Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete - Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages is relevant here. User space is not a free pass to hide articles that were deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)
- User:PHG/Mongol alliances in the Middle-East
- User:PHG/East-West contacts
- User:PHG/1297-1304
These pages are contested prods that should be deleted both per Wikipedia:USER#Copies of other pages. PHG has recently been topic-banned on history articles. As part of the ArbCom case, it was discovered that he has been inappropriately archiving disputed and other history-related content in his userspace, some of which pages have been there for years. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- The nomination and some comments here are claimed by me to misrepresent the ArbComm decision, thus possibly prejudicing the situation. A header was placed here with information on that, it has been moved to Talk by editors on one side of this debate, please see Talk for this page, I assert that the information there is relevant to any review of this debate.--Abd (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. This is basically a procedural nom, as these particular articles were already discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision#Userspace, and the recommendation was to send them to MfD after the case closed. The "full version" article was already rejected by the community based on discussions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 5#Consensus poll. The "alliances in the Middle-East" article was already deleted via AfD,[1] and East-West contacts has been sitting in his userspace without change for two years. Per Wikipedia:USER#Copies of other pages, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content.". For the detailed ArbCom decision, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 19:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete these forks, as being unlikely to improve anything. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Will (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Do you have a reason why? -- Naerii 18:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep These personal user pages contain a large quantity of references and quotes related to the Franco-Mongol alliance and East-West relations which have been deleted from mainspace articles by some users mainly on grounds that the main article was too long (200k). This highly referenced material will be useful for future discussions, edits, and article expansion. These are not just archives of old pages but material I am working on for future discussions and article improvements. This is important material which should be kept. PHG (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The thought of deleting the fruits of so much labor offends my sensibilities. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This user as been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, WjBscribe 16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irrelevant? Part of the reason for his block was "Persistent disruption on XfD" - he was blanket voting keep on every MfD for instance (see here). You don't think that's relevant? WjBscribe 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yet here he gave a reason. Even if related, a note that simply says that he's blocked really doesn't help the closing admin, and if he wasn't blocked it would still (in theory) be worthy to note. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irrelevant? Part of the reason for his block was "Persistent disruption on XfD" - he was blanket voting keep on every MfD for instance (see here). You don't think that's relevant? WjBscribe 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This user as been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, WjBscribe 16:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The full Wiki-formatted plaintext for these articles can and should find a permanent home on PHG's hard drive if he wants to keep it for his own purposes. Wikipedia does not need to continue hosting it. Philwelch (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete these forks, they have already been rejected many times via community consensus. PHG can keep the full text or any notes he needs elsewhere; Wikipedia is not free hosting space. Shell babelfish 02:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: agree with Philwelch. PHG should save all this to his hard drive, since the fruits of so much labour should not be simply dissolved by community fiat. Wikipedia should not continue to host information which has been removed from articlespace in the process of content dispute resolution. On the other hand, he could slim them downed and modify them so that it is apparent they are mere "research notes" and not disputed content. If he does the former, delete. If the latter, review them and keep if they're legitimate. Srnec (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Questions / Comment: Is there a reason why a simple permanant link to the historical versions cannot be used, in case the deleted parts are of future use to the articles? Do these archived versions differ from what is in the revision histories? Note that if the archived versions are removed, the references to it on Talk:Franco-Mongol_alliance/Archive_5#Consensus_poll will not work. Dforest (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree, these versions are referenced extensively in various discussions related to the Franco-Mongol alliance. I am afraid some users are just trying to erase any reference to the longer content about the Franco-Mongol alliance, which is quite unfair. The longer version User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) is also not exactly a version accessible from article History as it has been improved independently during the process of the dispute. It stands in its own right, is linked as a reference to numerous archived discussions, and will still be used as material and reference for the future. PHG (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately PHG, you're the only one disputing it. I'm sorry that through all this you're still not willing to accept that, while your intentions are good, you're having a little difficulty sorting out references and properly conveying their meaning and intent. It would have been more appropriate to improve the article in place instead of creating and maintaining your own fork, but you're welcome to suggest any improvements that the mainspace article lacks on the talk page. We'd really like to reinvolve you in the collaborative editing process. Shell babelfish 09:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, these versions are referenced extensively in various discussions related to the Franco-Mongol alliance. I am afraid some users are just trying to erase any reference to the longer content about the Franco-Mongol alliance, which is quite unfair. The longer version User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) is also not exactly a version accessible from article History as it has been improved independently during the process of the dispute. It stands in its own right, is linked as a reference to numerous archived discussions, and will still be used as material and reference for the future. PHG (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per PHG. Don't see how this nomination is 'procedural' - if arbcom wants something deleted, they can delete it but until then it's up to the community to decide. The articles aren't doing any harm and contain vast quantities of references and work that could be useful for improving articles in the future. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- No, it's not problematic as he is no longer allowed to edit the article. I don't know if he's allowed to comment on talk pages, but the references might at least be useful to people who aren't going to misrepresent them. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It is absolutely not correct that this editor is "banned from writing on this topic." He is banned from directly editing the articles themselves. However, he is explicitly allowed to, in a civil fashion, suggest changes in Talk space. His sources may help him do this; then, any other editor may check the sources and edit the article accordingly. I'm quite disturbed that WJBscribe would misrepresent the situation like this, I would definitely expect him to know better. I have seen many editors do what is alleged of PHG: misrepresent what is in a source. It happens with experts. They understand something from their study, which may come from many sources, and then, because Wikipedia does require them to source what they write, they insert a source which is related, but which does not necessarily confirm all of what they have written. It can even happen that the source, on balance, contradicts what the writer has claimed. This is, in fact, why we have editors and fact checkers with any ordinary publication. Writers make mistakes. What ArbComm has done is to say, "You've made enough of these kinds of errors that you are not permitted to directly publish your work, it must be checked and edited." It would actually be a good thing if this was done more often! And it is not a charge of bad faith or deliberate misrepresentation. --Abd (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, there are no references in PHG's fork that don't already exist in the article. Second, he *is* banned from editing these articles. Third, this is not a case where PHG said more than the sources, he made claims that directly contradicted what the sources actually said; this has been confirmed by multiple editors and re-confirmed independently by Arbs during the case -- so yes, the potential for great harm exists here if other editors were to use the material PHG wrote without looking directly at the sources themselves. We don't keep POV forks around in userspace, especially not ones that were found to contain outright falsification of sources. Shell babelfish 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The editor is not banned from contributing to any article; he is merely restricted from doing so in a manner similar to any COI editor (though more strictly, perhaps, COI editors may make uncontroversial edits). He is encouraged to continue to contribute to the articles, through Talk and perhaps other means (such as discussing changes with other editors). He is required to do so in a civil manner. It's a quite clear decision, in fact, and it is being radically misrepresented here, with some editors insisting on their interpretations in spite of contrary evidence being presented. Ironic, indeed, that PHG is being trout-slapped for being untrue to source, when the same could be said about some editors here, who, presumably in good faith, are not accurately reporting the ArbComm decision. ArbComm did not accuse PHG of bad-faith editing, nor am I accusing other editors here of bad-faith sourcing from the ArbComm decision. Rather, it seems to be that the offense is almost identical: PHG, perhaps, wrote and sourced according to his own memory and overall impression of the sources; ArbComm specifically chided him for quoting a source as to one conclusion while neglecting other parts of the source that might indicate otherwise. Here, we have charges of falsifying sources, itself an exaggeration from what ArbComm actually concluded, but no mention of the fact that ArbComm specifically encouraged this editor to continue to contribute to the specific articles which he is banned from directly editing. This MfD is a very clear attempt to hinder that process, and, I increasingly conclude, is offensive and directly contrary to the ArbComm decision. --Abd (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The ArbCom decision does rather contemplate that PHG will stop misrepresenting sources. Encouraging him to keep copies of his versions of articles with distorted interpretations of sources o Wikipedia is hardly furthering the goal of requiring better editorial practice on his part. It is also contrary to the goals of this project - which is to host neutral and well referenced coverage... WjBscribe 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The editor is not banned from contributing to any article; he is merely restricted from doing so in a manner similar to any COI editor (though more strictly, perhaps, COI editors may make uncontroversial edits). He is encouraged to continue to contribute to the articles, through Talk and perhaps other means (such as discussing changes with other editors). He is required to do so in a civil manner. It's a quite clear decision, in fact, and it is being radically misrepresented here, with some editors insisting on their interpretations in spite of contrary evidence being presented. Ironic, indeed, that PHG is being trout-slapped for being untrue to source, when the same could be said about some editors here, who, presumably in good faith, are not accurately reporting the ArbComm decision. ArbComm did not accuse PHG of bad-faith editing, nor am I accusing other editors here of bad-faith sourcing from the ArbComm decision. Rather, it seems to be that the offense is almost identical: PHG, perhaps, wrote and sourced according to his own memory and overall impression of the sources; ArbComm specifically chided him for quoting a source as to one conclusion while neglecting other parts of the source that might indicate otherwise. Here, we have charges of falsifying sources, itself an exaggeration from what ArbComm actually concluded, but no mention of the fact that ArbComm specifically encouraged this editor to continue to contribute to the specific articles which he is banned from directly editing. This MfD is a very clear attempt to hinder that process, and, I increasingly conclude, is offensive and directly contrary to the ArbComm decision. --Abd (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, there are no references in PHG's fork that don't already exist in the article. Second, he *is* banned from editing these articles. Third, this is not a case where PHG said more than the sources, he made claims that directly contradicted what the sources actually said; this has been confirmed by multiple editors and re-confirmed independently by Arbs during the case -- so yes, the potential for great harm exists here if other editors were to use the material PHG wrote without looking directly at the sources themselves. We don't keep POV forks around in userspace, especially not ones that were found to contain outright falsification of sources. Shell babelfish 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is absolutely not correct that this editor is "banned from writing on this topic." He is banned from directly editing the articles themselves. However, he is explicitly allowed to, in a civil fashion, suggest changes in Talk space. His sources may help him do this; then, any other editor may check the sources and edit the article accordingly. I'm quite disturbed that WJBscribe would misrepresent the situation like this, I would definitely expect him to know better. I have seen many editors do what is alleged of PHG: misrepresent what is in a source. It happens with experts. They understand something from their study, which may come from many sources, and then, because Wikipedia does require them to source what they write, they insert a source which is related, but which does not necessarily confirm all of what they have written. It can even happen that the source, on balance, contradicts what the writer has claimed. This is, in fact, why we have editors and fact checkers with any ordinary publication. Writers make mistakes. What ArbComm has done is to say, "You've made enough of these kinds of errors that you are not permitted to directly publish your work, it must be checked and edited." It would actually be a good thing if this was done more often! And it is not a charge of bad faith or deliberate misrepresentation. --Abd (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's one thing to provide a list of references, such as at User:Elonka/Mongol historians. It's another to provide what appears to a community-approved Wikipedia article in one's userspace, especially when such an article is not community-approved. One of the subpages in PHG's userspace has already been through an AfD, where the community consensus was a clear "delete".[2] PHG's response was to just mirror the article in his own userspace, in defiance of the AfD. WP:USER is clear, that userspace cannot be used to indefinitely archive disputed content. Community consensus should be respected, and the deletion enforced. --Elonka 17:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Isn't this discussion to determine community consensus? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete. Effectively content forks rejected by consensus. PHG may of course save a personal copy of the texts. The vast amount of sources must be taken in context of the findings of ArbCom that PHG's use of sources has been highly selective and that he has misrepresented the content of the references he cites. These versions of articles are highly problematic having been rejected both by editorial consensus and seriously called into doubt by the later ArbCom findings about PHG's editing of Wikipedia. WjBscribe 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork in userspace. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- After reading Abd's comments below, I'm not sure enough about this to have a strong position anymore. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It is unfair to delete while the user is not in a position to do anything about it. As they sit they are not causing any damage. It's not as if it would save disk space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- He is perfectly free to do something about it, he can copy these "research notes" onto his own computer. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, he should save it, and be given time to do so, or else we are creating extra work for an administrator to recover the file. What if he is not watching this? The articles are problematic, that's certainly true. But that is not a reason to delete them from user space, and certainly not so soon after the decision. I agree with "not indefinitely archive," but MfD it while the editor is blocked? Now, after writing this, I looked at the alleged ArbComm recommendation from above: the recommendation was to send them to MfD after the case closed. That's a misrepresentation of what is at the link. This is what arbitrator Newyorkbrad actually wrote: If it's just a matter of two pages, then they can be MfD'd, after PHG has a chance to copy them off-wiki. If there were many such pages, then it might make sense to deal with them in the decision, so let us know if there are (or become) many more. Has he had a sufficient chance? He protested the removal immediately after that comment from Newyorkbrad. The ArbComm case closed on March 14, that's four days ago. The decision does not mention the pages. The arbitrator comment -- merely one arbitrator in Talk -- was not a "recommendation," but merely mentioned a possibility, and it set a condition which the nominator did not mention. If substantial time elapses, and they are still there, they can be MfD'd again, though the "collegial" thing for PHG to do would be to blank and speedy them after he's copied the content. Beautiful article, by the way, the one I read. If it's fiction, well done, just not for here. If not, what a shame.--Abd (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The editor was not blocked when the MfD was started and he's known this was coming since it was brought up weeks ago in the ArbCom case -- also, his block has now expired. There are many such pages that are being deleted, he's only contesting the ones that he is currently in an active dispute over -- this dispute is what led to his ArbCom sanctions where the committee agreed with the other involved editors that PHG was misrepresenting sources. So, given that we already know these pages are inaccurate, misuse and misrepresent sources and given that the community involved in the subject area has roundly rejected his novel theories and original research, and given that PHG was taken to ArbCom over this matter because he couldn't do the "collegial" thing, can you give any reason, based in policy, that these pages should be allowed to remain? Shell babelfish 05:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although I intend to follow the Arbcom ruling (I'm a Wikipedian after all), I disagree with the claim that I would have misrepresented sources. It has been shown that I never "invented" references as had been claimed, and all my references have always been quoted from proper published material. There has not been a single decisive case where it has been shown I would have misrepresentated sources. The pages under debate here actually constitute a rich source of proper referenced material, which will be highly usefull for any future work on the Franco-Mongol alliance. The attempt of a few editors here to delete any traces of this material is like destroying the evidence of the "adversary", or like purging the history books from any traces of a past opponent. I thus believe it is unfair to delete this material: everybody should be guarantied the opportunity to present his point-of-view and facts. These pages are also linked extensively from multiple Talk Pages, and are thus important source material in discussing the issues at hand. PHG (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but your statement is completely inaccurate. To quote the Arbitration "...PHG has cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support. Typically, PHG has isolated on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole... Arbitrators' independent review of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion..."
- This is not some small group of editors trying to bury an opposing viewpoint. However well-meant your contributions in this area may have been they were ultimately misguided. There is no chance that your research will be used in the future due to the misuse of sources. They were linked only by you when trying to push your POV, so nothing will be lost in those archived discussions that hasn't already been decided against. Shell babelfish 06:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The ArbComm ruling does not contradict what PHG wrote, and did not in any way indicate that PHG's research would not be "used in the future due to misuse of sources." He's restricted from editing the articles, that's all. He can, in a civil fashion, post to Talk as much as he likes, and we can use his provided sources, if we check them. What has been interdicted is the publication of material from him without verification or at least the approval of some other editor willing to stake his or her reputation on an edit involving them. This is quite similar, in fact, to the restrictions on a Conflict of interest editor.--Abd (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- So you honestly believe that we should use material already known to incorrectly represent the sources given? What exactly are we supposed to learn from this research especially given that all the references are already being used in the actual article, and being used properly? Its terribly disappointing to see you not only pushing this point in several places but now adding biased information to the header as if this were some kind of content dispute. Shell babelfish 13:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's quite apparent to me that a content dispute has, indeed, spilled over to here. "We" should use material in articles that is properly sourced and verified as such by the editor inserting it. That material may be suggested by PHG, and ArbComm has specifically encouraged him to do so. And this point in the Arbitration is being totally neglected by too many editors here. Deleting this material is contrary to the ArbComm decision, not, as presented, a mere procedural detail in response to it. I find it outrageous, actually. Let's let the MfD go where it goes, and if someone disagrees with what happened here, we have the whole dispute resolution process ahead of us.--Abd (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- So you honestly believe that we should use material already known to incorrectly represent the sources given? What exactly are we supposed to learn from this research especially given that all the references are already being used in the actual article, and being used properly? Its terribly disappointing to see you not only pushing this point in several places but now adding biased information to the header as if this were some kind of content dispute. Shell babelfish 13:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The ArbComm ruling does not contradict what PHG wrote, and did not in any way indicate that PHG's research would not be "used in the future due to misuse of sources." He's restricted from editing the articles, that's all. He can, in a civil fashion, post to Talk as much as he likes, and we can use his provided sources, if we check them. What has been interdicted is the publication of material from him without verification or at least the approval of some other editor willing to stake his or her reputation on an edit involving them. This is quite similar, in fact, to the restrictions on a Conflict of interest editor.--Abd (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although I intend to follow the Arbcom ruling (I'm a Wikipedian after all), I disagree with the claim that I would have misrepresented sources. It has been shown that I never "invented" references as had been claimed, and all my references have always been quoted from proper published material. There has not been a single decisive case where it has been shown I would have misrepresentated sources. The pages under debate here actually constitute a rich source of proper referenced material, which will be highly usefull for any future work on the Franco-Mongol alliance. The attempt of a few editors here to delete any traces of this material is like destroying the evidence of the "adversary", or like purging the history books from any traces of a past opponent. I thus believe it is unfair to delete this material: everybody should be guarantied the opportunity to present his point-of-view and facts. These pages are also linked extensively from multiple Talk Pages, and are thus important source material in discussing the issues at hand. PHG (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The editor was not blocked when the MfD was started and he's known this was coming since it was brought up weeks ago in the ArbCom case -- also, his block has now expired. There are many such pages that are being deleted, he's only contesting the ones that he is currently in an active dispute over -- this dispute is what led to his ArbCom sanctions where the committee agreed with the other involved editors that PHG was misrepresenting sources. So, given that we already know these pages are inaccurate, misuse and misrepresent sources and given that the community involved in the subject area has roundly rejected his novel theories and original research, and given that PHG was taken to ArbCom over this matter because he couldn't do the "collegial" thing, can you give any reason, based in policy, that these pages should be allowed to remain? Shell babelfish 05:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, deleted POV forks. Copies of deleted pages are not to be preserved indefinitely in userspace; send him the material if he wants it. --Coredesat 07:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and give this editor time to save the references, at least. I do not see how these harm the encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete POV forks that were deleted and should not be retained in userspace. --Fredrick day 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Frederick day. User space is not a permanent "Get Out of Jail Free" card for deleted material. As for the user saving it: well, he's had enough warning by now, so if he needs it, he ought to start copying right now. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I placed a header notice above, below the nomination, noting that the nominator was "COI" with respect to this issue, being an adverse party in the Arbitration, which has been seriously misrepresented here, and then I began to list the parties to the arbitration. Several principal parties have commented here, tendentiously, in fact. This section was removed to Talk, by an editor who has already !voted here. Such actions, if they are going to be taken, should be taken by neutral parties.--Abd (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- It appears that editors on one side of this debate are willing to edit war over this. I'm not. I made an NPOV statement above as preface, brief, and will leave the full prefatory comment in Talk.--Abd (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not that it's entirely relevant, but for the record, no, the nominator was not a listed party at the arbitration. KafkaLiz did provide evidence and commentary at the arbitration, but so did a lot of people. Abd, be careful of talking yourself into a Catch-22 here. The reality is that an arbitrator did suggest an MfD at the decision talkpage, and it's perfectly reasonable that the MfD be launched (and participated in) by people who are familiar with the topic. All the parties, including PHG, are welcome to participate at the MfD. The discussion is also open to anyone else who wants to participate. There's no big COI conspiracy here. --Elonka 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- What Elonka has "clarified" here was clear in what I inserted, above, which is now in Talk. KafkaLiz was not a listed party, which is why that user was separately listed, in a list that was intended to include all involved parties (on both sides). I was not going to list Durova, and possibly some others, for she really only provided some evidence not related to the content dispute leading to this MfD. I have previously, in this discussion, or on my Talk page in response to the editors objecting to the insertion of that information, described exactly what arbitrator Newyorkbrad stated, and it is not what was represented, that is, it wasn't a recommendation, and it was conditional, and definitely not any part of the decision. Further, my comments, removed to Talk, specifically stated that such editors -- involved in the content dispute -- were free to comment here, but I think that we need to know if it someone has taken a side on a content dispute and then wants to go beyond the normal boundaries of such (AfD or an ArbComm decision restricting article editing) and delete what amount to a users notes on the content, possibly useful for what has not only been permitted but actually encouraged by ArbComm. No reasonable basis for that deletion has been asserted here, beyond vague charges that it is, what, all trash?--Abd (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not that it's entirely relevant, but for the record, no, the nominator was not a listed party at the arbitration. KafkaLiz did provide evidence and commentary at the arbitration, but so did a lot of people. Abd, be careful of talking yourself into a Catch-22 here. The reality is that an arbitrator did suggest an MfD at the decision talkpage, and it's perfectly reasonable that the MfD be launched (and participated in) by people who are familiar with the topic. All the parties, including PHG, are welcome to participate at the MfD. The discussion is also open to anyone else who wants to participate. There's no big COI conspiracy here. --Elonka 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that editors on one side of this debate are willing to edit war over this. I'm not. I made an NPOV statement above as preface, brief, and will leave the full prefatory comment in Talk.--Abd (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; per Elonka, these are not apparently going to be integrated into the existing articles. This MFD gives PHG (or anyone else) plenty of time to download a private copy if they are concerned about preserving the material. Mangojuicetalk 17:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Elonka. Resolute 19:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Since this is a messy and controversial issue, it would be best for all if these pages are deleted. No objection to giving this editor time to save the text off-wiki, or even having an administrator send him the text by email if he misses something. Deletion would hopefully mark the end of a number of disputes that might continue indefinitely if the sub-pages were kept. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WjBscribe, Elonka, and a dislike for retention of POV forks full of dodgy references. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think it might be appropriate to request clarification from ArbCom before closing this MfD, which would likely settle the matter in itself. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all as per WjBScribe, Elonka, Shell Kinney, Frederick Day, Phil Welch, and others. ArbCom determined that the content of these articles was not appropriate for Wikipedia, and there is no reason to retain inappropriate (OR) material in userspace, especially when the user is topic banned; retention invites proxy-editing by others, which is equally unacceptable. Horologium (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per Wikipedia:USER#Copies of other pages. If PHG wants these, I'd recommend he copy them now, if he hasn't already. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The wording of Wikipedia:USER#Copies of other pages is pretty clear on this. rudra (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep
Keep, I guess, unless someone can argue why this content is actually harmful to the wiki in userspace? (the guideline unwisely neglects to provide reasons). I still have copies of some old stuff in my userspace too IIRC. It used to be the case that it was totally appropriate to move stuff to userspace if you're still working on it or whatever. So I disagree with that addition to policy. (don't have time to actually fix all policy at once though). If it's OK for PHGs harddrive, it's ok here too I suppose. Deleting it only costs us more HD space, so that's no reason to do so. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)- Could someone provide the rationale that I'm missing from the guideline? Several people are quoting the page, so they should be able to. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- To name two on this page, User:WJBscribe's comments of 16:36, 19 March 2008 and User:Shell_Kinney's comments of 06:41, 19 March 2008; supported by ArbCom's finding #2. Unless you think ENCOURAGING the display of unreliable information by someone sanctioned for doing just that is NOT "actually harmful". --Calton | Talk 05:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, but this is in user space, what harm is it doing there? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC) switched to weak keep on the basis of your arguments so far
- Because it circumvents the system, and would make AfDs pretty much meaningless. Think of it this way: Suppose on every single AfD, if after there was a close of "delete", the article creator just mirrored their article in their userspace. Or that anytime there was a dispute about spam or other inappropriate information in an article, rather than hammering out a consensus at talk, anyone who disagreed was allowed to make a forked version of the article in their own userspace, with their own spin on things. There would suddenly be thousands of alternate versions of articles flowing into userspace, where they'd be able to say anything they wanted, with no regard for Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or concerns from other editors. Searches would also become very complex, as whenever you tried to search on something, you might get several different versions of the same article. And to non-Wikipedians that were coming in from Google or some other link, they would probably totally miss the difference between a "real" community-crafted article, vs. a solo-written biased piece in someone's userspace. Both would look the same to the outside world. Basically, it would become a confusing nightmare. These are just a few of the very good reasons for WP:USER#Copies of other pages, and there may be others, but those are the ones off the top of my head. :) In a nutshell: If someone wants to maintain their own POV version of something, they can easily setup a free webpage somewhere. But Wikipedia is not to be used as their personal soapbox. --Elonka 07:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, but this is in user space, what harm is it doing there? And adding a prefix to the page title changes the fundamental harm outlined for you HOW, exactly? It's equally on Wikipedia, whatever namespace you use. And if it's so damned important to him, he has a hard drive of his own to use. --Calton | Talk 10:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because it circumvents the system, and would make AfDs pretty much meaningless. Think of it this way: Suppose on every single AfD, if after there was a close of "delete", the article creator just mirrored their article in their userspace. Or that anytime there was a dispute about spam or other inappropriate information in an article, rather than hammering out a consensus at talk, anyone who disagreed was allowed to make a forked version of the article in their own userspace, with their own spin on things. There would suddenly be thousands of alternate versions of articles flowing into userspace, where they'd be able to say anything they wanted, with no regard for Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or concerns from other editors. Searches would also become very complex, as whenever you tried to search on something, you might get several different versions of the same article. And to non-Wikipedians that were coming in from Google or some other link, they would probably totally miss the difference between a "real" community-crafted article, vs. a solo-written biased piece in someone's userspace. Both would look the same to the outside world. Basically, it would become a confusing nightmare. These are just a few of the very good reasons for WP:USER#Copies of other pages, and there may be others, but those are the ones off the top of my head. :) In a nutshell: If someone wants to maintain their own POV version of something, they can easily setup a free webpage somewhere. But Wikipedia is not to be used as their personal soapbox. --Elonka 07:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, but this is in user space, what harm is it doing there? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC) switched to weak keep on the basis of your arguments so far
- To name two on this page, User:WJBscribe's comments of 16:36, 19 March 2008 and User:Shell_Kinney's comments of 06:41, 19 March 2008; supported by ArbCom's finding #2. Unless you think ENCOURAGING the display of unreliable information by someone sanctioned for doing just that is NOT "actually harmful". --Calton | Talk 05:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone provide the rationale that I'm missing from the guideline? Several people are quoting the page, so they should be able to. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- 'Delete all as per Horologium and the others mentioned by him, etc. Will this include User:PHG/Alliance as this is the first Google entry you find when you enter franco-mongol alliance phg? It was finding that so easily that made me convinced that in the circumstances it would be wrong to allow this material to be stored. I agree that non-Wikipedians would very likely not see the difference between his user pages and 'real' Wikipedia articles. Userpages shouldn't be used to store articles that are personal versions of Wikipedia articles (just as I had to ask a pdf to be deleted that was being stored on Wikipedia for reference as the OR it contained couldn't be found on the web). Allowing this to be kept could set an unfortunate precedent.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all in most cases, for the same reason they were deleted from article space. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete User:PHG/Mongol_alliances_in_the_Middle-East as not GFDL compliant - even if it clearly stated where it came from - the source has been deleted so there is no attribution. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I have added User:PHG/1297-1304 to the list of affected articles here, because someone deleted the prod on it. However, I feel that it still applies as part of this batch, as it is a re-creation of content that was already deleted via AfD.[3] Since we're late in the game on this MfD, we could also submit it for its own separate MfD process too, but I don't really see as that's necessary. Let me know if anyone disagrees with the addition? --Elonka 17:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
