some time to develop before we make a deletion determination. Monty₈₄₅ 01:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Well, I can kinda see where the nom is coming from, but I'm having a hard time seeing exactly how this violates policy. On the other hand, I can see how it could have a detrimental effect on the encyclopedia. Partisan politics within the wiki could cause significant problems, in my opinion, however good intentioned they may be. This gives me vague thoughts of The Federalist Papers, specifically numbers 9 and 10. Regardless, despite the fact I don't see a black and white policy violation here, it does indeed seem to be an "experiment in democracy" of sorts. All in all not quite sure where I lean on this. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The choice we have here is between holding the Reform Party discussions on-Wiki or off-Wiki. My preference is to hold the such meetings for this party on-Wiki, as that will be more transparent. Count Iblis (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also make it easier to WP:CANVASS for supporters, no doubt. Resolute 02:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – ArbCom itself is a WikiProject – a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. Project disputes should be handled by consensus in the project, not via a project fork. Any matters that could be brought up in WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party can be addressed in WikiProject ArbCom. – Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Parties are a normal developmental step for an entity like the Wikipedia in its current form, I think, and I've suggested them myself a while back. Whether the development of parties is good or bad I can't say (its probably mixed) but it is natural. You can (and sometimes should) thwart natural developments, but this should only be done with care else the development continues but in a more twisted way (e.g., no formal parties, but instead cliques, back-channel cabals, and groups based around charismatic individuals, for instance). I'm not saying that is the case here but it's something to be wary of. If you don't like the ArbCom Reform Party then form your own party (the Traditionalist Party or whatever) and make you case to the community, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the premise of this 'party' is faulty (arbs are more like judges than executives/governors), so I suspect it will eventually be marked as {{historical}}, but ArbCom has some GovCom like activities and they are elected by the community, so a party isnt unreasonable. The benefits of a party are position statements written collectively rather than by the individual, and they introduce 'recall' type measures if the elected person doesnt stick to the party decision. As ArbCom elections are using secret ballots, the downsides of a party system are minimal, so I think we should let the proponents continue if they feel it is useful. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Largely per John. I would recommend it drop "party" from its name and thinking, as detrimental. The purpose of projects is to debate and gain consensus around functioning improvements in various areas of the pedia. The party thinking would likely ultimately get this project in trouble. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "The human race has always lived more or less happily in the kingdom of the blind. But there is an elephant among us. A one-eyed elephant..." If Wikipedia were to survive as a neutral and independent entity, it would require Wikipedians to claim the right to canvass and coordinate for Wikipolitical ends on this site freely, rather than surrendering that power to sites such as Wikipediocracy which are run by outside interests hostile to Wikipedia's purpose. Wnt (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no rights. Wikipedia is not a democracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed. And you know, the same blurb that says Wikipedia is not a democracy says that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy either ha-ha-ha. Note also that WP:NOT#DEM explicitly exempts ArbCom elections. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The voting they are talking about is specifically the voting on the election of the Arbitration Committee. "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system." IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The conservative reaction of crushing any change that threatens the status quo is a reaction that Wikipedia has never been fond of. This idea of using deletion to crush oppositional views in anathema to our core fundamental beliefs. We have so many noticeboards and places to discuss things, from OR, RS, and the village pumps to more "back-stage" things like AN/I and ArbCom; talking and discussing is what makes us work, to stifle talk because someone(s) do not like it is not setting a good example for the future. As someone with a degree in Political Science (University at Albany (SUNY) class of '01) I agree that it was and is inevitable that parties (or whatever name you wish they be called) will come into existence as a natural political evolution of the structure of Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify – by 'ROFL' I mean delete, as just plain misguided, if not nonsensical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Wikipedia:NOT#DEM Wikipedia is not a democracy nor an experiment in democracy. There is already an existing project under the scope of arbitration. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – No policy-based grounds for deletion, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• userfy/delete. At best this is a pointless exercise in democracy which will bring unnecessary drama to ArbCom elections. At worst, whatever the intentions of the proposer, it will be used by a well-organised minority to subvert and render ineffective ArbCom by introducing proposals that will make their work impossible.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not a democracy, but that doesn't mean people can run for Arbcom on a party based system if they want to. There's no rule against that. If they want to do all the organizing for that, go ahead, it's still up to everyone to vote for them or not. Silverseren^C 18:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy as user essay. This "party" goes against core Wikipedia policies WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:NOTSTATUTE, etc. All related pages should also be deleted. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out to the IP that both Notfreespeech and Notstatute state nothing that concerns this MFD or the ability for someone to have a page like this, it is irrelevant to the discussion and the party does not go against those policies (calling them "core" itself is a bit of a stretch as well).97.85.211.124 (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are suggesting that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not isn't a core policy? Given that it is where the limits of what is considered relevant to the encyclopaedia is set out, I'd say it is very much at the core – especially given that it is a setting-out in greater detail the principles explained in the first pillar of Wikipedia:Five pillars. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, ArbCom itself is inconsistent with that policy. Given that (most likely) consensus is in favor of having an ArbCom system, there isn't a good argument against a page related to candidates and the election. In fact, it is entirely uncontroversial that before the elections editors have pages where they comment on candidates and give voting advice. Also, nothing can stop this party from being set-up anyway. I can do it on my userpage or it can be done off-site. Count Iblis (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENC is much more "core" than 5 pillars, which was labelled a personal essay til a year or so ago (there has been much historical revisionism toward it since then). WP:ESSAYS says "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject)... Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." In my opinion the party's "bill of rights" are the opinion of a group of editors (i.e. an essay) which contradicts widespread consensus (the stuff from WP:NOT that I cited). Thus, delete or userfy. As for the hypothetical off-wiki coordination of such a movement, I think that is supposed to result in the involved editors getting banned. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and improve (ArbWorld;) through normal editing ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ArbWorld? Is that anything like Fraggle Rock? – Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The idea might sound a bit mad, but I don't know of anything in Wikipedia policies that prohibits potential ArbCom candidates from organizing themselves around common aims. And it's surely better to have it open and on-wiki than off-wiki somewhere else. – Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We've long tolerated Arbcom election guides, this looks like more or less the same basic idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is far beyond Arbitration though; it espouses principals which effects all of wikipedia, see their "bill of rights": Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party/Bill of Rights:

• polemic blogs on userspace
• secret hidden accounts
• automatic unblocking of blocked editors throughout Wikipedia
• civil POV pushing
• limitations on all block lengths
• allows unsubstantiated allegations of discrimination.
• Opportunities for gaming the system with "juries"

IRWolfie- (talk)

Hyperbole much? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A person cannot become a bad editor by making good edits. When each individual edit is acceptable under Wikipedia policy, he shall not be subject to penalty because of the "overall bias" or effect of such edits taken in collective." That sounds incredibly easy to game. The point of civil POV pushing is that it's hard to nail down in a single diff. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics. POV-pushing edits are not "good edits". But you don't have to like their proposals, only to accept that different, perhaps more naive or more kind editors than yourself exist. You seem to demand that everyone must think like you. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not semantics. A single diff that justifies a block for POV pushing is well known to be almost impossible; it's typically on a collection of diffs showing a pattern of behaviour. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I'm not certain that this really merits establishment as a Wikiproject, I also do not see it as so inappropriate that it should be deleted. The merits of the ideas and the credibility of the persons advocating them can and should be debated and discussed openly on-wiki, and any specific objections to any content or conduct can be addressed by the community using its existing and more finely-grained tools. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh I think that this isn't against policy enough for deletion, but I personally believe that it's going to be debated about sooner or later, and then we can decide what to do with it. So basically, Keep but discuss/hold RFC later. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The role of arbitrators is to enforce policy, not create it. If editors want to change policies, for example to have a statute of limitations, then they can work towards those changes and arbitrators, regardless of their personal beliefs, will be forced to follow them. Also, I think if we are going to consider the proposals of the party, then we should vote on them individually, not as a group. TFD (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I think, the most substantial of all the !votes to delete, but that's not saying much. I would hope that the Party would be active in organizing efforts to educate editors about the helpful policy changes they propose, and perhaps in conjunction with the new opposing party which has been created, sponsor coordinated RFCs with complete pro and con discussion of the proposed policy changes. —Cupco 18:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – surely the correct way to reform arbitration is to propose and debate amendments to the arbitration policy? Is this reform party not just an end-run around that process? I can see an argument for a more lightweight way to propose reform of arbitration and its policies, but there were hundreds of Wikipedia users whose votes ratified the policy in June 2011 – surely setting up a reform party like this is a slap in the face of all those voters? Can it really be right that just a few editors can set something like this up, as opposed to the hundreds that ratified the arbitration policy? Or does this reform party see itself as co-existing with ArbCom under the current arbitration policy? Maybe as a mechanism to debate proposed reforms? If so, I suggest it rename itself the arbitration reform party, rather than the ArbCom reform party. I also suggest it look for ways to establish a mandate equal to that which supports the current arbitration policy and the current arbitration committee (i.e. a mandate of hundreds, not just an unknown few). Until that level of support is apparent, userfy or mark as 'proposed' or 'under development' (i.e. not yet fully endorsed by the community). Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration policy leaves considerable discretion to Arbcom to define how it operates, so long as it doesn't go against the policy. So a block could shift policy dramatically within that framework, though some of the things proposed probably would require amendment. I would hope they don't plan to outright violate the policy. Yet I agree with you, an amendment of the policy would be a much better approach. Monty₈₄₅ 23:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Precisely because the community is involved in the party program, you'll end up limiting what ArbCom can do w.r.t. overriding policies that ave strong community support. Compare that to e.g. how ArbCom has changed the blocking policy and the topic ban over the last few years. If you read the banning policy text, then that is completely incompatible with an editor like Fæ getting banned from Wikipedia. Also until a few years ago, it was quite uncontroversial for topic banned editors to place notifications of vandalized pages that they were not allowed to edit. But when William did that he was blocked and ArbCom did not want to overturn that block. That effectively changed the topic ban policy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how exactly "the community is involved in the party program"? As far as I can see it has been made up on the spot by half a dozen (at most) individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is envisioned that the community will make alternative proposals, and or help develop the initial one. Monty₈₄₅ 23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To see that as an explanation requires a rather loose definition of the word 'is' in Count Iblis's post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what protections we would have against the exact opposite occurring. Since the founding document itself states an intent to remake ArbCom policy via motion, as opposed to community consensus, I have zero faith that this party could be expected to uphold policy in other areas. Resolute 00:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us still remember when ArbCom decided that admins can do certain things by fiat. (Which had the side-effect of making adminship a much bigger deal than it was before, among other things.) Since this is not a proposed policy page, marking various (sub-)pages with 'proposed' or 'under development' are at the discretion of the participants. If they want their programme to become Wikipedia policy, then community-approved policy development methods apply, except of course unless they manage to elect a majority of ArbCom members from their supporters. In the latter case, normal GovCom methods would apply. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia has had parties of various kinds for a long time. It's better to keep them in the open. Working towards a certain model of governance (or reform thereof) seems a legitimate goal of a WikiProject. (And, yeah, "Party" is redundant in the title, because a WikiProject is already a group of editors.) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's a bad idea, but I also don't think there's any policy or guideline-based grounds to delete. --Rschen7754 04:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but don't take seriously. Arbcom elections might benefit from some additional process. This might stimulate some ideas. Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party/Bill of Rights, a statement of principles is a good idea. This humorous page might stimulate some productive thought. I see no harm unless taken seriously. The slope is not very slippery here. This page offers little threat to the consensus supporting Wikipedia:Canvassing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per much of the above, especially SmokeyJoe. I agree with Count Iblis and others that Arbcom has made some regrettable mistakes, but neither ditching the 3RR rule nor supporting Arbcom candidates who sign up to a slate without regard to their competence are solutions that satisfy me. However deletion is about suppressing discussion of these suggestions, I'd rather argue against the ones I disagree with. ϢereSpielChequers 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Their Bill of Rights is phenomenal! Where do I join? —Cupco 10:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - harmless, and not obviously violating any policies. I suspect the nominator is strongly overestimating the impact that this proposal is likely to have; chances are it will go nowhere, just as every previous high-minded grand reform proposal has. Attempts to turn Wikipedia into a political experiment have always failed before, I see no reason to expect anything different here. Robofish (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Wikipedia might not be a democracy - but it isn't a dictatorship either. People are free to have their say - this is an example of this. Yeknom Dnalsli (expound your voicebox here) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We've already had bots and pieces of this from various locations (Back channel cabals, Voting blocs, Voter advice guides). All this does is list quite openly what their platform is and how they intend to move forward. If the conservative (Maintain the status quo) group wishes to organize and put forth their planks/platforms go ahead. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've no objection to the basic content here, and don't think that it needs to be deleted. I do wonder, though, whether this is properly slotted as a Wikiproject. While the original author of the page in question has not put forward any clear objectives for this supposed Wikiproject, the "Bill of Rights" that is attached to it has only a little to do with the Arbitration Committee and a lot more to do with community–developed and approved policies. At this point, I'd suggest that this be a Wikipedia–space proposal, clearly marked as such. If something comes of the notion, all well and good; if nothing comes of it after a certain period, it can be marked historical. Risker (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but I think the "Bill of Rights" is the Bill of Rights adapted for Wikipedia, which, IMHO, won't work out very well. With almost all of the so-called "rights", there is a gaping loophole that could be easily abused by a crafty editor. I can tell that the party was written in good faith, but I don't think that in practice this will work out at all. We should discuss what to do with it later. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Are you fucking kidding me' - delete This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen. The author of this piece of fine work (toilet paper) has my lowest possible respect (that's my nice way of saying what I really want to say). You cannot take the Bill of Rights from a public entity like the US Government and apply it to a private website like Wikipedia. No one has "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia. The board can shut all of us up any day it chooses. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" on here because 1) It's impossible to prove my brother didn't do it even if I don't have a brother, and 2) Wikipedia has a right as a private organization to guard it's property. Also, the arrogance of this "party" that it can dictate Wikipedia policies is expressly against Wikipedia policies such as WP:CONSENSUS. This troll piece should be deleted and with haste. The author should be educated properly on why their whinny politics don't even fucking matter on a private website. There have no rights bottom line period mother fucking dot. I have never felt stupider than after reading that. I'm disgusted that this looks like it's being kept. I know the party is never going to gain an ounce of traction anywhere on Wikipedia and there really is no threat here, but I hate seeing stupidity litter our Wikiproject space. </rant>--v/r - TP 16:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely there was a less...judgmental...way to phrase that, Tparis? Might I impose upon you to trim some of the attackish-sounding language from this, the better for the clarity of your !vote? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  At least remove the !word "stupider"... Between that and the swearing, only one person is looking MORE STUPID than another person around here...Camelbinky (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the word of advice, Fluffy. Generally I tend to follow it, in this case though I feel that the way I express it soundly reflects how this absurd proposal hit me. @Camelbinky: Princeton supports its use so get over it.--v/r - TP 16:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, I remember a poem from school with that word. "Boys go to Jupiter, so they can get stupider / girls go to Mars, to be movie stars."

• Delete this entity is either completely useless or an attempt to bypass community decision making processes. Actually implementing this "bill of rights" would require an extensive rewrite of the arbitration policy which could not be done by the committee alone. If the proposer wants to rewrite the arbitration policy then just propose a rewrite of the arbitration policy. The text of the page implies that the newly elected arbitrators would just follow the new rules anyway, which would amount to bypassing the arbitration policy. Candidates and platforms for party candidates are supposed to be drawn up by community support, which would amount to parallel election processes. If someone doesn't think these processes are working properly then by all means propose changing them, but don't try to bypass or ignore them. Hut 8.5 16:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would dropping the offending word "Party" from the Project name help? Carrite (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, no. The approach is what bothers me. I'm not opposed to an essay on the subject of reform, an RFC, nor a list of supporters to either. I'm opposed to the bill of rights and the call for canvassing.--v/r - TP 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was my follow up question: what about moving this from "Project" to "Essay"? Carrite (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to an essay, but the tone of canvassing to elect leaders and then enforce their doctrine should be cut down in my opinion. This is not a government and the focus should not be on making it so. This is right where a paper encyclopedia is going to outperform us. The level of overhead needed to run this sort of a project is going to grow exponentially.--v/r - TP 18:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You could call it "Wikiproject pink bunnies", and that would not change what this proposal is, what it intends to do, and how it intends to side step policy. The problem is not the name, but the proposed actions. Resolute 18:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to the extent that "party" implies a project that will recruit and field ArbCom candidates to run on a party platform, e.g., I am opposed to removing 'party' from the name. —Cupco 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not getting my hopes up, but I see no reason why this shouldn't exist.VolunteerMarek 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If this is a Wikiproject, presumably anyone can join it - whether they agree with the 'party platform' or not. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject, "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations". This project cannot exclude individuals, and nor can it enforce any standards of behaviour on its members. If someone joins the project, or is even elected to ArbCom on the 'party platform', and then decides to ignore the 'platform' entirely, or to actively work against it, there is precisely nothing the so-called 'party' can do about it. Yet another reason why this ridiculous proposal is fundamentally flawed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all medium to large political parties have members who are working against some of the party platform planks or goals, and if their membership is determined by what box they check on a voter registration card, and they have freedom of expression, that's no different than the situation you describe. A common place to coordinate recruiting, vetting, training and fielding candidates is usually likely to include overt or covert defectors against at least one plank of a several-planked platform, whether in real life or on the internet. In most cases that doesn't prevent the party from collaborating to achieve their goal. Shunning someone opposed to a fundamental plank happens in real life parties, but when it comes time to walk precincts to hand out bumperstickers, shunning is usually suspended for those who show up with a water bottle and comfortable shoes. —Cupco 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that potentially anyone can join is only one of the problems with this particular attempt to organize a political party. Another is that the promoter (Count Iblis) has made statements (on this page and on the project page) to the effect that the party's program/platform will be decided by the "community" through RFC's. As a result, it could potentially end up looking very different from what the promoter has in mind. It could end up being something that he does not even support. That is not how you start a political party. The way to start a political party is to say "Here is what I believe, who's with me?" or "I'm running, who will join me and we'll run as a team?", or both. Without one of those things (and preferably both), what's the point. (Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether the page should be kept or not, on which I have not "voted." Neutron (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Honestly, given the instigating parties and the policy statement, I have a hard time not seeing trouble on the horizon emanating from this group, but we should allow for the possibility that the wikiproject will take a more acceptable direction should other editors join up with a different perspective. This group does not inherently go against policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Purely for the lulz. Tarc (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]