Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NuclearUmpf/trends

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. >Radiant< 08:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:NuclearUmpf/trends

Attack page, [1] Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, does not appear to contain any attacks, only simple factual information about who voted where. Obviously its meant to imply something, but there is nothing remotely close to an attack on that page. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete due to evidence of intentionally misleading data. 151.188.16.20 15:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)— Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Intentionally misleading to the point of accusing those !voters of voting improperly. Also, more-or-less meaningless unless it includes

  1.  !votes contrary to the apparent "suggested" result by members of the alleged cabal.
  2.  !votes by members of the alleged cabal before the entry was made on the noticeboard.
  3. total !votes, before and after notice.

  Whether something is before or after notice is difficult in cases where an editor such as User:NuclearUmp removes the entry from the noticeboard, but we can't have everything.

  Also, on the first listed DRV, I was informed of the DRV by the noticeboard (there should have been notice in the article), but I had previously suggested the same merge in the article as was suggested in the DRV. (There's still no notice of the DRV on the article talk page.)

  Also, in the noticeboard-specific section, the editor lies in stating why Paul Thompson (researcher) is included, and makes improper and incorrect accusations of bias.

  (It's a lie, in that he's been told, on the noticeboard talk page, why that article is appropriate for the noticeboard by two editors, including myself, and denies there having been a reply.)

  The corresponding claim of exclusivity is also a lie, for pretty much the same reason.

  The claims of bias may be appropriate, but the examples much less strident and biased than claims appearing in AfD and {{prod}} nominations. If the noticeboard descriptions were taken from the XfD or DRV nomination reasons, they would clearly be appropriate there, and the bias allegations would be inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unnecessary drama. Violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA. Yes, there are indeed people who are interested in the same things (such as decrufting conspiracy drama), and may notice the same XfDs. (If this page is kept, may I also please get listed for saying "decrufting conspiracy drama"?) Weregerbil 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not an attack page. its logging trends. I belonged to this noticeboard and recieved emails from the users, Tbeatty and Morton devonshire, telling me how to vote and what to write. I cannot present those as real proof so I am logging the trends, if people have a big issue, I will just keep moving it, or keep it offline and keep compiling, guess its better they cant actually see their patterns, lol. Kidna odd Tom has voted the same as Morton on every AfD in the best 3 months ... And yet he is the one claiming an attack page, same as Tbeatty ... --NuclearZer0 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear, you don't have an e-mail account enabled on Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no spoon =) --NuclearZer0 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It does not seem to be operated in such a way as to prove much of anything with respect to any claim of vote stacking or bad faith voting. The links go to the articles, not to the AfDs. There are no diffs to show time of initial vote, posting on the Conspiracy board, or subsequent "votes in tandem." It does not even show how each person voted. If it were a collection of such documentary info it might have some conceivable use. As is, it falls short of an attack page, so it does not violate WP:NPA. Unless it is restructured to provide evidence one way or the other it seems to be a vague and ineffective allusion to bad faith voting. Edison 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a userpage, and users should pretty much be allowed to make sub-user pages to keep track of their Wiki-interests at their own discretion (e.g. User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard). Morton devonshire 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/question Mort, I know that 'RL' stands for 'Right leaning' on your friends page (Mort's friends). When you gonna add links to your 'Left leaning' friends? Can I be the first? ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You know "nothing", as Sergeant Schultz would say. RL does not stand for right leaning. You would have to be initiated into the Super Double-Secret Delta Chi Rosicrucian Panambulists Society before I would ever reveal my code. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "Votes In Tandem", "Tom harrison again participating in revert wars"? Unfounded assertions and attack page by an editor already under Arbcom probation. Rx StrangeLove 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Since the only issue people had is with the Tom related information, it has been removed. Hence no arguements remain. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Morton Devonshire above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Darn! I guess that's another vote in tandem with my illuminated master. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, either thats sarcasm or someone needs to pull your leash for speaking out of turn. --NuclearZer0 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it's just calculated disinformation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no spoon. Though I was sure I seen one in the movie. --NuclearZer0 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Although it seems odd tracking other user's contribs this way, I don’t see any issues with keeping a list of info that is "wiki-public". I didn’t see any verbal attacks against anyone, so no problems there. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Just a list. No attacks. NU has been certified 'Cabal free', so no concerns IMHO. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete I'd go back beyond AGF and NPA to the core principle "how does this help wikipedia be a better encyclopedia?" It does not encourage collaboration, it does not help the community, all it serves as is a vauge accusation against other editors. there is no cabal. Wintermut3 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above -Doc^g 02:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as "if something can plausibly be considered gathering evidence for a RfC, it should be kept" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Userpages and user subpages are given significant leeway when maintained by productive editors. WP:NOT has a section entitled What your user page is not that leads to Wikipedia:User page. Constructive opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed are permitted. However, rather than opinions about Wikipedia, the page contains implied opinions about Wikipedias. In other words, the page contains personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia (individual editors and administrators participating in Wikipedia are not considered part of Wikipedia). Personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia appear to be allowed, but extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia are not allowed per What can I not have on my user page? The page does not appear to have reached the extensive personal opinion level, particularly since the user opinions seem more implied than anything else. Wikipedia:Removal of a user page is permitted in excessive cases, such as where the user is not cooperating. NuclearZer0 appears to be cooperating as he removed the Tom Harrison material to Tom Harrison's satisfaction (see above). The page does not violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Regarding Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a person reading the page may come away with the idea that Votes In Tandem after Notice and Bias Notices are bad, but the page itself does not state that. The page does not violate Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As for some of the other comments above, article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not apply to user pages.[2] The appropriate course of action in this case appears to be Keep. -- Jreferee 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete. If the user has a dispute with other users we have processes for that and if he wants to keep that information, let them. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Simply bad to keep a list of others activities on Wikipedia...just as it is to watchlist others editors and link to that from your userpages. It would be different if he was listing articles, but editors is a bad idea.--MONGO 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just a notice of trends, and trends that are noticeable (actually, it's occurring as we type). Lovelight 23:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jreferee GabrielF 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep how cute, a page documenting conspiracies by anti-conspiracy-theorist conspirators being MFD'd as a conspiracy theory. Keep, per GabrielF, whose own conspiracy page has create a billion times more rancor, hostility, and mistrust than this ever could. Derex 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As was said many times before, no reason to delete. This stuff is already publicly available, and there's no commentary at all. It should stay. .V. 06:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. (And thanks for bringing this page to my attention via the deletion-process. A lot of interesting information seems to be linked to from the various deletion processes...) — Xiutwel (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Change to weak Keep, although I stand by much of what I said in the delete !vote. It's wrong (not misinterpreted, just wrong) in many aspects, but it doesn't qualify as an attack page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.