From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to active discussions

Shortcut: WP:MFD

Deletion discussions Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review Deletion policy Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

Purge - edit

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for five days; then are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline).

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Please familiarize yourself with the following policies 1.2 Prerequisites 1.3 How to list pages for deletion 2 Discussions 2.1 Active discussions 2.1.1 2008-06-12 2.1.1.1 Portal:Long Island 2.1.1.2 Portal:Sims 2.1.2 2008-06-11 2.1.2.1 User:Grawp 2.1.2.2 Portal:Green Politics 2.1.2.3 Portal:Lego 2.1.3 2008-06-10 2.1.3.1 ID RFCs 2.1.3.2 User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame 2.1.4 2008-06-09 2.1.4.1 User:Taganupe 2.1.4.2 User:Sculptor85 2.1.5 2008-06-08 2.1.5.1 User:SSBMboss/Radiohead/Kid A 2.1.5.2 User:Jbirdman 2.1.5.3 User:Kyle E. Coyote 2.1.5.4 User:Omghax111 2.1.5.5 User:Omghax111/English 2.1.5.6 User:Omghax111/stuff 2.1.5.7 User:Omghax111/poetry 2.1.5.8 User:Omghax111/La 2.1.5.9 User:Omghax111/Mountain 2.1.5.10 User:Omghax111/Story 2.1.5.11 User:Omghax111/Science 2.1.5.12 User:Omghax111/Article x 2.1.5.13 User:Omghax111/Letter 2.1.5.14 User:Omghax111/Reflections/Mountain 2.1.5.15 User:Omghax111/Reflections/Plays 2.1.5.16 User:Omghax111/Reflections/Window 2.1.5.17 User:Omghax111/Reflections/Reading Quiz 1 2.1.5.18 User:Omghax111/Reflections/King 2.1.5.19 User:Omghax111/Reflections/Symbolic 2.1.5.20 User:Omghax111/Reflections/Leaf 2.1.5.21 User:Omghax111 2.1.5.22 User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend 2.1.5.23 User:Artoftransformation/Blog 2.1.5.24 User talk:Blog-spca 2.1.6 2008-06-07 2.1.6.1 Portal:WikiProjects 2.1.6.2 User:Fixman/Programming 2.1.6.3 User:Work club 2.1.6.4 User:Skyrob213 2.1.6.5 User:Ruman khan 2.1.6.6 User:Zadanya garcia 2.1.6.7 User:Jezzyboo 2.1.6.8 User:Pengelly 2.1.6.9 User:Frogger132 2.1.6.10 User:LiamRox101 2.1.6.11 User:Kersha Bailey 2.1.7 2008-06-05 2.1.7.1 Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games 2.1.7.2 User:Fam quantum george 2.1.7.3 Wikipedia:Stub Example 2.1.7.4 User:Cheerleaderr 2.2 Closed discussions 2.2.1 2008-06-12 2.2.2 2008-06-11 2.2.3 2008-06-10 2.2.4 2008-06-09 2.2.5 2008-06-08 2.2.6 2008-06-07 2.2.7 2008-06-06 2.2.8 2008-06-05 2.2.9 2008-06-04 2.2.10 2008-06-03 2.2.11 2008-06-02 2.2.12 2008-06-01

[edit] Introduction

The only currently-used namespaces in which pages are eligible for deletion here are:

• Help:
• Portal:
• MediaWiki:
• Wikipedia:

This includes WikiProjects, although it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.

• User:

When a page in the User or User talk namespaces seems worthy of deletion, please explain your concerns using either a personal note or by adding "{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~" to their talk page. While this step is not required, it does assume good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.

When the user has no recent edits and has made little or no contribution to the encyclopedia, please consider using proposed deletion. (Please do not use it when these conditions are not met.) This is a lighter-weight process, and permits deletions which are unlikely to be contested to be made without requiring discussion and consensus.

• the various Talk: namespaces

• Userboxes, regardless of namespace.

The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy.

[edit] Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy — our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion — whose guidelines on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Wikipedia:User page — our guidelines on user pages

[edit] Prerequisites

Please bear in mind that:

• Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
• Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
• User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
• Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
• If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping and notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

[edit] How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area.

To list an article/page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

I.	Edit PageName.   Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{subst:mfd}} or {{subst:mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination. Be sure to include "subst:", not just {{mfd}}; this is easier on the servers. Please include "Nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary and don't mark it as a minor edit. Consider checking the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This will help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by a vandal. Save the page. If you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page, consider using {{subst:md1-inline|PageName}}.
II.	Create its MfD subpage.   You should see a prominent link to "this page's entry" in the new article text. Follow that link (to [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]) and enter this text: {{subst:mfd2 | pg=PageName | text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include a reason after text=. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the ongoing discussion in your watchlist. Save the page.
III.	Add a line to MfD.   Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the list: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName" and include the page's name in your edit summary. Save the page.

• While not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the miscellany. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:MFDWarning|Article}} to their talk page.
• If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here.
• If nominating a page that has been nominated before, consider placing {{priorxfd|pagename}} in the discussion area to link to the previous discussions.

Administrator instructions

[edit] Discussions

[edit] Active discussions

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge the server's cache of this page

[edit] 2008-06-12

[edit] Portal:Long Island

A fairly empty Portal. According to Category:Long Island articles by quality, there aren't any FAs or good articles in this portal. The only real contributor to this portal has since been banned so I doubt this will be expanded. The articles need to be developed significantly before a portal is established. Metros (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — empty portal, there's no need to keep this. macy^talk 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Sims

Just a block of colour! There is nothing! It's basically a few coloured boxes and redlinks. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural comment I earlier declined a speedy request on this; see Portal talk:Sims for the reasons. Abstaining from this MFD as I don't know enough to say whether this portal will be viable. – iridescent 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-06-11

[edit] User:Grawp

This nomination also includes:

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grawp and its subpages
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grawp and its subpages

We don't need to build shrines for vandals, we don't need to recognise their impact to the point where we label each and every their brand new sock with "look! it's really HIM!". We don't need to feed vandals' vanity by stating that every wannabe pagemove vandal may be them. We don't need to state that Grawp is banned - we simply don't need it to block his socks on sight. And finally, we don't need to turn him into Willy on Wheels The Second - what's next, {{grawp}} expanding to {{sock|Grawp|blocked}} like it was before with {{wow}} and numerous userboxen like "this user hates Willy"? Gosh, we can live with just one concise long-term abuse report. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• support - what are these useful for? --Random832 (contribs) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Grawp is very much active at the minute, and the categories are helpful in spotting trends in the naming conventions used by him. They also group together a large number of grawp socks so they easily be looked at when users are trying to evaluate patterns in either account creation/page targets or any other area that is relevant to his disruption. Whilst I don't think we need them in the long term, whilst he's active, we need an area to document all the accounts so users have large amounts of information accessible when investigating his actions. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  He has too many socks. Many of them have validly-looking usernames. If we are to suspect every user whose name resembles one of Grawp's socks, we'll have to block no less than half of newcomers. Same thing with patterns: we have loads of his typical page titles blacklisted, and it doesn't help to stop him to even the slightest degree, he just invents something new. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I strongly believe WP:DENY is the best way to handle annoying socks and in the past have been rouge and just deleted the categories and all the tagged sockpages in deny efforts (with oompapa socks). Man, the socks started twitching after they found out I was doing that. All they wanted to do was go down in infamy, and there number of socks was how they were counting how much damage they did.Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose/Keep - as I have said in my essay on the matter (linked to in my sig), damnatio memoriae in re Grawp only attracts his followers, who have taken to mass-spamming Grawp-style vandalism in the past few days. You need to remember that by actually doing this, you're going to end up trolled by 4channers. However, I am in no way adverse to removing extraneous (sub)pages unnecessary to keeping an eye on him (which includes the subpages of WSoG and SWSoG, but not those two pages themselves). We need to strike a balance between WP:DENY and keeping people informed; this nomination falls squarely towards WP:DENY. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep categories. We need to be able to document his actions while he is active. bibliomaniac15 18:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Changed to delete per the fact that if socks are not being tagged these lose their usefulness, and also based on what was said below re: Grawp likely being multiple people and therefore the paradigm(s) used will change frequently making trend-analysis redundant.Keep for now - as Ryan mentioned, Grawp is still active and having a list of his socks in one place is of great assistance for:

a: monitoring naming trends so that sleepers can be blocked on sight

b: CheckUsers running IP checks on suspected socks. They can use the list to verify whether an account has been blocked as Grawp (and therefore whether the one in question is likely to be so) without having to trawl through the block log.

However, if/when Grawp becomes inactive then the categories can safely be deleted as they will no longer serve any purpose. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:38, June 11, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Everybody knows these guys by now; any administrator who doesn't know and needs to will still be able to find out. There's really just no point in keeping a public scoreboard, which is all these are at the moment. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I thought they had bots to auto-revert an account that moves a lot of pages at once since back in the Willy on Wheels day. I don't know why Grawp is getting people so worked up. William Ortiz (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have blocked hundreds of grawp accounts, mostly sleepers discovered by checkuser, and I haven't tagged a single one. I am dubious of the value of categories in "tracking or spotting trends." Thatcher 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - All I needed to know about Grawp is on WP:LTA. Given the number of socks involved, a significant number of which have not been tagged or placed into these categories, it's a waste of time and gives him nothing more than a brag sheet. Risker (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I've added a few accounts to these categories. However, Risker is right: Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Grawp gives up all we need to know, and if this has now spread to multiple users, then as has already been said, this is simply a brag sheet that will encourage others to take up the grawp banner. He never will go away (since there is no "he") until this fad fades, and that won't happen until we stop encouraging it. kwami (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is, if we stop encouraging it, there will be more trolling guided by his hand as he copy-and-pastes revisions onto 4chan for the purposes of mass-harassment where his hands aren't tied (as most 4channers that come here come here in the name of "anti-censorship"). Damnatio memoriae does not work. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:DENY is one of the most effective tools we have for fighting vandalism, and one of the least used. If we stop believing in him, he ceases to exist, just like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. This too shall pass. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Again, wrong. So long as 4chan exists, and so long as Grawp can c&p oldids over on /b/, he will still disrupt the encyclopedia. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• He'll stop when he stops. In my opinion, the best way to make sure he doesn't get bored with it is to keep making a big fuss over him like we've been doing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Can't see them merit of keeping this, given the multivariate nature of usernames & IPs used. There's no plausible case for analysis of usernames. Per WP:RBI & WP:DENY. --Rodhullandemu 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Pages like these didn't do anything to stop Willy on Wheels: it was boredom that got him in the end. That will happen to Grawp too, unless we keep him interested with nonsense like this. — Dan | talk 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• He will still continue, even though he will do so by proxy (i.e. posting oldids on /b/). It is asinine to think that removing Grawp will stop his disruption; if anything, it'll escalate it because you're giving 4channers a reason to harass users who dealt with him in the past (Damnatio memoriae, misapplied as WP:DENY). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whether he continues or not is a question completely separate from the value of maintaining these pages. Since it is clear they are not particularly useful, and are definitely not complete, there seems to be little value in keeping the pages. Risker (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• The only pages that *should* be kept are the sockpuppet categories (for the purpose of transparency), everything else, however, should go. Deleting the sockpuppet cats, as Boss points out, is actually counterproductive because it feeds Grawp's wethers. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 23:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't think we're even bothering to tag the socks anymore. Mr.Z-man 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: per Rodhullandemu, et al. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep For the reason that he is active. And if anything, it's proving how good we are at finding thre guys ;)  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you familiar with this at all? We "find" his accounts when they start moving pages. Mr.Z-man 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't serve the project by keeping them around. Nakon 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It will only "feed the troll" more if it is deleted. I don't think he will stop any time soon. --Boss Big (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - does it serve any possible useful function? Does it matter in terms of identifying and tracking Grawp? Is it useful in building an encyclopedia? Nope - not at all - Alison ^❤ 22:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:DENY. -- The Anome (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm, what about redirect to Wikipedia:LTA#Grawp? --Conti|✉ 23:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not in this case, as categories are involved. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, missed the categories. Redirect User:Grawp to Wikipedia:LTA#Grawp, then, and delete the categories. --Conti|✉ 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- What preventative purpose do these categories serve ? If new users are being created without pattern and we can't spot the problem ones until a page is moved anyway, these categories are useless. And useless categories should always be deleted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• As long as this is all documented somewhere, I would not oppose deletion. Here is what I suggest: Delete userpage (in the deletion long provide a link to the abuse report), but rename category to something like "page move vandals". -- Ned Scott 02:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is neither a keep nor delete, but seriously, are you aware that he is being glorified at ED and that he is not one person, but rather a group of people who want to get attention. Face it, deleting this page will serve no useful purpose as he/she/they are being motivated by multiple sources (ED, 4chan, etc.) WP:DENY dosen't really apply to this case based on the fact that deleting this guy's userpage won't have a useful purpose. Just a heads up. PrestonH (t ♦ c) 03:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also proposed, however, are the deletion of the sockpuppet categories. FWIW, I prefer Ned Scott's suggestion of renaming the cats. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because off-Wiki sites glorify him, that doesn't mean we have to. Though your main point is well taken. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Make Private/Delete, Move the sockpuppet records off of the Web, and keep this information on a local computer, perhaps a users personal computer. We could then have several of these trusted users with the records updating them, talking to each other, actively dealing the sockpuppteer's current actions, and acting as a resource for other users, communicating by email. If Foundation employees are not to busy they could do this themselves.
  
  WP:DENY is important, the admins and checkusers are already refering to him as 'You-know-who'. The more attention he gets, the more awesome he becomes, the more awesome he becomes, the more awesome he tries to act. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll just point out that the two people who are dealing most intensely with this situation, checkusers Alison and Thatcher, have both essentially said that this information is of no value to them in addressing the situation, and although between them they've blocked hundreds of the accounts, they aren't adding information to these categories. This should be telling us something, I think. Risker (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all - A page labeling him as "banned" and categories of his sock puppets do not a shrine make. We need to keep records of this stuff readily accessible for the new admins/vandalfighters who will undoubtedly run across him at some point. --jonny-mt 06:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you encounter him, it's usually pretty obvious what to do, with or without the documentation: block him, then move the pages back. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep firstly, it's important for the occasional person who doesn't understand the "HAGGER" vandalism, and 2nd, I honestly don't think WP:DENY works. JuJube (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will look at a HAGGER? move and think, because of a lack of these pages, that it is a reasonale move. Fribbler (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all. I've tagged many of Grawp's socks and have been active in trying to limit his vandalism. I'm now persuaded, based on the above arguments, that these lists just feed his ego. Also, he's started using more random usernames that the lists don't help detect. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As pointed out above, tagging things into these categories hasn't been happening so they really are just stuff collecting dust in the closet. Then there's that whole ignore thing. Q ^{T C} 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Which doesn't work when you consider his "anti-censorship" wethers who end up doing practically the same shit he does. DENY's useless here. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Green Politics

• Created and last updated on January 4, 2008.
• Contains nothing but a description of Green Politics and a list of things to do, making it more akin to a nascent WikiProject than a Portal.
• The creator and sole contributor has not edited since January.

At best, this should be userfied until it is complete, as it is a poor representation of Wikipedia's quality to readers who happen across it. Skomorokh 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep bad quality is no reason for deletion, otherwise we'd lose about a million articles.--Serviam (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Bad quality is a reason for deletion. Please explain your self.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Has no meaningful content. The intro is only the beggining of Green politics. All the pictures seem to have been deleted.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep. As Serviam said, poor quality doesn't equal deletion. We have many more stub and tagged articles than we might GA's and FA's, but that doesn't mean they aren't as worthy of being kept. Wikipedia is a wonderful, wonderful idea, and eventually I envision a world where all the articles are as a high a quality as this one. But until then , we have to accept that "wikipedia's quality" isn't as high as we'd like it to be; this does nothing to misrepresent that. Ironholds 03:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't mean to be rude, but have you examined the "portal" in question? It simply replicates the description from the green politics article, and contains no selected images, articles, biographies, news or DYK's –– that is to say it does not in any way function as a portal. Skomorokh 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It looks like it is in the process of being expanded, hence my vote. Forgive me; i'm afraid i missed the point further up the page that it hasn't been edited since january. The user seems to have for all intents and purposes vanished, So i'd like to change to move to userspace. My apologies again for not reading it correctly. Ironholds 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No problem, thank you for your integrity. Skomorokh 04:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Lego

Empty and also just over 100 articles. Wanted to know if this is enough for a portal.

• Delete - last edited in 2007 (discounting the MfD notice) and has been 'broken' with most of the subpages missing since that time. Has a rather narrow scope, and Portal:Toys can cover this. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:30, June 11, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No useful content because all of the subpages are missing. WP:LEGO can always restart this if they want to. However, I don't see the point of keeping around under-populated portals with nothing on them.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-06-10

[edit] ID RFCs

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B
• User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC

Duelling RFCs never solved anything - the fact that the groups involved are not coming together on a single RFC to resolve their differences seems to indicate that an RFC will not solve the problem and this issue will inevitably fall to Arbcom to deal with. --Random832 (contribs) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn on further reflection, but the discussion should run its course since at least one person has 'voted' delete. --Random832 (contribs) 17:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete to remind ArbCom that all tough decisions shouldn't be punted back to the community. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• SupOppose Delete both and with the goal of the creation of a new RFC that focuses on bridging the gap between good faith editors on both sides. I will happily author. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• not yet - while I agree that any real resolution of the personalities and problems here will have to come from the Arbcom, the clarification of issues, thoughts, and areas of conflict that even these dueling rfc's provide is a first step to having a arb hearing that can actually resolve some of the conflict. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the RFC, Neutral on Gnixon's userspace RfC Clearly a smokescreen to try to obscure the behaviour of some (note: not all) of the editors named in the C68 etc. RfAR. Black Kite 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Very strong keep There might be too many issues to be covered in only two RfCs, but deleting one or both when perhaps there should be ten is not the answer. The answer, as FeloniousMonk has proposed, is for everyone to disengage, or for us all to continue, and to unearth the material at the core of this festering intertwined series of disputes and bad feelings, as was repeatedly suggested at the RfAr. I find it highly offensive that only one group is allowed to present grievances. Either this entire dispute is shelved, or both sides can present their grievances in full detail, as was suggested on May 30, 2008 by User:Thatcher. Remember that User:Thatcher warned on May 30, 2008: "And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating". It seems like a lot of fun to attack others, but all of a sudden realizing that your own conduct is going to be under scrutiny and you will have to defend your own actions, this avenue does not seem so attractive, right?--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Under scrutiny or under attack? Orderinchaos 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge both, failing that, delete the one in Wikipedia namespace for violating RFC/U policy and being a massive AGF failure, and keep Gnixon's space as it was there first and at least looks at both parties. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please explain your reasoning and your allegation. Gratias tibi ago. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Violated RFC/U policy for being multiple disputes with multiple users. Massive AGF failure because Odd nature's theory about several established users, admins, and even a steward and a checkuser being part of an anti-Wikipedia conspiracy would give David Icke a run for his money. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Illegitimate attempt to derail a legitimate dispute resolution, the named parties are all friends of the nominator for deletion, Random832. Odd nature (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  I'm tired of you characterizing anyone who disagrees with you in any way as "friends" of one another. And if anyone tried to derail legitimate dispute resolution, it was whoever created the later of these two RFCs. --Random832 (contribs) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  And I'm tired of you supporting your friends by undermining anyone who points out their problematic behavior. Did you actually think that you derailing an earnest attempt to get them to disengage from those editors who are feeling harassed would pass the sniff test? Your MFD is making my case for me and will look splendid at the next stop, RFAR. Odd nature (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • (ec) We are? That's news to me. Aside from the current C68-SV-FM arbitration, I can't think of a time when I have noticed Random832. A glance at his edit counter list of articles he has most frequently edited shows nothing whatsoever that interests me. If I am friends with him (or any other named party here) that's news to me. --B (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I created this page in response to the "Intelligent design editors" RfAr, where some on ArbCom seemed to want the issue to go through an RfC first. Given the complexity of the case, I thought there should be some discussion about how to present it. Please keep these pages or provide another workspace. Gnixon (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Note, "these pages" was intended to refer to the ones in my userspace. Gnixon (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Archive - worth keeping to show that multiple party request for comments are problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. At least one for a few more days at least. User:PouponOnToast seems to have been able to provide some moderate and unbiased commentary giving some hope that this could be a useful process. Merzul (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Of course I didn't read his post above, I support it. Delete both and construct a new one. Still, I think this MfD will end in "no consensus" so I hope PouponOnToast will hijack one of the current RfCs, and show the way :) Merzul (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I sympathize with Relata refero's remarks. The User RfC is not a User RfC. It names 4 editors - RfC/Us are about individual users' editing behaviour. It references off-site behaviour which is not something that RfC can deal with it. I have no comment on the User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC but close or archive Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B - ArbCom need to deal with this, the RfC/U process cannot cope with it. If they wont then I think PouponOnToast's attempt to use RfC to resolve rather than escalate the dispute is excellent--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I'm not a wikilawyer, and in fact, I think it's not fair for everyone to play one around here. Isn't there a process to deal with RfC's? If it's endorsed, can it not stay. There is constant message that an RfC should be for one person. Fine, so we delete, and how long will it be before three different ones come up. The RfAR on this related topic clearly stated that the Sceptre should go through the RfC process first against the supposed cabal. One way or another, this issue is going to be either several different RfC's, or one big one. So in terms of reducing writing about this RfC over several different ones, why not keep it. Let's not Wikilawyer. Let's just get this done, so we can go back to editing articles--I hate this RfC process, because I'd rather edit articles, but if it has to be done, let's keep it simple. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and create a new one - split-consensus never works in resolving anything and usually just leads to personal attacks against the non-majority side in each one. Orderinchaos 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the new status-quo, to keep the remaining one is probably the best situation. If the new one PouponOnToast takes off, I'd suggest moving activity there, as it appears from my view to have the best chance of resolving the dispute rather than simply expressing grievances. Orderinchaos 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• These two RfC's should be merged, ideally voluntarily with the consent of all involved. They deal with the same editors and same general issues, and splitting it into two "dueling" RfC's is going to fragment the process and completely destroy whatever slim chance it has to be useful. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then instead of two monster RfCs, we can have one supermonster RfC. There is no way for this process, which is essentially new (and followed on directly from the essentially new form of RfAr that gave birth to it) to be orderly. There is no precedent for this.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If it has been certified properly, there's no reason to delete it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How can anyone certify that it is "the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users"? That seems rather impossible. In reality, it's multiple disputes with multiple people. --B (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It hasn't - neither of the involved users have even used my talk page (and given I'm a party in the RFC...). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Well it is quite interesting that the talk page discussion, where some important issues were being hammered out, and all the effort that went into writing that RfC were flushed down the toilet. I wonder why that would be, with an almost even split between Keep and Delete votes. We are only allowed to have an RfC where one group is attacking another? But all discussion of all the issues from all perspectives are not allowed? Interesting...--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The RfC draft in user space is by no means an attack. It's an attempt, following the advices of some arbitrates in [1], that a RFC would be the best choice. More important to narrow the issue for ArbCom. That draft is that attempt, to find the core issue, make it into a RfC and proceed. Samuel Sol (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm neutral on whether the page deleted should remain, but as one of the parties, I guess I should probably comment. I think those certifying it would be wiser to leave it deleted, but if that's what they want, I won't be one to stand in the way. As for the one in Gnixon's user space, Keep for now, as it is an attempt to create a draft in user space, which has been generally considered acceptable in the past. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If one is bad, the other is surely just as bad for essentially the same reasons, and maybe even worse since it will be trying to encapsulate many more problems and subdisputes in a group of 15 or 20 editors. So if you delete one for being impossible to certify against a group, you have to do the same with the other. As I have said other places, perhaps a good 10 RfCs are needed to capture all of data. But trying to go with fewer than 2 is just dumb.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and Restore the deleted one; if we're going to do anything about this, we need raw material. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there was very little raw material (and an awful lot of invective towards one "side" in the dispute) in the now-deleted RfC. Orderinchaos 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, that's also raw material. It's a lot easier to provide ArbCom with diffs from a non-deleted page... (and not all the invective is unfounded, unfortunately). Its present courtesy blanking seems a definite improvement to to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bad Cucumber Error - Delete and redo from start. Shot info (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design is open PouponOnToast (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame

Laundry list of actions or comments that Filll disagrees with in some way, serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, only serves to promote hostility or grudges. Viridae^Talk 12:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• As someone named as a disruptive troll, twice, on the page, I'd prefer to see it deleted. The user in question does not seem to have sufficient collegiality to substantively respond to a pleasant note on the talkpage, which I left ages ago. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to see all such grudge pages deleted; it won't stop them from keeping hit lists off wiki, but lets trash this garbage here. It's never going to be constructive- delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "[...] is an example of a troll who uses CIVIL as a weapon" – no personal attacks? Take this off-wiki, this page has no relevance to building an encyclopaedia, and is a unhelpful to building a collegial atmosphere. EJF (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thankfully Filll has now removed the worst of the content from the page. While I still don't think it is very productive, and at best is an "essay" full of misrepresentations, it is more acceptable. No strong feelings about keeping or deleting now. EJF (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely unhelpful, and the editor in question also apparently owns the list, so it is highly doubtful that it would ever contribute to a balanced presentation of this supposed "problem".PelleSmith (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also per Wikipedia:User page, "things to avoid" (emphasis mine): "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." This is by definition a laundry list of incidents in which individuals are said to be exhibiting a "perceived flaw".PelleSmith (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that these are "perceived flaws". They are just observations of the system in action. Some might agree with some of these, and disagree with others. Some might agree with all of these. Some might disagree with all of these. For the efficient and productive management of Wikipedia, perhaps these were all correct decisions. Perhaps they were all incorrect. Perhaps some were correct and some were incorrect. Unless we study this situation more carefully, you and I will not be able to do more except make essentially gratuitous claims based on no evidence and no information except for our own personal intuition, which frankly does not count for very much here. I have collected examples which presumably are in the "tails" of the distribution of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, because they are more likely to be interesting and examples where reasonable people can disagree. We do not learn much from examples which everyone agrees are clear CIVIL and NPA violations, or everyone agrees are clearly not CIVIL and NPA violations. We need examples which are mildly controversial and somewhat contentious, where reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue exist.

Your user space is not for your "own research projects", especially not when those research projects include highlighting the flaws of others. This is particularly problematic when you are involved directly and indirectly in a boatload of RfC's, RfArbs, AN/I postings, etc. It was, after all, from a discussion on AN/I that someone decided to MfD this page in the first place. I fear that some of the "free expression" types commenting here have no idea what the larger context here is, but you certainly do. Your "own research project" isn't helpful, its simply contentious, and its too bad many in community seem less concerned with doing some actual research into the situation then they are with throwing around libertarian ideologies. If that's the case then so be it. Good luck with your pet projects and all the drama they create.PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly would not claim these examples are all "flaws" in the system. What I think we need to keep in mind is that Wikipedia really only exists for one reason: to produce a reference work of the highest possible quality. If any of the actions described in my list contribute towards producing a high quality reference work, and if this can be demonstrated convincingly and documented, then they are not at all flaws, are they? If some or all of them actually work to the detriment to the creation of a high quality reference work, then they might be characterized as "flaws". However, neither you nor I nor anyone else can state at this point with any authority that any of the actions I have catalogued in my list actually are beneficial or not, and what are the reasons underlying this. These are interesting questions, and just deleting the data in this list will not move us any closer to answering these questions.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fill, since when is "abuse of ..." not about flawed behavior? Do we speak the same English language you and I? If your intentions are as noble as you claim they are, then you would not exhibit ownership over the list. You would also do better to stay completely clear of those you have had personal disagreements with. Pretty obvious that last part is, if you don't want this to be seen as having more to do with highlighting flaws than with helping the encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the first thing is, I picked the name "Abuse of CIVIL Hall of Fame" long before I had much data. I just picked it because I thought it was funny. It does not have to be called that. Does the name offend you? Do you want me to use another name for this?

Second, some of these are people who have written something that normally would not be viewed as a violation of civility or a personal attack, but who are charged with a violation of CIVIL and/or NPA. Some of these are people possibly using CIVIL or NPA as a weapon. Some of these are people stating something that is clearly uncivil and/or a personal attack, but not being charged with a violation of CIVIL or NPA. In other words, it is about inconsistency of CIVIL and NPA standards, and it is about potentially unrealistic and changing CIVIL and NPA standards. Are they all flaws? Maybe, or maybe not. Where does the line fall?

Third, in terms of helping the encyclopedia, have you not been listening closely over the last year? There has been a frenzy of people claiming that CIVIL violations are the number one problem facing the encyclopedia. Some still claim that, although the uproar has died down a bit over the last few months. Others, such as those at the Expert Withdrawal pages, had said that problems with CIVIL were driving away experts, or that the CIVIL problems were symptomatic of problems with CIVIL POV pushing. Those are serious problems that need to be addressed. Do you claim otherwise?

And I explained what you claim is "ownership" below. It is not, aside from me having to have some measure of control over my own research projects and ideas. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your user space is not for your "own research projects", especially not when those research projects include highlighting the flaws of others. This is particularly problematic when you are involved directly and indirectly in a boatload of RfC's, RfArbs, AN/I postings, etc. It was, after all, from a discussion on AN/I that someone decided to MfD this page in the first place. I fear that some of the "free expression" types commenting here have no idea what the larger context here is, but you certainly do. Your "own research project" isn't helpful, its simply contentious, and its too bad many in community seem less concerned with doing some actual research into the situation then they are with throwing around libertarian ideologies. If that's the case then so be it. Good luck with your pet projects and all the drama they create.PelleSmith (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are numerous research projects ongoing at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. By doing research on how Wikipedia and the related projects operate, we can improve it based on knowledge and evidence, not based on bullying and on who can scream the loudest. I believe that Wikipedia is not perfect, and could stand to be improved in various respects. Do you disagree with that? I have a partial list of research projects I have come across at User:Filll/Wikipedia_Research. Do you think all of those should be shut down, based on your dictates, fiats and fatwahs? Also, I did not choose to be involved in an RfAr, or in most of the AN and AN/I threads I have been dragged into. I have only filed one RfC myself, and I did not want to do it. Most of the RfCs I have participated in I have been forced to get involved with by the actions of others. I have the right to defend myself when attacked. Do you claim that this is not true? As for libertarian philosophies, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please take your obnoxious political attacks somewhere else.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The libertarian ideologies comment was not directed towards you, but towards those voting keep who seem to think that individual rights concern for the community. My apologies if you took it as a comment on you personally, but it was not meant to be. Those other "projects" are not "Halls of Fame," they are explicitly attempts at constructive and unbiased research. I take no issue with them. They are also open to the community. Please see my comment below regarding your "research project". Your so called project is fraught with conflicts of interest and all kinds of bias. How you imagine that starting from this premise will lead to results that we can take seriously is beyond me. If you are serious about making this into a research project I suggest a new title, and a data collection procedure that is much more random than your current process. I also suggest eliminating conflicts of interest (e.g. examples related to you, to your direct interests, or to your on Wiki friends). Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I have removed the unfortunate negative characterization above. It was inappropriate and I apologize for having used that term. I do not remember having used it at this point, but I can easily imagine that this was the result of having been badgered and baited extensively. This does not excuse my use of the term, but is the only way that I can explain why I used it in such a fashion, given my past extremely difficult history with this editor. I now accept that the word "tr_ll" has been widely determined by consensus to no longer be politically correct on Wikipedia, although it was clearly acceptable at one time. Times change, and standards change, and this is an example. I again apologize to everyone for having used that term in two places and applied it to another editor.

The CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is not meant to insult or offend anyone. It is data about how we are applying policy like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Are we doing so consistently? Does our approach make sense? Are our standards for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the appropriate level? Should they be more stringent or more lenient? Are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ever used inappropriately as weapons against opponents in disputes? These are just examples I have come across in my travels, and not meant to be exhaustive or an appropriately random sample.

I do not pretend to know if Wikipedia is enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL appropriately at the moment or not. I do not pretend to know if the most commonly held assumptions about CIVIL are reasonable or not. However, these are interesting questions to consider as Wikipedia evolves as an enterprise.

If we are ever to move beyond our current "intuition-based management" of Wikipedia, based on gut feelings and on who can be the biggest bully or who can scream the loudest, to "evidence-based management" we need data, and we need to analyze it. We need to understand what our current stance on a given issue is, and what it was, and how it is changing and why. We need to frame our policies and enforcement in terms of our actual goals, and then try to determine the best means to reach these goals, and then implement these means if possible. And that is what the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is. It is a tiny step on the road towards "evidence-based management". --Filll (talk | wpc) 14:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I do not think that the word "troll" was considered vastly more acceptable six weeks ago, when you used it and were reminded about it, than it is today. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You are probably correct. I do not remember applying it to another editor, and I do not remember having had a discussion about its use in this manner with you, although I clearly did. From this vantage point, it was clearly highly inappropriate and I apologize for this offensive usage. I should have removed it immediately when you notified me of it, and my failure to do so embarasses me. Please accept my humble apology for this mistake and any offense which it caused.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Criticism is allowed. Filll believes that the civility guideline is frequently misused. He's allowed to opine about this. He's allowed to collect examples of what he sees as the problem. People are allowed to express their opinions about Wikipedia's problems. If you think he's wrong, you're allowed to tell him that. If he's misrepresenting the diffs he's collecting, the only harm will be done is that he'll make himself look foolish. If he's right, who knows, maybe some meaningful change will come out of this. If you don't like everything you've ever said being part of a public record, Wikipedia is not for you. Friday (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Except your argument has little to no baring on why we should or should not keep this page here. Since when is the "right" of an individual to say X, Y, or Z an argument for keeping content on Wikipedia? What does the right to free expression have to do with our claim that Filll's commentary and his framing of what you are calling a "public record" is possibly disruptive, and clearly not productive? No one is asking to have what they said expunged from the edit histories or talk pages, but we believe that that what Filll has chosen to do with some of this information is not helpful. Again, I fail to see how this free expression argument has anything to do with the concerns of the community and the well worn conventions of how to deal with appropriate and inappropriate content on Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion we are allowed to decide as a community whether miscellaneous pages should or should not be deleted. What policies back the various claims you have made above of what is or is not "allowed"? PelleSmith (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that you do not seem to be willing to accept community input, but rage around like an angry dictator. It really presents you in a bad light, frankly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What you call "possibly disruptive" sounds a lot to me like "I don't like it." People are allowed to opine about Wikipedia in their own userspace. I don't know how to explain my position any more clearly than this. He's being responsive to concerns people bring up about the specifics of the content. No valid reason that I can see has been given for deleting this. Friday (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my "comment" below.PelleSmith (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fill will remove the content of the page if anyone finds it offensive, per his statement at User:Filll/subpage. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I will edit it to make it inoffensive if necessary. If it cannot be rendered inoffensive, then of course I will remove it. Why wouldn't I ? Thank you for bringing that up. Of course, my offer stands.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - In general, I think that these kinds of user subpages should be permitted unless there are attacks against other editors. Editors should be permitted to collect such information, and I think it's a bad precedent to start deleting them. If someone objects to something Filll says there, they are free to post their objections on their own talk pages. Alternatively, perhaps Filll himself can add a section to that page, where the accused can respond - though I don't think that's strictly necessary. Filll should, however, avoid straying into outright attacks ("Wiki God King" is a little bit overboard, IMO). I'll also add, I disagree with the entire crux of Filll's arguments there; I believe many of the examples he cites are indeed uncivil and unhelpful, but he has a right to his opinion (and to express that opinion in his user space). ATren (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok if you find "Wiki God King" offensive, then I will remove that. It was intended to be humorous and/or sarcastic, but I do not want to offend with that term. Should I remove it?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My point was, I think your page has merit as long as it sticks to your view on editor's actions. I personally don't find "God King" terribly offensive, and I do understand the humorous connotation (and perhaps it's such an established term now that it's not offensive at all), but I am personally of the view that a page like that is less offensive and problematic if you avoid such labels completely. So, yes, I'd probably replace it with a simple, inoffensive "Jimbo". ATren (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Some more discussion of the term can be found at [2][3][4].--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. per Friday. I agree this page might promote more divisiveness than community spirit, but I'm not aware any policy it violates and the the delete votes all seem boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yilloslime (t) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see below.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment that in cases such as these WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid !delete criterion, but if it indeed is, then surely WP:ILIKEIT is also a valid !keep criterion, and I do happen to like this page. W/R/T WP:UP#NOT, the primary intent of Filll's page seems to be improve WP by pointing out how certain policies have been misused, it's primary intent does not seem to be to attack other editors, so I'd argue the page doesn't count as "substantial content…that is unrelated to Wikipedia" thus the page doesn't fall run afoul of the policy. Yilloslime (t) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Never have I claimed that it is "unrelated to Wikipedia" nor does WP:UP#NOT require that is should be, despite its general guideline. Clearly creating evidence pages in preparation for an RfC isn't "unrelated to Wikipedia", but also clearly it is recommended to remove such evidence afterwards. If you do like the page, and you think it does contribute to the encyclopedia, then so be it, that's your choice.PelleSmith (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per the above argument. It sums up my thoughts exactly F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see below.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment regarding policy: From Wikipedia:User_page. Here is #9 from "things to avoid" (emphasis mine)--"Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process. This exception is subject to common sense, but as a general rule, two weeks is a reasonable time to prepare such a page." Please also see Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community." This is the community forum to decide whether or not the content is appropriate so please do not invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since doing so makes no substantive argument about how appropriate or inappropriate this content is, it only comments on those here who don't find it appropriate. It is clear from our policies that we can, and do judge these things in forums such as this one. Filll's list, which he exhibits ownership over, is quite clearly a list of various incidents in which other editors exhibit a flaw. I'm sorry but "yay libertarianism" isn't exactly the way we should decide about what is or is not constructive and productive in and for this project.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  At some point, we have to use our judgement. Is it simply schoolyard name calling, serving only to perpetuate a grudge? Or is it valid good-faith criticism of a perceived flaw in how Wikipedia works? In my opinion (and I suspect, that of anyone saying "keep") this case is closer to the latter than the former. We should be accommodating to good-faith efforts of editors to say "Look, here is a flaw in Wikipedia. See my evidence." Criticism is allowed. Friday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Then why exhibit ownership over the page? I could list several diffs of Filll invoking WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF just as, if not more, "abusively" than the examples he puts up on his page (in fact this self-righteous hypocrisy makes it even more offensive). This page is clearly directed towards those he has had disagreements with, and is also clearly not some NPOV survey of this type of behavior. If this exercise were a good natured attempt at improving the encyclopedia then why direct it towards his foes? Why delete (see diff above) additions by others that provide evidence of his own "abuse of civil. " Why has he already been asked to delete offensive language since the start of this MfD? The idea that the motivation behind this page is to help the encyclopedia is absurd.PelleSmith (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That diff is of a different type of CIVIL and AGF episode than the others. It is still on the talk page. As I get more examples, I might include another section. I only use that page to collect examples as they come up. By the way, the vast majority of these are NOT anything to do with my "foes". These are just edits I have run across and in most cases I am not involved at all. In many cases I do not know one or all of the parties involved.

The other reason I am not quite sure what to do with that diff is that the editor who posted it was in a FURIOUS RAGE and attacked me repeatedly in email with profanity-laced emails, including dozens of expletives and threats, and this situation was associated with that diff. I was shocked, frankly, and I considered moving to have him desysopped and banned from Wikipedia for this, but since I hate this kind of drama, I did not. I only wanted him to stop attacking me, which thankfully he has. However, after I felt quite ambiguous about his post related to a situation that gave rise to this irrational rage. Therefore I was undecided at that time about retaining it in the list, and how it should be categorized. I have not forgotten this diff however, and I do plan to do something with it. I am just not quite sure what right now.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fill, I don't know what that editor may have emailed you, but in this context, since you conveniently aren't about to tell us, those remain a bunch unsubstantiated statements. You're comment about those not being your foes is also entirely misleading. The editors who's flaws you are listing are more often than not those who have argued against your POV in entries related to ID. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, factors heavily here, for instance. The few remaining come from your ID WikiGroup buddies and/or their webpages. There is nothing NPOV or particularly scientific about what you're doing here. None of this provides good evidence of anything but your ability to keep lists of the supposed flaws of editors you don't particularly like.PelleSmith (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For time being, I will not reveal the details of what that person sent me in email. Obviously, it might be a violation of this person's privacy to reveal some of the email contents, although exactly where that line is I am not sure. Also, most of these disputes that gave rise to these posts have nothing to do with me and nothing to do with intelligent design or Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I take no position on whether I "like or don't like" most of the editors appearing in that list, and several of those I have disagreed with strongly in the past like ScienceApologist appear on the list as the targets of what might be overenthusiastic application of CIVIL. As for NPOV, the only things that are supposed to be NPOV around here are the articles, and I have not noticed that you seem to have much knowledge or appreciation for what NPOV is. Also, from your ludicrous posts at Raul654 CIVIL POV pushing pages, I have not noticed you displaying any knowledge of what is science or what is not science, and you certainly are not some sort of arbiter in this matter.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - if UBeR's hitlist is allowed to remain undeleted, I see no reason why this should be deleted. Morever, this page serves a lot more purpose than that one did - it illustrates why the civility policy is abused by Civil POV pushers claiming false victimhood to muddy the waters. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, Raul. I'm sure that one day I shall happen across you making a policy-based argument. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks Relata - I wish I could say the same about you, but unfortunately your track record of giving bad advice combined with snide comments and your ignorance of reality doesn't give me much hope. Raul654 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • He might have been snide but don't you think "ignorance of reality" crosses the civility threshold a bit more clearly? Or am I making an abusive appeal to the WP:CIVIL policy? Filll your expert advice is needed here. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Having interacted several times with Relata refero and found myself doubting his good will and his judgement and reasoning power frequently, as well as wondering if he was here just to fight or to build an encyclopedia, I am afraid in my humble opinion I have to agree with Raul654 here. The only reason that an RfC against him has not been filed is that he has not quite crossed over the threshold often enough for anyone to go to that sort of effort. If we are to examine our own behavior, and try to improve it and improve our management of this enterprise and improve our rules and their enforcement, we have to be able to compile data about it. This list is not meant to offend anyone. Appearing on the list is not even necessarily a condemnation for improper behavior. It merely is an example of what is permissable behavior, or has become permissable behavior. Maybe these standards are appropriate, and maybe they are not. I would not pretend to be able to know exactly what the community standards are or should be in any of these instances. And without surveys and polls, I think that no one really can state such a thing with any authority either.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • "If we are to examine our own behavior, and try to improve it and improve our management of this enterprise and improve our rules and their enforcement, we have to be able to compile data about it." Very very noble, but your "data" isn't worth a grain of salt when all of it pretty much involves you and/or your buddies. You are making no attempt to eliminate clear conflicts of interest and bias making your data both unreliable and ethically dubious. In fact the very reasons why anyone would take offense to this list, or think its a drama magnet, invalidate its usefulness. As I already suggested, if you want to do this in an impartial and unbiased manner, collect data that does not relate to you, to your broader interests, and/or to your friends. Its really that simple. No one will call you out for attacking others since there will be no apparent personal motive, and we can actually take seriously whatever findings may come from them.PelleSmith (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
            • • • With all due respect, just because you repeat the same falsehoods over and over and over, trying to mount some sort of furious attack on me, it does not make any of your specious and gratuitous claims correct. I can just as easily and gratuitously dismiss all these spurious arguments of yours by the rules of logic. You only make yourself look bad by wanting to turn this MfD page into some personal battleground. But feel free. Just consider how it makes you look.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Gee Fill, and here I thought that this was one of my most constructive comments to date. So you actually think that using yourself and your friends as a sample is a good way to conduct an unbiased research project? I don't see this swinging to delete anytime soon, so lets not worry about defending the motives of the original list, lets try to be constructive about its future. I'm fairly certain you understand the problems I've presented to you. Are you willing to take the appropriate measures to ensure that this is a research project which will yield unbiased results? That might be worth something to the project.PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete a lot of similar pages are deleted as they serve no constructive purpose and don't foster congeniality between editors. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a convincing argument. This is a log of grudges etc against other editors, and if it were a new editor or a less well known one it would no doubt have already been deleted. If someone feels attacked there's no need to attack back or store numerous unrelated grudges, as otherwise where would it end? It's 'unprofessional' yes I know we're not professionals but you know what I mean. Admins should behave like admins, no matter how others behave, and keep the moral high ground. Stuff like this just propagates some people's feeling that there's one law for admins who are liked by more senior admins, and another for them. Sticky Parkin 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that I am not an admin, nor do I ever want to be. It is not a log of grudges against other editors. I have no dog in the fight in most of these situations. I am not involved. I am involved in some of them, it is true. All they are, are examples of CIVIL and AGF being applied in controversial circumstances. That is it. --Filll (talk | wpc) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In virtually all of these situations the flawed party is either arguing against you, against someone else from WikiProject Intelligent Design, or even more generally against your POV when it comes to "psuedoscience". Grudges or not, there is a pretty obvious connection between these editors and it isn't just their "abuse of CIVIL".PelleSmith (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Care to make a friendly wager about that? What will I get if I win?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've amended it for accuracy. Outside of one truly perplexing diff you have on there, and the comment from Jimbo, a rough count has 7 involving you, 7 involving ScienceApologist (see new comment about psuedoscience), 4 involving other ID editors, and the rest having something to do with either ID or other "psuedosciences". You're not fooling anyone Filll. Is there a diff on there showing someone you agree with abusing CIVIL? Maybe like these unsubstantiated appeals to CIV. Gee who made these?: [5], [6], [7]. Is that Filll?PelleSmith (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. There are 26 episodes presented. I am involved in 7 of these. Most of these have nothing to do with intelligent design. Just get off this "cabal" fantasy, ok?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll I never said anything about a cabal. I'm merely trying to back my suggestion that the list is skewed to only report on the flaws of those you don't agree with. By you, I mean you personally. Others may share your various POVs, but this clearly relates to you. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be awfully obsessed with that Rosalind Picard article, on which a consensus was reached weeks ago. What is the problem there?

And yes I will alert other users to potential AGF and CIVIL problems, and I try to make my own standards reflect those of what I perceive to be the community standards. I have also drastically changed my own standards for incivility over the last year and a half to be more in accord with those on the rest of Wikipedia. For example, I have slowly learned that sarcasm is to be avoided as uncivil. I do not claim I do a perfect job of avoiding sarcasm myself, but I do try. So what? Should I have maintained my own versions of the standards, out of step with everyone else's? Should I have not conformed to consensus? Should I have not learned and rolled with the tide, even if I disagreed with the overall community standards? That is just silly and dumb. That is not how Wikipedia works, is it?

Of course the examples I know are mainly from science and pseudoscience. I do not get involved with political articles, by and large. If I did, I would have examples from political articles, not from science and pseudoscience articles, right? I have examples from what I am familiar with. Is that a problem for you? And I include examples where I was surprised by the verdict or the claim, not examples which I thought were in general line with community standards. So in the case of situations I was involved with, they are not generally situations where I was using CIVIL incorrectly, although probably such examples exist. In that case, it is harder for me to recognize those, isn't it? It is easier for me to recognize examples where I wonder if things are correct or not, or where the line lies exactly. And so that is the bias that is introduced into these examples. Is this a surprise? What on earth? You want to turn this into a federal case? Into World War III? Would you like to be part of a really fun RfC or two if you have so much energy?--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fill I'm not obsessed with that page, but do remain rather disgusted by your behavior on its talk page. I don't see a point keeping this argument up since its rather apparent that everyone is either voting delete based upon the premise that your page is a detriment to the project, or keep based upon the idea that you should have the freedom to keep such a page. Good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are disgusted with anyone who disagrees with you I guess. Well that is your right. And the right of others to be disgusted with your behavior on that page and many other pages. As I have said before, you seem to exhibit a deep hatred and loathing of me, over and over and over, which seems to have even included stalking. So be it. You made yourself clear. If this was not your intent, perhaps you should reconsider how you present yourself.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll, you are welcome to your opinion about what makes me disgusted, but as you know from the now deleted outline I gave you on your talk page, it was your gross incivility and hostility from our very first point of contact that did me in. That said, I don't have a deep hatred for you, though I think your behavior, as I experienced it, is a problem here at Wikipedia. Your own paranoia and inability to take things on anything less than a deeply personal level (I'm stalking you, I have a deep seeded irrational hatred for you, etc.) speaks volumes to the emotional level that your hall of fame page most probably operates on. To me this seems rather clear, but to others it apparently does not. Oh well. Good luck Filll.PelleSmith (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is clear. If you wanted to behave in a consensual and amicable manner, I think you would behave differently. But go ahead.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The information is a collection of links to what other editors have done in Wikipedia. If those editors don't like it (which has been expressed as a reason for deletion above) then perhaps they should have taken a dose of WP:CIVIL. Mind you, if there are specific things in there (aka the commentary) that could potentially be toned down - then it should be. But editors should point these out, rather than just attempting to censor the glaring spotlight to their particular forms of unCIVILness. Of course, there is always content but concentrating on anything but CIVIL isn't the modern incarnation of Wikipedia now, is it? Shot info (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. We have all seen abuses of WP:CIVIL; this collection may prove useful in the next discussion. Are all of these abuses? Not in my opinion. Are some of them? Yes; I would cite #19 the complaint that KillerChihuahua's well-known sig is "condescending" and so uncivil. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep These are just examples of where civility trumps other issues. Not really a "hit" list like others have (see Raul's comment above). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is really no difference between Filll's and UBeR's subpages. I'd vote to keep both on the exact same grounds - that editors should be allowed to collect diffs as long as there isn't excessive attacking commentary associated with them. ATren (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I once asked for UBeR's page to be removed. I think he should remove some of the commentary, but otherwise I have no problem, so we're in agreement. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Un-called for. The least he could do is ask other's permission before he condemns them to having their mistakes bronzed and put up for display. If the time ever comes where these "examples" could come in handy, the diffs are easily obtainable without the Wiki-drama of this.--Koji

†Dude ^(C) 02:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you claim these are mistakes? They are surprising to me, but only if you disagree with some of the more controversial statements of your fellow editors would you consider them mistakes. Anyway, even if they are mistakes, which I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim since many of them are according to our changing community consensus, we should examine them and learn from them. I do not suggest that any of those making these mistakes be condemned for any of these purported mistakes. Also, I disagree that it is so easy to find or create a list like this, without keeping track. Why repeat the labor in creating such a list over and over and over? Let's understand some of the more extreme examples to see what the community consensus is, and where it is heading.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Called for. Critical analysis of a policy -how it's both interpreted and applied is not the same as creating an "attack" page (which should be deleted). R. Baley (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have any ideas on how this page constitutes critical analysis?t I would love to hear them. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as it makes some good points that are relevant for Wikipedia, and per Filll's policy to remove anything another finds offensive. Lara❤Love 14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Delete - I've come to find firsthand that Filll does not follow through on his policy. In fact, he's removed it from his page. LaraLove|Talk| 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and it only takes two months and an AfD for him to follow through on that policy. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question: People seem to be voting "keep" based upon the premise that this is a good faith criticism of a policy, and a benefit to the project, as opposed to a list of flaws. Fine. If this entry ends as a keep is it possible to get Filll's assurance that he wont censor the additions of others to his "Hall of Fame"? That he will allow it to be a vehicle for good faith criticism regardless of who has "abused CIVIL"? It is my opinion that under those conditions it would create a whole lot less drama, and it would actually show that his intentions are in line with what those voting keep have assumed on good faith.PelleSmith (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are frantic to have examples of others you have collected on this page or a similar page, I reserve the right to place them in their own subpage and/or own section. Otherwise, examples that have nothing to do with the intended purpose will be mixed in inappropriately. Otherwise, the subsections will probably cease to make sense. If you want to compile a similar list of examples, then that is great and if there are examples which belong on both lists, then some kind of integration can be done that makes sense.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to compile any such lists nor do I wish to add to yours. I simply ask for you to promise to live up what those who support this page seem to believe in good faith, if things turn out as a "keep".PelleSmith (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We generally give editors fairly wide latitude in their own user space. Friday (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought. Without any accountability there can be no trust, without trust WP:AGF becomes a farce. On the one hand we claim that Filll must be acting in good faith, but on the other we say he doesn't have to actually act in good faith to reassure us that this is the case. Whatever. I'm done.PelleSmith (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I had to think about this one a bit, since I would have voted to delete Uber's list (I can't remember if I actually did or didn't). This seemed different enough to me, but I wanted to think about it a bit. R. Baley's rationale gets at what I was thinking, but wasn't quite about to articulate. So, Keep. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- Excellent record of some of the worst commentary ever produced on Wikipedia. Also, I believe this is a bad faith nomination, trumped up due to the friendlies attacking experts in their newest MMORPG battle. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it is a laundry list with no attempt at analysis or balance, and no attempt to suggest any improvements. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. This is not a finished essay. It is a place to collect data and information. And these do not all cross my path magically within a day or so. They have to be collected over time. If you want to see a short essay by me on CIVIL, see [8]. If you want to see the sorts of analysis I will create, look at this one in progress at [9] and [10].--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Two and a half months is rather more than a "day or so". DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course. And I probably need to collect data for at least a year or two.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are using Wikipedia to host your personal laundry list long term with no indication of when or if it will ever turn into something which can be used to benefit the encyclopædia? DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, you did not read the material above? Of course it is meant to turn into something that will be used to benefit the encyclopedia. Read the research projects I am involved with and that others have ongoing at Wikipedia that I have linked to above. And just because something takes a long time, does not mean it will not benefit Wikipedia, or is not intended to. I have at least 4 rough drafts of new articles and rewrites of current articles that are many months old; 3 of them are well over 1 year old.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-06-09

[edit] User:Taganupe

personal essay not appropriate for a userspace Ironholds 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The only contributions of this user, and a month ago. Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Cenarium (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to publish personal essays. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:12, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sculptor85

personal essay. doesnt appear to be from any book or film; wikipedia is not a webspace for creative writing. Ironholds 16:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The only contributions of this user, and a month ago. Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Cenarium (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to publish personal essays. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:13, June 9, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-06-08

[edit] User:Jbirdman

A personal essay on the justice system is'nt really appropriate. Ironholds 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT#SOAP. I agree with the nom: Wikipedia is not the place to air your personal opinions. Redfarmer (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blank the page and advise that wikipedia pages are for wikipedia purposes. Scope is allowed for introducing yourself, but soapboxing is not allowed. Deletion here is an overreaction. If he continues, the solution is blocking, not deletion of his contribution history, which is counterproductive to welcoming him and steering him in the right direction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per the aforementioned policy, and also WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Inappropriate pages are deleted, a user can ask for the content of a deleted page. Blanking doesn't remove the content, a user can revert to this revision, etc. It's preferable to delete, letting the situation worsen and ultimately ending up with having to block the user would mean more drama, more time waisted, etc. And that would be counterproductive. Cenarium (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the unique contribution of the user together with posting this essay at Wikipedia talk:Signatures, and a month ago. I don't think that it's too soon. If the user comes back editing, then he'll take a clean start. Cenarium (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blank the page -- Ned Scott 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kyle E. Coyote

This user page is like a MySpace profile. Tried to discuss on talk page, but the user keeps blanking the page. The vast majority of this user's contribs are to this page, almost an single purpose account that exists for no reason other than this "profile" page. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace or social networking site. Ironholds 19:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blank inappropriate content, warn user, and consider blocking. This user knows he is abusing our rules. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the page contains several personal attacks on celebrities and groups of people. This kind of material in userspace may be deleted on sight. This is explicit at Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space. Blanking a page doesn't remove, should I say like in the policy, "delete" the content (it can be reverted, copied, etc) and we're not restricted like in mainspace. Concerning the user, he has been warned repeatedly, let's see how things evolve and hope that he'll contribute constructively. Cenarium (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep myspace-ish material already removed, question moot. Chimeric Glider (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• What makes you say it won't be reinstated ? And we're not just talking about myspace-ish material but also personal attacks. Cenarium (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• And now, an anonymous IP who has edited this page, and seems to share many of the same interests as Kyle has vandalized my user page. I'm sure it's just a coincidence right? Beeblbrox (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as coincidence, only inevitability. I think his editing of KEC's userpage is also a hint it's him. Ironholds 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just got done reporting this new development here. Anyone who has more diffs to add, please do so. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note that deletion of "inappropriate content" makes it more difficult to identify socks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Then the page is just deleted and recreated with a SSP notice, or placed on the talk page, the present sockpuppetry is obvious anyway. Cenarium (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The user blanked the page, presumably acknowlledging that he was wrong.--Serviam (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• He immediately reverted that blank, so i'm assuming that it wasnt acknowledging he was wrong. The current blank is from a different user, JimmyB48, who's been indefinetly banned for among other things page blanking. Ironholds 19:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• My hope in doing all this was that he would get that this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook, and that constructive editing is welcome, but his reaction to all this,i.e. resorting to childish sockpuppet vandalism, lying, and failing to speak up in these two ongoing conversations relating to his actions, seems to indicate a lack of interest in actually working on an encyclopedia. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111

• I agree to all of the following: StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/English

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace, blog or poetry repository. Ironholds 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/stuff

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace, blog or poetry repository. Ironholds 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/poetry

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace, blog or poetry repository. Ironholds 16:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/La

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace or blog. Ironholds 16:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Mountain

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace or blog. Ironholds 16:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Story

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace, blog or poetry repository. Ironholds 16:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Science

personal essay not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace or blog. Ironholds 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Article x

personal essay not related to wikipedia. Ironholds 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Letter

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace or blog. Ironholds 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Reflections/Mountain

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace or blog. Ironholds 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Reflections/Plays

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace or blog. Ironholds 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Reflections/Window

personal comments not related to wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace, blog or poetry repository. Ironholds 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Reflections/Reading Quiz 1

personal comments not related to wikipedia editing. Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a webspace. Ironholds 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Reflections/King

personal essay not related to wikipedia editing. Ironholds 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Reflections/Symbolic

personal essay not related to wikipedia editing. Ironholds 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111/Reflections/Leaf

personal essay not related to wikipedia editing. Ironholds 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Omghax111

personal essay not related to wikipedia editing. Ironholds 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this and all subpages, listed at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Omghax111. Per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. The user has just made four minor edits outside these pages and doesn't seem to be inclined to contribute. All the other nominations may be merged here. -- Cenarium (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect all to User_talk:Omghax111. On the talk page, give a personal bit of advice, but do not delete any contributions without first trying to be nice. Tell him about myspace. Tell him he is welcome to contribute, etc, but deleting his history of contributions is counterproductive. Do not assume that he will remain disinclined to contribute productively in the absence of compelling evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Being nice to a user doesn't mean we shouldn't strictly apply our policies when there's no reason not to. Inappropriate userpages are deleted, redirecting precisely doesn't remove the content so it doesn't meet our policies. The user can request a copy of a deleted page anyway. I stand on my opinion that the user doesn't seem to be inclined to contribute, but I didn't say that it will remain this way, you're misinterpreting. Cenarium (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out to Smokey Joe that he Omghax111 hasn't edited anything in almost a month and his contributions consist only of this and 4 mainspace edits. I dont think he's going to contribute at all, nevermind constructively. Ironholds 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• If he isn't going to edit again, then converting to redirects achieves the same thing. Server space isn't an issue. Page histories aren't trawled by search engines. Assuming that he will *never* contibute again is a pretty big assumption. Assuming that he'll never be contructive based on this short period of edits is bitey. Redirecting would be uncontroversial and would achieve the same result; in comparison listing at MfD is a bigger waste of time and space. Being nice usually *does* mean being less than strict. Expecting new users to know thay can, and know how to request undeletion is a tough position. It's also bitie, because you are putting the newcomer in the subservient position of having to ask for what the rest of expect - the ability to review our past contributions. Also note how much effort you went to without ever talking to the user or pointing him to friendly explanation of the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• If that would be that easy... But it's not, a user can revert, copy the text etc. Many users have been blocked for edit warring over this, and the amount of drama created is huge. Deletion is generally a better option in the end and it's a clear application of our policies. MfD is here for a reason, blanking is not satisfying in most cases, experience tells this. Wikipedia is a community, MfD decisions are communal, and while we shouldn't assume that the user will never come back editing (constructively or not), we shouldn't assume the opposite either and shouldn't base our decision upon this. Note also that the user has been notified about these discussions and invited to participate, and I left a general comment on WP:NOT#MYSPACE on the talk page of the user. Cenarium (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect all per Smokey. Cenarium is way off in thinking that deletion is the only way to satisfy our polices. The vast majority of page versions that break our polices are edited, not deleted. And Ironholds should be slapped with a big fish for his comment to Smokey, suggesting that his argument holds no merit based on his mainspace edits. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• ..what? I was talking about Omghax111's edits, not SmokeyJoe's. Ironholds 10:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• oops, my bad. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I could say the same that you are "way off" thinking that blanking or redirecting a page will satisfy our policies, but this kind of comment really doesn't help. As a matter of facts, in these two cases, the history is not deleted and so can provide the content, thus it doesn't satisfy WP:NOT#WEBHOST. As I said above, it can also lead to dire situations. I also said that we're not restricted like in other namespaces, article space especially, where selective deletion of inappropriate content is unfeasible, except in particularly bad cases. In this case, deletion seems to me to be the best option. Cenarium (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• When we're a wiki, yes, changing the page, rather than full deletion, is satisfying policies. The only case where it doesn't is when there's personal information that someone wants removed, etc. I understand that you think deletion is best, given that we don't have the same restrictions that normal articles do, but that doesn't make it the only option. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hexagon1/Imagfriend

Userboxes like this are just silly, the user is being inconsiderate of other editors beliefs, and it's not exactly helping to build a strong sense of community. I'd even go as far as to say this is incivil. Something like "This user is an atheist", "This user does not beleive in God" etc. would be fine, but this is a little too far. Phoenix-wiki 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Per Phoenix-wiki. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems mostly harmless and not in wide use. I haven't looked, but has anyone addressed the possibility of refactoring the caption with Hexagon1? Not too long ago, we had ten or twenty pages of argument over whether a userbox supporting Hezbollah should be kept or deleted - and Hezbollah is an internationally recognized violent terrorist organization (in addition to a political party in Lebanon, yes I know). We shouldn't take these userbox deletion wars into the arena of censoring unpopular opinion, that is where the debate starts to get enormously contentious and frankly it just isn't worth the time. Avruch^T * ^ER 15:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Avruch's well-written comments. We have userboxes on iraqi resistance, opposition to homosexual marriage.. lots of things people could find offensive. There's no need to cross the "good taste" line into "censoring". Ironholds 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the "good taste line", it's inconsiderate, and I'm sure the creator knows full well. It's not exactly doing the sense of community any good either. Also, it doesn't matter that there are other userboxes, I MFD bad ones when I see them, so by that argument none of them could ever be deleted somply because the otherd existed see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Phoenix-wiki 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on userboxes: "Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.". This doesn't seem to violate that. Ironholds 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC).

This is highly inappropriate for userpages, it's divisive etc.--Phoenix-wiki 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it divisive? do we have any editors posting big essays about how a user saying he doesnt believe in god in a certain way is wrong? it's not going "god does not exist and all you people who think he/she/it does are douches" it's simply adding a bit of cynicism and dry wit. Ironholds 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's saying "God does not exist and all of you who think he does are imagining it"-Phoenix-wiki 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I read it as "I do not believe god exists and would appreciate people who do believes god exists keeping it to themselves". The userbox owner (and user) is saying that they believe god is imaginary. By this logic all atheistic userboxes would be banned; To many religions people saying that god doesn't exist regardless of phrasing is considered offensive Ironholds 20:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Offensive to no wikipedia policy. We don't delete experiments or works in progress, especially in userspace, where this is appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as 'owner'. This is no more offensive than User:Jeff dean/Userboxes/Atheist (a WP:SNOW keep) or User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah (even with the new wording), and that are just two examples I found. A wide latitude is given in regards to userboxes, and I completely fail to see why a rational editor would be offended by this, it was not created to offend. I accept it may be a little edgy to a small minority, but then again so are a vast majority of articles and images that we proudly display in the mainspace (including graphic depictions of sexual organs/activity). Sorry if I'm incoherent, I have extremely limited internet time atm, and I may not be able to reply promptly either. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the arguments above. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a religious person, I think atheism is silly, and yet I can't find anything offensive in this userbox. It's quite funny really, and I'd love to see a "reply" one stating something like "Sorry, but no, I won't." ;-) -- alexgieg (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  I would love to see one too, I would even create it, but I can't think of an entertaining response. And if it got nominated for deletion, I would support it at all costs. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I was also present during the discussion of the aforementioned Jeff Dean userbox, and I'm seeing pretty much the same result here. I personally think as long as nobody is advocating violence or egregious personal insult then userboxes should not be censored. Yes, this is a community but we are not a commune, we don't all have to think alike or pretend like we do. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think it's too offensive. And per above reasons. Jack?! 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It appears to me that the offensiveness of this userbox is not severe enough to warrant deletion. This is not specifically directed, the form "keep ... for yourself" may sound a bit rough, but I don't see significant protests over this, and stating that religions come from people's imagination is common and not an "actionable" offense. It's the responsibility of the user to display this kind of userboxes, deletion should be used for more serious cases. Cenarium (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

*Stong Delete because It is regligously offensive, provocative, provides no meaningful content and most likly going to start a massive flamewar.  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's been mentioned repeatedly that it's humourous in nature. It's not like it's a fred phelps userbox or anything (although some religious people would find that perfectly acceptable). For something that "is probably going to start a massive flamewar" it only has two votes so far that oppose keeping it. Ironholds 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Yes that may be true, however you can't deny that a lot of your opposes in your RFA are due at least partly to this userbox, so some people must be offended. I'm of the opinion that this userbox has likely caused irreperable damage to your reputation, this will follow you to your next RFA no doubt. someone will bring it up no doubt. Is there any harm changing the link?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Bringing my personal feelings is pointless (i've spellchecked your comment, btw, hope you dont mind). People weren't offended at my RfA so much as worried people might be in the future, you're the only one who went "ooh, it offends me", and i'm sure if anyone brings this up it will be you. I'm not going to swivel around and decide i'd like this removed just because WP:AGF went out the window. Ironholds 05:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  If there is one person who has irreparably damaged their reputation here, it is you. By not removing the userbox when things got heated Ironholds has proven himself as an reliable and honest user, and together with his editing record he would make a brilliant administrator. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Just be careful not to stab your allies, You have my word that i wont bring it up at the next RFA and if you want further proof dont forget i went in neck high to bat for you before i saw that userbox (check the revision history). Impling that my religeon is imaginery might be humorous to those who arnt religous, but its not ammusing to me. Ill keep my "imaginery friends" to myself if you kept your ramarks to yourself   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  But thats exactly what I mean. you were all for me based on edits, contributions, answers.. and then you saw a user box and oh, there it goes. It isnt that important, it's a personal opinion. Ignoring my RfA (this is about the userbox, not its users), It is an amusing opinion. If you dont find it particularly nice, fair enough, but it's not like its being tattooed across the inside of your eyelids. It's in use on maybe 5 userpages, so if you dont want to see it it's easy to avoid. Ironholds 11:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Fair enough, Ill respect your POV (and that of the other editors who thinks its funny) As for your RFA I do apologise, I feel that in a perfect world that user box shoudn't have made a difference at all, well, now we know how in-perfect the word really is :-)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Yet, it was you that made this world "in-perfect" with your vote suggesting that userboxes DO matter. Also, interesting how you consider yourself an 'ally' when you've become the userbox's most vocal opponent, even attempting a unilateral speedy to override this debate. PS: Please consider using Firefox, it comes with spell-checking capability. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't find this to be offensive at all (but then again, I'm not easily offended). There is currently a lack of policy to delete these types of userboxes and I see no harm in keeping it around. — _Maggot^Syn 05:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Avruch's cogent keep rationale as well as many others. I find no offensiveness, incivility, or lack of consideration. Rather: (1) it is amusing, and the reference to imaginary friends is clever (2) other similar userboxes have set precedents (3) those that don't believe in religion could find religious userboxes inconsiderate using the same rationale, and why should we take sides (4) we are not censored (5) userboxes and other user page comments and stuff are the only ways to proclaim one's individuality in a very limited venue (6) despite the often proclaimed "this isn't MySpace", this is a volunteer effort and we are highly social animals, so some of this actually does increase participation, I believe. All in all, that is: A good thing ™ — Becksguy (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to procli=aim your individuality, and even if it was, you could do it without saying those who beleive something are imagining things. Precedents do not matter, though the consensus has generally been delete. Censoring, this isn't censoring, this is removing overly-divisive userboxes, I support the deletion of userboxes taht say those who don't beleive are imagining things or worse.-Phoenix-wiki 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not an atheist. I have a sense of humour. I think the userbox design is imaginative and its message is clever. — Athaenara ✉ 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it's message is, it's over provocative.--Phoenix-wiki 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be worrying that it could cause harm, consternation, or offense to large groups of wiki-editors. As this has shown, the majority of editors seem fine with keeping it, and "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" should not be limited to article content. We cant withdraw something on the basis that somebody might find it offensive in the future; this is the here and now. I'll accept that for userboxes where it's blindingly obvious that they'll cause offense/disturbance (see the MfD on a box that advocated killing members of the KKK; killing is wrong regardless of the scumbags involved) this doesnt necessarily hold true. Ironholds 03:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've just spoken to Prom3th3an; he's withdrawn his strong delete opinion. I'm not sure exactly why (he was making a cogent argument, albeit one I disagreed with) just that he has. Ironholds 03:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Artoftransformation/Blog

wikipedia is not a blog – TWG 09:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete blog. The user is a productive editor, but nobody should be creating on wikipedia a blog about one's personal life (use blogspot or similar). Also, I doubt that the user even remembers that he started a blog months ago, and he only made two edits, both the same day --Enric Naval (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete blog per WP:NOT. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Blog-spca

personal blog – TWG 09:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete personal details (so history needs to be deleted), cheated blog and then added edits from IP. The username implies strongly that the only intention of this account was being a placeholder for a blog --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-06-07

[edit] Portal:WikiProjects

Abandoned portal, not updated since 17 February 2008. Also, most of the links are red. macy^talk 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fixman/Programming

I see no reason for Wikipedia to host this user's list of "Proves of programming fagness." This is an orphaned subpage, and it is not even linked to from this editor's user page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for your random programming abilities. I could understand just having the userboxes (I have a UBX page) but this is a bit pointless; if he were to restructure the page into a User:Fixman/UBX or something, I can't imagine it being a problem. --tennisman 04:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Standard userboxes, but with strange comments attached. So what. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless, no need to dictate to the user the style or title to his or her userbox page, waste of time to ruckus over it.Professor marginalia (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Work club

Wikipedia is not a homework repository WilliamH (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to these pages: User:Ashrah100, User:Work clubs 1, User:Work clubs 2, User:Hashim100, User:A level clubs 1. WilliamH (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all I guess we should also leave a notice that they'll be sure to see that (in a calm and friendly manner) explains that Wikipedia is not meant to be used for things like this. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per ned scott, and for wikipedia not being a free web server for stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it would be great if we could refer them to another wiki more suited for this type of use; it's worthwhile work they're putting up, but it's not encyclopedia work. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Ned Scott; also Wikipedia is not a free web host service. macy^talk 00:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Skyrob213

personal essay Ironholds 13:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This appears to be a long description of a fictional airport in a fictional city. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep "personal essay" is not a reason to delete something. At the very least, when a user is active still, leave a note on their talk page before going to MfD. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually if you read wikipedia guidelines, personal essay is a reason, since wikipedia prohibits personal essays on userpages if on topics not related to the running of wikipedia. Ironholds 14:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Delete. I did leave him a note on May 31, mostly regarding his other edits, but also mentioning his user page. One problem with his user page is that it's not really a personal essay in the normal sense, but a fictional Wikipedia article that could be confused with a real article. And his other edits have consisted largely of adding fictional/incorrect material to real airport articles. I had hoped he would respond to my May 31 note, but instead, he has continued to edit his user page with no comment, leading me to wonder about his intentions. I'd like to hear from him before weighing in on this MfD, but in the absence of a response I'm leaning toward delete. --MCB (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and also because some material appears to be copied and bundled from several sources, possible copyright violations. Cenarium (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless reasonable explanation is offered from the user. User has done little editing outside the user page that wasn't reverted as vandalism. Don't know what the goal is but am concerned about the confusion between real aviation related information and fictional. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ruman khan

personal essay (appears to be). Ironholds 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The only contributions of this user, and a month ago. Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Cenarium (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zadanya garcia

text copied from article space; doesn't really have any use here. Ironholds 13:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The only contributions of this user, and a month ago. Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Possible copyright violations too. Cenarium (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jezzyboo

personal essay on shark attacks. Ironholds 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The only contributions of this user, and a month ago. Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Cenarium (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pengelly

personal essay on valet parking Ironholds 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The only contributions of this user, and a month ago. Per WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Cenarium (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Frogger132

email transcripts? userpages are not the place. see WB:BLOG and WB:WEBHOST Ironholds 04:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - publishing emails like that seems like a very dangerous habit. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a webhost, and publishing email transcripts (possibly without the consent of the other party) isn't a good idea anywhere, worse on a site that gets 2 million+ visitors per day. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:45, June 7, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LiamRox101

99% hoax. The worst example of a non-wikipedia based essay i've ever seen. Ironholds 04:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non active user.[11] Waste of wiki-space. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Quasi-nonsense/hoax created by an inactive user. WP is not a webhost for publishing a fictional diary. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:48, June 7, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kersha Bailey

Isn't covered by personal information; reads as an advertisement. Ironholds 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete - WP is not the place to publish your resume/CV, but the page was only created yesterday evening [June 6]. However, the user has made no other contributions whatsoever, so common sense tells me that this user is unlikely to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:53, June 7, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per the reasoning of Richard, I'd prefer that we wait a bit longer before bringing this kind of pages to MfD, but WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#MYSPACE are pretty clear. Cenarium (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008-06-05

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games

I am proposing a deletion of this WikiProject and all related subpages. This project has remained inactive for an extrodinary amount of time. The last actual project related edit was May 2007, and many parts of this project have been dissolved. More bureaucracy has been created than necessary for the scope of this project.

Speaking of scope, the project primarily focuses on a genre and as User:Gazimoff wisely mentioned on the talk page of this project (in which we were discussing the inactivity of the project) as games in general develop more online capabilities and the MMO genre becomes increasingly popular, the overlap between this project and WikiProject Video Games becomes larger. The project is not really suitible for a taskforce under WP:VG either, because as I said before it is based around a genre of which it's scope is a wildcard and could encompass any possible number of articles. The distinction becomes blurred.

I also propose that the taskforces of this project are also deleted for similar concerns of inactivity and lack of participation. Any that has a consensus against deletion should be incorporated into WikiProject Video games. .:Alex:. 16:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. .:Alex:. 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - May I propose we don't do some kind of vote but instead ask User:Greeves? User:Krator (t c) 18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and tag as inactive We normally just tag inactive projects with {{inactive}} and keep them for their histories. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment - That is normally what we do. Atm, that is how it currently exists; however, we're moving to clean up the Video-game related Wikiprojects and deleting or redirecting the ones which are truly inactive is (we feel) better for the health of the project, as it centralizes both discussion and style guidelines. It also makes VG easier to maintain. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Then redirect them. Deleting the pages removes editor contribution history, which includes discussion and a record of what they did at the time. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to WP:VG, following the work at Inactive Project Cleanup. This project did achieve some good work, but in order to preserve history and promote easy navigation for new editors, it should be redirected to the parent project. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 08:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question But what about the subpages, would we redirect all of them as well? That is my main concern, not so much the index page for the project, but all of it's subpages. --.:Alex:. 09:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Last time we had a Project with many subpages (Warcraft), we deleted the subpages and redirected the project's page to its new task force page, which is how I support dealing with this one. My only qualm is that the task force of MU*, which claims to still be active. I've left a note on their talk page, and plan to do the same on the other task force pages. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• KeepRedirect But I'll withdraw my opposition to TF'ing it if the MUD TF is moved intact to be a TF of VG as well--it fits there just as well as under MMO. Yes, MUD TF is active, although at a rather low level. Jclemens (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be happy with moving the MUD TF to WP:VG - it promotes centralised discussion, which is what this project cleanup is all about. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I also agree with incorporating the MUD TF within WP:VG. --.:Alex:. 16:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fine by me, then. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and tag as inactive - I have become inactive in this project and although not all the task forces need to be kept as some of them were never active in the first place, the project as a whole should stay. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect main and main talk pages to WP:VG and WT:VG, move TF MU* to a subpage of WP:VG, and delete everything else. What purpose does the project as a whole serve except to decentralize discussion for video game editors? Obviously, the editor will see the "inactive sign", but then the editor needs to figure out where to go from there. Further, I don't see it useful as a Video game task force, since it has such a large scope. Everything from Counter-Strike to World of Warcraft to the original MUDs to (even) various RTS games... It is difficult to separate the difference between "MMO" and "video game" these days. --Izno (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect: Like the Dragon Quest project, this project has been largely inactive. Though the scope is sufficient to be a project, the lack of activity and improvement in related articles makes me think this would be better served as smaller task forces under the VG project. Such task forces could pull resources from the VG project as well as recruit interested members.
  Regarding the task forces currently under this project, I'd say the only one that should be carried over is MU*. The Neopets and Runescape have been inactive for a long time and the Neopets did not accumulate any noteworthy history. If history must be preserved, then redirect them both to WP:VG. But I think at the very least Neopets can be deleted with no problems. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] User:Fam quantum george

Delete Violation of WP:USER. User is recreating an article that was speedily deleted twice and then had to be protected so she/he didn't try to do so again. Ave Caesar (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete from his contributions, looks like this user should be warned and blocked for 2 weeks as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotional. — ERcheck (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Stub Example

I believe this page is redundant to WP:STUB and Category:Stub categories. Delete. — _Maggot^Syn 10:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weakish delete per nom. An example might well be helpful within WP:STUB, but this separate page doesn't seem particularly useful. That said, I'm willing to change my mind if someone can suggest a good reason why this should be kept. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Unnecessary - there is already a more complete explanation of what a stub is at WP:STUB, which explains what a stub is far more comprehensively than this example of only one type of stub. As such, I don't see it as adding anything - in fact, it does the opposite, since it ignores many other types of articles which qualify as stubs (e.g., Ejura, List of Governors of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Czech migration to the United Kingdom - none of which look of stub size or meeting the deinition at Wikipedia:Stub Example, but all of which are composed almost entirely of lists and/or infoboxes, with little actual text - and are therefore stubs). Grutness...wha? 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect really, why are we bothering with MfDs for pages like this? -- Ned Scott 07:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment.I'd like to point out that we already have a redirect for Wikipedia:Stub example. Notice the e is in lower case. — _Maggot^Syn 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant to WP:STUB, and as Grutness mentioned, not all stubs are one or two line articles. Redirection would serve little purpose as the page has no links (apart from within this MfD) and is an unlikely search term. People looking for examples of stubs will either go to WP:STUB or look through the stub categories. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 08:59, June 7, 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you all have no idea of what HUMOUR is. I created this page as an example of what a stub page is, following that abnormally long-winded essay wikipedia has about a stub. I felt that the best way to demonstrate a stub would be to put it right in front of the person. Plus, the only reason this page is not linked to is because the link was deleted from the WP:STUB page. Javascap (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we all know what humor is, but this is just not funny. The page was never marked as WP:HUMOR and if this was the reason it was created it would still be deleted. And also, WP:STUB did have a link to this page. — _Maggot^Syn 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rediect to WP:STUB. No need for deletion. It is even a useful redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cheerleaderr

wikipedia is not a webhost. Ironholds 23:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of random lists. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep editor just got here, and it's not even clear what the contents are meant to be. It would be far better if we actually talked to these editors before bringing their pages to MfD when they're only a few days old. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A few days have past and the user is yet to return, though waiting longer before MfDing would be appreciable. It's the user's single contribution, WP:NOT#WEBHOST seems to apply here. Cenarium (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is a borderline case, User:Cheergirlyy has been deleted (mfd) and it was, beyond any reasonable doubt, the same user and a very similar page. I don't think that it would be biting to delete as long as it's explained, I really don't know what is the purpose of this page. Now that it's MfD'd, I don't think that it would be harmful to delete, but not that harmful to keep either. Cenarium (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Only started on June 5. The user may make contributions yet. Renominate a year from now if there's nothing further. The content is not helpful, but it isnt harmful either, and not all that extensive--looks like an article draft for what will probably not amount to much of an article, but he user should be encouraged to try other things, not have their page deleted. Totally wrong way to go about things. Not just BITE, but DEVOUR. DGG (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and wait. This was MfD'd too soon. If page is deleted now the user will feel discouraged (and may be resentful?) when they come back. I've known editors who started using wikipedia by creating their userpage first and didn't come back for months (but the point is they did come back.) Also, that doesn't appear to be your average blog content; may be an attempt to carry out some fun Wiki-editing experiment. :) After all, we have no policies forbidding the use of userpage as a sandbox. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

[edit] 2008-06-12

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RestoreTheEmpireSociety (delete)

[edit] 2008-06-11

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WizetWiz (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PouponOnToast/LWR (deleted)

[edit] 2008-06-10

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:N78/Global Impact (delete all)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thatmilkthing (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xxkgxx (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lilac Soul/tagsnew.js (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lilac Soul/cites.js (speedy deleted)

[edit] 2008-06-09

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/The Kliq (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kivar2/sandbox2 (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kivar2/sandbox (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spiritus Nirin (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Juggernaut0102/userpagecontent/firstvillagepump (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Juggernaut0102/youcanedit (speedy deleted)

[edit] 2008-06-08

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GTA Ganxtaize/Blog (speedy deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Electrical Experiment/Userboxes/KKK (speedy deleted)

[edit] 2008-06-07

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:John C. Huang (keep as withdrawn)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Contents/Getting started) (speedy delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Davidhater (speedy keep)

[edit] 2008-06-06

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Unknown Hitchhiker/TGTIMACBEFAOS (delete)

[edit] 2008-06-05

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:6M2 (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cheergirlyy (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Country Of Nordic (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mil Falcon/Star Wars Christmas/Begin/Shoot the Stormtrooper/Continue/Send a squadron of Y-Wings and X-Wings to attack the Death star (delete all)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tomcraddock129 (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Redsox2434 (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riordod (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot_Approvals_Group_(3rd_nomination) (speedy keep)

[edit] 2008-06-04

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:TRNC is a Joke (speedy delete)

[edit] 2008-06-03

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mike subritzky (keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CJSaint (keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WP:PW/Members list/Active (speedy redirect)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WP100 and WP200 (snowball keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/SCOBY (speedy close)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Relyimah/Infobox User (speedy delete U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Runescapehelp (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Hipocrite (keep)

[edit] 2008-06-02

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joffrey17 (delete)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:InuYasha140 (delete)

[edit] 2008-06-01

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms (keep)