Elbow bondage, Why delete this article? Options

[D. Impersonator]

Following comments about Taxwoman in another thread, I was just checking her contributions and found this crap AfD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...n/Elbow_bondage

Classic case of why you shouldn't let the general mass of editors run Wikipedia. Firstly, easy enough to find loads of links that aren't Wikimirrors:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22...wikipedia&meta=

Secondly, anyone with any imagination could find loads more links by using different wording:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwi...elbows%22&meta=

Or is it original research to say that "bound her elbows" refers to Elbow bondage? Don't get me wrong. I don't give shit about the article and won't vote either way, but I know better than to vote delete mindlessly.

[thekohser]

Following comments about Taxwoman in another thread, I was just checking her contributions and found this crap AfD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...n/Elbow_bondage

Classic case of why you shouldn't let the general mass of editors run Wikipedia. Firstly, easy enough to find loads of links that aren't Wikimirrors:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22...wikipedia&meta=

Secondly, anyone with any imagination could find loads more links by using different wording:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&newwi...elbows%22&meta=

Or is it original research to say that "bound her elbows" refers to Elbow bondage? Don't get me wrong. I don't give shit about the article and won't vote either way, but I know better than to vote delete mindlessly.

Dang, they better not delete this! If they start deleting "how to" articles written solely from the perspective of personal experience and commercially-linked photos (3 women, no men), without so much as one footnote, then what will Wikipedia look like after these types of articles are gone? Holy crap, imagine the consequences of them going from 2,000,000 back to 1,000,000 articles!

(I smell another Improv Cookie Monster deletion fever coming on.)

Greg

[Knight]

Looks like one of a series, see:

1) Hogtie bondage
2) Elbow bondage
3) Hair bondage

Guess this guy isn't that keen on random "how-to" bondage pages. Hardly surprising that these got kept on Wikipedia without a single ref - pretty pictures are enough, right ?

This post has been edited by Knight: Fri 5th October 2007, 7:55pm

[Eva Destruction]

Looks like one of a series, see:

1) Hogtie bondage
2) Elbow bondage
3) Hair bondage

Guess this guy isn't that keen on random "how-to" bondage pages. Hardly surprising that these got kept on Wikipedia without a single ref - pretty pictures are enough, right ?

Not just any pretty pictures though... pretty pictures with links to the porn site that posted them as an image summary.

[LamontStormstar]

It's WJBscribe who nominated all those. Clearly WJBscribe hates Taxwoman, Poetlister, and all others.

A lot of the older admins have left and of the active ones now, WJBscribe is one of the worst admins right now.


..

WJScribe doesn't have checkuser and yet a tags someone as proven by checkuser not just any account but an account named after someone's real name sort of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162479674

The account was blocked by a noncheckuser, too. That account isn't mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=150937811 or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162337670

Yup, checkuser is either people getting all the requests they want under the table or else people just making stuff up.

[Knight]

But Deskana is a checkuser, right? She seems to say the same thing at about the same time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162486889

[LamontStormstar]

But Deskana is a checkuser, right? She seems to say the same thing at about the same time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162486889

Hmm that was hard to find.

[Knight]

But Deskana is a checkuser, right? She seems to say the same thing at about the same time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162486889

Hmm that was hard to find.

Yeah I only noticed coz EIJ initials was blocked for opposing that RfA and Deskana added that comment after his vote there...

[blissyu2]

AFD notice added by WJScribe as a way to "get rid of anything to do with Taxwoman" (remember that WJScribe was the one who got Taxwoman, Runcorn etc banned because of "problems with the Wipipedia AFD): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162142145

[LamontStormstar]

AFD notice added by WJScribe as a way to "get rid of anything to do with Taxwoman" (remember that WJScribe was the one who got Taxwoman, Runcorn etc banned because of "problems with the Wipipedia AFD): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162142145

Damn, WJScribe has been a mean sysop for a long time and no one has noticed.

[Kato]

Of course the article should be destroyed.

But why do people at afds always start shouting things like "[[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is not a valid criterion for retaining unsourced material" at some other contributor's argument as though a. It immediately invalidated an argued position b. the WP:ESSAY in question was some kind of policy set in stone, and c. WP had any serious policies in the first place.

I remember this from the Brandt afds. Someone would make some valid real world point on the afd, and then some baboonbot would jump up and scream "Invalid. Argument invokes [[WP:THATISNOTANARGUMENTWEUNDERSTAND]]"

[LamontStormstar]

But why do people at afds always start shouting things like "[[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] is not a valid criterion for retaining unsourced material" at some other contributor's argument as though a. It immediately invalidated an argued position b. the WP:ESSAY in question was some kind of policy set in stone, and c.WP had any serious policies in the first place.

Someone wrote in the debate page that a non-notable page was kept purely because lots of people are fans in of it. That is correct and why a lot of stuff gets kept or deleted. For the Taxwoman bondage articles, nobody actually cared who wasn't banned so it will get deleted.

Those AFDs are votes pure and simple.

[guy]

It was indeed deleted by the omnipresent Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me. Here's the critical vote that decided it.

[thekohser]

It was indeed deleted by the omnipresent Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me. Here's the critical vote that decided it.

Once again, Wikipedia Review pushes Wikipedia's buttons, and things get done. What's next, folks?

[blissyu2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...n/Elbow_bondage

It finished 3/9 which is nowhere near it being close. I think that we can say it was a fairly heard AFD.

I guess that the question isn't so much that it is a valid term (which it is, of course), but rather it is a question of whether it is in regular use. I guess that we need an expert on the topic. Perhaps someone from Wipipedia could comment about how notable it is.

The question then is how many articles do you need about different kinds of bondage? Britannica only has 1 article for bondage (S&M) and 1 article for bondage (slavery), and that's it, and I am sure that their article for bondage (slavery is longer). Why does Wikipedia need to have so many articles on types of S&M bondage?

The keep/delete thing is always a tricky thing, and there's always a few that are kept that aren't so relevant and a few that are deleted that are far more relevant. Compared to deleting the number 1 MUD in history, I don't see this as being such a big scandal.

[Jonny Cache]

I'm still upset about losing that article on Elbow Macaroni Bondage.

Cheez Wiz !!!

Jonny

[thekohser]

I'm still upset about losing that article on Elbow Macaroni Bondage.

Cheez Wiz !!!

Jonny

Aren't we all!

Yowza, yowza. With Taxwoman here, maybe we will see some posts by JzG soon!

Greg

[D. Impersonator]

Deleted again, by an admin I've never heard of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=Elbow+bondage

They don't like elbow bondage, do they.

[Eva Destruction]

Deleted again, by an admin I've never heard of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=Elbow+bondage

They don't like elbow bondage, do they.

As far as WP policy goes, that deletion was correct; the new article was (word for word) a repost of the article that had been discussed here, and WP policy has always been that if something's deleted following discussion then reposting it gets it re-deleted. If you're desperately missing the article, Taxwoman has saved it for posterity. If anyone can dig up some reliable sources, feel free to repost it.

You haven't heard of AngelOfSadness as she's a brand new admin, and (so far, anyway) hasn't done anything abusive to incur the Wrath Of WR.

[Milton Roe]

The question then is how many articles do you need about different kinds of bondage? Britannica only has 1 article for bondage (S&M) and 1 article for bondage (slavery), and that's it, and I am sure that their article for bondage (slavery is longer). Why does Wikipedia need to have so many articles on types of S&M bondage?

For the same reason they need so many articles on various TV show characters, knitting techniques, automobiles, firearms, baronets of Crapovia, lawmen of the Old West, commanders of forgotten military units, and so on. You may not be interested in most of this, on grounds of IDONTLIKEIT, but it is an encyclopedia with unusually large space limitations (like --none).

To be devils' advocate, who cares how many bondage article there are. As a libertarian, consensual activities like pair-figure skating, Canadian curling, and trapeze sex don't really bother me. If your eyes glaze over, don't look.