Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Childhoodsend/Balance check (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD U1. "No decision reached but user agrees to delete the page." (See user's comments below). Xoloz 05:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Childhoodsend/Balance check

Previously, this page was speedy deleted as a CSD G10 during its first MfD. DRV overturned, finding that the page was not a CSD G10. Still, Delete, as inappropriate use of userspace. Xoloz 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - attack page. Raul654 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • While I'm sympathetic, at this point, that action would be a clear mistake. A consensus has determined the page is not an "attack page" within the meaning of G10. To speedy delete against that consensus determination would provoke a tempest for little reason. Letting the MfD run for five days, out of respect for a consensus contrary to one's personal view, is an admirable sign of community spirit. Xoloz 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • And for the record, if this page is kept, I see no reason not to create my own userspace subpage, with a list of all the global warming deniers and an expanded version of my explanation of their POV pushing tactics Raul654 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to show how irrelevant you currently are, let me quickly point out that I would not mind at all that you would create a page named "list of editors sketpical of AGW". I would although mind being called a "denier", first because this is derogatory, and second because I am not a "denier" in the first place. --Childhood's End 17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, you already maintain and cite to such a list. If you think they are attacks, then we owe you several warnings. But you raise a good point that everyone should ponder. If we allow this page, we logically must allow all such pages. I really don't know whether this hurts or helps the project. If this results in user page edit wars, I think it would be a very bad thing. Cool Hand Luke 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
A comment buried in one of a thousand archived pages is clealy not the same thing as a single-purpose attack page. Raul654 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
To make sure we're clear on this: you think it would be acceptable to cut and paste this content on to talk pages all over wikipedia? Should CE just do that instead? Is that really better? I have a hard time accepting that this (1) is an attack page and (2) ceases being an attack when posted anywhere else. If such lists are poisonous, they're poisonous everywhere. At any rate, Weak delete because inviting other users to edit this list promises to be an unproductive time sink with a strong potential to incite violations of WP:CIV. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Raul654 claims the the edit he made, in which he blatantly violates WP:CIV and WP:NPA, is a long-lost edit is inaccurate, as he repeatedly cites his proud attack, even one as recent as 11 days ago.[1] Luckily, Raul654 knows this isn't an attack page, and is backing away from the spurious claim and is now saying it's polemic, which I address below. Cheers. ~ UBeR 02:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If he cites that list he made multiple times, it's not exactly "buried". It actually seems worse, IMO, than CE's list that is out in the open to be discussed and debated. Raul654: How would you feel if someone edited that comment that you've cited in order to "clear up their good name".? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not want anyone editing my comments but me. But to respond to Uber's comment above - I am not back down. It's clearly an attack page (which makes it a speedy deletion candiate), and it's polemical (which is explicitly prohibited by the Wikipedia:User page you cited). Raul654 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think it is an attack, but if this page is, then this repeated list is as well. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Raul654, it is neither polemic or an attack. You've failed to prove either of your points. Argumentum ad infinitum is not a valid argument. ~ UBeR 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep according to user page guidelines, a user page may be used to "To delineate views on Wikipedia, its functioning, or behavior of Wikipedians in general". This page simply delineates the views of users when it comes to the theory of global warming. Sasha Callahan 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The page's purpose is, and will always be restrained, to "delineate views on Wikipedia, its functioning, or behavior of Wikipedians in general" per WP:USER. Such purpose becomes even more relevant in a heated topic such as global warming. I have added the following indication to the page in the hope of clarifying the page's mandatory limits (improvements are of course welcome) :
Any edit that can reasonably be construed as an attack or uncivil towards any administrator or editor must be, and will be, deleted. Any person whose name is listed herein and thinks that his/her opinion is being mischaracterized is welcome to adjust the listing accordingly. --Childhood's End 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Let's please have DNA samples of all adult citizens. You disagree? No problem, just opt out. We will post a public list of all these enemies of law enforcement on the web. --Stephan Schulz 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a red herring. No DNA samples or else are asked here; there's only a suggested list on which you have a call if your views are being mischaracterized. I fail to see the relevance of law enforcement here. --Childhood's End 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I'm quite ready to explain what should need no explanation. You set up a proposition about certain Wikipedians. They now have two options. Either they ignore it, implicitly granting the proposition and by association, the implied claim that only overwhelming and unfair admin force keeps global warming in the communist-left-wing-whacko state supported by all major academies of science, or they remove themselves, opening themselves up to the two-pronged attack of either "look, not even X supports AGW anymore" or "why does X want to hide the fact that he or she supports AGW"? Add to this the fact that you still have not explained what useful purpose this page should have... --Stephan Schulz 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Two questions:
  1. How is this different from just supporting "mainstream science"? (The implied claim you suggest is really more inferred that directly implied, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I do think that a lot of AGW critics feel that way.)
  2. How is this incompatible with use #3 of Wikipedia:User page?
Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't get the reference in the first question. How is what different? As for the second: The section you quote is about user page creation. #3 refers to "views on Wikipedia, its functioning, or behavior of Wikipedians in general". None of this applies. It's about very specific Wikipedians. More relevant is, by the way Wikipedia:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, which lists, amoung others "Other non-encyclopedic material" and "Polemical statements", both of which apply here. --Stephan Schulz 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As for my first statement, I was referring to "implicitly granting the proposition and by association, the implied claim that only overwhelming and unfair admin force keeps global warming in the communist-left-wing-whacko state supported by all major academies of science". Ignoring the "communist-left-wing-whack state supported" bit which isn't on that user page, how is that different from "implicitly granting the proposition the claim that only admin force keeps mainstream science where it belongs"? As for my second statement, I see your point. I was confusing "Wikipedians in general" with just "Wikipedians". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Stephan's second point, if held, would empty the policy's meaning, as it is obviously impossible to hold a user page which delineates the behavior of all Wikipedians in general. --Childhood's End 20:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It is possible to talk about Wikipedians in general without discussing specific Wikipedians or talking about all Wikipedians. For example, there is a subtext that many think (including me) think you're trying to get across with that page that doesn't specifically require "naming names" in order to do so. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As much as I disagree with CE on global warming, (a) this is a user page, (b) it does not appear to be defamatory in any way, and (c) he has invited others to contribute. Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about. If someone has posted a similar page on editors who don't believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, would that be a big deal? (I understand this issue is somewhat different since although the scientific community is overwhelmingly supportive of the evidence behind AGW, the general public is far more confused at to what to believe.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral cf Wikipedia:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F and the uses outlined in Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_create_a_user_subpage.3F. It is "discussion related to Wikipedia", so it doesn't really fall into the "Other non-encyclopedic material". OTOH, It fails to meet the "Wikipedians in general" clause alluded to previously as it is naming specific Wikipedians. Although I wouldn't call it polemic, it does tend to divide Wikipedia into "us" versus "them" — or, more correctly, contributes to the existing division, which is a weaker version of being polemic. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm troubled by this page. I am unconvinced this is utterly benign, but feel it falls a long way short of attack. I also don't believe that this is in the spirit of "behavior of Wikipedians in general". Furthermore, I am unconvinced of its utility... it's irrelevant. If it has to exist, I would be most happy if Childhoodsend converted this to an opt-in, or at least offered people an opt-out regardless of "mischaracterisation". One reason for being bothered by this is the concern that it could be copied by contributors to some of the hottest topics, which would inevitably cause serious disruption. For now, I hold short of calling "delete". --Dweller 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (as original nominator). The page is a poster example of propaganda and serves no useful purpose on Wikipedia. Some of the more obvious points are:
  • The author uses the apparently subjective voice to label editors according to his own opinion.
  • The name, "balance check", suggests that just this is lacking, of course. This ignores the fact that this distribution closely matches the balance of opinion among qualifies scientists and scientific organization, as evident from scientific opinion on climate change.
  • The page further suggests imbalance by concentrating on admins, ignoring the fact that this is a (more or less permanent) content dispute, and admins have no special role in this. Many or even most of the admins have been arguing this topic with the same skill, knowledge, and energy before their promotion.
To sum up: This page has no purpose except painting one side in the Wikipedia global warming conflict as the innocent and helpless victims of the overbearing admin force of the other side. As such it is a subtle but clear attack page.
--Stephan Schulz 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment As a user page, does it really need to have a solid purpose? Also, one could view it more as an (unintentional) honor than an attack. If he changed the section title from "Administrators known to clearly support the theory of anthropogenic global warming" to "Administrators known to clearly support science", would you still think it was an "attack page"? Now, I'm somewhat ignorant as to the "ways of Wikipedia" (although I am learning), this seems appropriate within the scope of a user page (and only there, mind you). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps I could say that I'm completely open to revisiting the page's name if it is deemed problematic. --Childhood's End 16:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll retract my opposition if you change the labels to "Wikipedians supporting a fair and balanced representation of scientific positions", although others might still be unhappy. --Stephan Schulz 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought that your proposal had merit and I made a change towards it. Not sure if it will entirely ease your worries though, but that's a step, or so I hope. --Childhood's End 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - inappropriate. Not categorically inappropriate, but this is inappropriate because it violates WP:CIV by commenting on contributors rather than contribution, and by imagining that those on the list all have pre-formed opinions. I can see why those on the page feel attacked. But I can't see why or how the page would be helpful in a legitimate way. Mangojuicetalk 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Gimme a break. Garion96 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest delete possible - And next we can just create subpages for administrators who believe in Santa Claus and bureaucrats that support Arctic drilling, and CheckUsers who think they're Jimbo. It's about as pointless as all of those listed. I mean, it serves no useful purpose whatsoever, towards building an encyclopedia. Also, per Mangojuice. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a user page, which is not meant to contribute "towards building an encyclopedia". See use #3 of user pages. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Please go publish that stuff in a local newspaper. This is not the place. -- the woman who sold the world  - [buy] 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:USER and WP:AGF. This page is innocuous. ~ UBeR 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What may I not have on my user page? ... Polemical statements - Wikipedia:User page. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. - Wikipedia:Assume good faith Raul654 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • First, it's not polemical. Are you infuriated you're listed as someone who supports the IPCC view? If you really are, you can politely ask Childhoodsend to remove your name. Same for any other administrator listed. As outlined above, Childhoodsend is allowed to use his user page "To delineate views on Wikipedia, its functioning, or behavior of Wikipedians in general."
      • Second, one must assume good faith in what Childhoodsend is doing here, per the behavior guideline. You may claim all you want that you have "evidence to the contrary," but it's evident that claim is baseless, as your attempts to ridicule his contributions to Wikipedia and have him banned were promptly dismissed by the community. ~ UBeR 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, attack page. This has no purpose other than to disparage its subjects; if the goal was actually 'collecting evidence' that could be done on one's hard drive. >Radiant< 09:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I still wonder how it can be seen as disparaging to its subjects. In any event, what is usually disparaging is to be identified as someone who does not support the IPCC, not the other way around. Is it disparaging to be identified as someone who believes in gravity or evolution? You must ponder this question since right now, Wikipedia suggests that evolution and climate change are on similar scientific footings. --Childhood's End 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Supporting AGW theory is a perfectly legitimate and respectable position. Being identified as such cannot be construed as an attack. Iceage77 09:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - MangoJuice's arguments tipped me over the edge from "troubled" to "anti". And I still shudder at the thought of someone doing this for pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian or some other hot potato. --Dweller 09:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I thought that supporting AGW was less of a controversial position than supporting either Israel or Palestinians? --Childhood's End 12:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree. However, should we approve your list, anyone wishing to do similar for a more contentious issue has a precedent to cite. While I'm at it, I'll make clear that that is not a key reason for opting for Delete. --Dweller 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ratio decidendi discussion. Just wondering. Are deletion decisions essentially based on the number of votes for each side, or are they based on substance? I think the question ought to be discussed because except perhaps for Stephan Shchultz's policy point, most delete votes are from editors coming by to say "I dont like it" (The Woman who sold the world, CoolBlue, Garion96) or to suggest it's an attack page (Raul, Radiant), which argument has been addressed and turned down already. --Childhood's End 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That you and Uber claim it's not an attack page does not make it so. Raul654 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you miss the deletion review? That would be strange since you participated in it with this very same argument. --Childhood's End 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No, but almost no one thinks its an attack page, which it probably more convincing from non-party admins than your contrary assertions, Raul. That said, there are plenty of good arguments for deletion here. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't like it and I think it is quite sad we are actually discussing, including a DRV, whether to delete this page or not. But for a full argument, this page is divisive by commenting on contributors rather than content. Next one will be a list of admins known to adhere to the POV of President Bush. Following that a list of admins known to adhere the POV of whoever wins the democratic primaries) etc etc. Garion96 (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The relevant discussion seems to be about how to interpret WP:USER and I'll look at it more closely. Now, allow me to highlight that Radiant has undertook to modify the policy during the current debate by essentially copy/pasting his comment above in the policy! [2] --Childhood's End 13:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, *fDs are not votes. And I think it's unfair to characterise the majority of deletion opts as "I don't like it"s. --Dweller 15:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - This user subpage violates 'Wikipedia:User page:Polemical statements' as a collect evidence against others. Such a prohibition has been in place since Jimbo's 29 September 2006 statement per Foundation issue #5. It also raises serious WP:BLP concerns. Under Wikipedia:Assume good faith, editors need not continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. While not meeting "evidence to the contrary" by itself, I see Childhoodsend's maintaining of this page before and after its speedy deletion and the August 16, 2007 DRV as moving away from harmoniously working with others as set out in Wikipedia:Civility and contributing towards meeting the "evidence to the contrary". Taunting Raul654, one of the targets of the polemic user subpage, in this MfD[3] also contributes towards meeting the "evidence to the contrary". The user subpage, the DRV, and this MfD coupled with any future polemic pages or similar postings by Childhoodsend may justify a WP:CSD#G10 speedy delete of similar postings/pages no matter where they occur in Wikipedia. A good faith gesture by Childhoodsend to move away from this wrong path would be to delete this user subpage before the close of this MfD. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the WP:BLP issue. Indeed, while I knew that it applies to user pages, I had not really thought about editors as subjects. Thus, CE's classification would require reliable sources (to quote: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully."). --Stephan Schulz 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
First, look up the word polemic (in Wikipedia or in any dictionary). I don't think it means what you think it means. (I looked it up, and realized that I've used the word incorrectly myself.) Secondly, how is this an "attack"? It is dividing us into "us" vs. "them" camps, which I don't care for, but it's hardly an attack. What has he said there that you find insulting? As for Raul654, have you looked at CE's argument about his user page? Other than (a) CE is allowing others to edit this, (b) his comments are not as divisive as "anti-science POV pushers", and (c) it's actually open for everyone to critique, how is his page significantly different? (To help you assume good faith on my part, I want you to look at my past contributions, if you're not already aware of them. I'm quite certain that Raul654 would not be tempted to add me to his list of "anti-science POV pushers".) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Jreferee, I do ponder deleting it since some time, at least out of exhaustion, if not for giving up to some people's discomfort. I see it causes some 'anxiety', although I fail to see a convincing rationale so far and failing any, I find it unfair to be nonetheless forced towards deletion while for instance, Raul654 has made direct and blatant personal attacks against me or others in the past, and attempts to have them chided or even deleted have been turned down. But this is only about fairness, and I want to discuss your substance.
You are right that WP:USER prohibits polemical statements, but it is very far from obvious that this page falls into this category, and it's not meant to. Moreover, I would find it appalling that you would use the part about "collecting evidence" since i- this part has been added to the policy by Radiant during this deletion review [4] (how legitimate is this?!?) and ii- there is no evidence collected on the page anyway. It's only giving an idea of the current state of opinion of the corpus of admins involved in the global warming articles, without making any judgment. As for WP:BLP, Mr. Wales makes it quite clear that it doesnt apply to user pages (at least not in full, meaning that it does prohibit libel and such, which is not the case here).
Allow me to ponder for some time the arguments made so far and those perhaps forthcoming, and I'll reach a decision before this review is over. Thanks much for your input. --Childhood's End 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the polemic part either, but this type of collecting evidence against others is not an appropriate use of a user page. The evidence collected is inappropriate and the posted collection of evidence against multiple people is inappropriate. You are far from the first person to do this sort of thing and such intimidating use of user pages needs to end. Radiant is correct in working towards ending this practice on Wikipedia. Your previously good behavior kept this page from being an attack page. Previous bad behavior plus this page could have easily turned it into an attack page and still can. Why keep something that diminishes the assume good faith level in which others can judge your actions? Some seem to justify this sort of user subpage use by the list of common uses for user subpages. However, collecting information to represent accurately and precisely the behavior of Wikipedians in general as provided at common uses for user subpages item #3 is distinct from collecting evidence against specific Wikipedians. As for WP:BLP, BLP states "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." and so BLP does apply here. Jimbo's actions are tricky to figure out. Through Foundation issue #5, Jimbo has a magic pencil and a magic eraser. He chose not to modify the above WP:BLP statement, so his comment about WP:BLP applying to user pages was merely as an editor. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The BLP and polemic claims are specious. These claims here are not controversial. As I stated above, if any user listed here is offended they are labeled as an IPCC supporter, then they can politely ask Childhoodsend to remove their name, or they can do it themselves. These are not extraordinary claims. The claims made in the subpage are common knowledge and require no special sourcing, although I wouldn't say it would hurt any to do so. So now that the attack, polemic, and BPL claims are all baseless, what's left? ~ UBeR 23:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I dont get the "evidence" point. Evidence for what? I dont see what for I could use it. As long as this page remains a list of opinions held, it can serve no other purpose but its stated purpose no? --Childhood's End 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, serious question Jreferee: What if he now shrunk this down to a single comment and posted it as a reply to something on his talk page? (Note: I am not suggesting he do so.) Would he then be free to keep such a comment and refer back to it as Raul654 has done? I know that someone is going to say that just because X has done something doesn't mean that it's OK for Y to do it, but no one who has said delete has chastised Raul654 one bit for his posting, as far as I can tell. If you're going to say this is not OK, you need to say it's not OK for Raul654 to do it, either. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Follows guidelines as far as I can tell. --Theblog 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per Jreferee and Radiant. If it was a list that allowed users to put themselves on it or not then thats fine, but as it's constructed by someone else I think it's uncivil. - Shudde talk 03:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jreferee. Eluchil404 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as subjective characterization of others. Would we allow someone to set up a so-called "balance check" with a list of admins they considered left/right wing, or pro/anti-Palestinian, or Holocaust accepters/deniers, or other criteria? (The dichotomy "adhere to the IPCC view" versus "skeptical of the theory of AGW" is fundamentally ill-posed, and shows unfamiliarity with the scientific meaning of "theory", but those are separate issues.) Raymond Arritt 05:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I hope that by coming here and raising my "subjective characterization of others", we can understand that you propose to modify your own user page accordingly? --Childhood's End 15:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, with Comments - first I'd like to say that I'm getting mighty sick of seeing so much WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially from long-time editors and administrators. It's tremendously irritating to me when people who've been around for awhile whip out the righteous moral outrage like it's new to them. Unless I'm missing something deep and fundamental here, I see a lot of people frothing at the mouth over nothing. The user doesn't have a history of physical threats, the page doesn't directly threaten or attack anyone, and the creator has responded to editor concerns by offering it up for discussion and oversight. In response, people act like he's composed himself a hit-list and is loading his pistol. Heck, maybe he has...but there's no proof, and you can't argue motive without assuming bad faith yourself. Thus, it boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oh, and I agree it's undoubtably polemical and thus should be squished. Besides, voluntarily taking it off general distribution would be a great way to prove it's not designed as a threat. 66.82.9.83 07:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an attack page and definitely an inappropriate use of userspace. However, given the DRV overturning the original speedy deletion, it can't be speedily deleted again here. --Coredesat 07:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete singling out users because of their views on your userspace effectively makes that page an attack page. Completely inappropriate use of userspace.--Jersey Devil 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Though I'm not sure if I really think this should be kept, the idea that this is an "attack page" is silly, unless you find it offensive to be called a supporter of agw. I do take object to the name "Balance check." Atropos 08:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Section break for associated discussion

  • Comment I hate to keep bringing this up, but no one who has supported this as a delete has mentioned whether they think that Raul654's list and citations of it (mentioned several times) are inappropriate (except for one or twoRaul who thinks it is appropriate, but did not address questions addressing mistaken assumptions in that thinking). Given that his list is undeniably an attack and uncivil, I'm troubled by this inconsistency. The reason that this hypocrisyinconsistency bothers me so much is exactly because it is coming from people who I otherwise mostly agree with. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If you're bothered by Raul's behaviour, please open an RfC or similar process where it can be properly analysed (with diffs) and discussed. This MfD is difficult enough to decide on without muddying the waters by discussing two different problems. And please be careful with throwing around allegations of "hypocrisy" - this page has largely been pretty civil to-date, which is commendable. We don't need it to degenerate. --Dweller 13:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think there is a substantial difference between a statement of opinion issued during a vibrant discussion on a high-traffic, highly-watched noticeboard that routinely deals with the behavior of editors, and a page prepared without stated purpose and without useful discussion. The civility and even appropriateness of Raul's list may be debatable, but it had a clear and open purpose. This is a very different situation. Also, of course WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument, and this is not the correct forum to discuss arbitrary topics. I don't think you intend this, but this is in fact an ad-hominem: "Raul opposes CE's list, but had a similar list (debatable), therefore he is wrong, and everybody on the same side is wrong by association". This is, of course, a logical fallacy, and the demand that everybody follows my bad example and discusses the other case now and here is neither helpful nor reasonable. --Stephan Schulz 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've already addressed the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and I'm definitely not engaging in ad hominem attacks as I'm not claiming that this makes those delete comments incorrect. Again, I'm not using this as a defense for CE's list (hence this is not a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument). If Raul's list had simply ended at him making an off-the-cuff comment, you'd be right in your defense of it. The fact that he has cited back to it, is what makes it do different from CE's list. I think this is very appropriate to the topic at hand, as I get the feeling that there is at least the impression that this is an "us" versus "them" type of voting. This feeling would be alleviated if people who are against CE's list would acknowledge that Raul's citing back to an uncivil list that he built of editors is just as inappropriate, if not more so. (emphasizing purpose of this discussion) Your comment "the civility and even appropriateness of Raul's list may be debatable, but it had a clear and open purpose," is a start except that (a) you merely say it's debatable without stating that you think it's wrong, and (b) you then tacitly defend it by saying it has a "clear and open purpose". That seems to suggest (and I know this is not your intention) that CE's list would be better if he were more POV and uncivil. I.e., if he made it into the "attack" page that many people are claiming it secretly is. (I'm assuming you think this is not clear and is a secret, by extension of it not having a "clear" and "open" purpose.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The only difference between Raul654's comments and the comments on this subpage is that Raul654's comments aren't on a subpage, they're personal attacks, and they're uncivil. ~ UBeR 14:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
          • This discussion is unhelpful and inappropriate here. Please find an appropriate forum if you wish to continue. --Dweller 15:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
            • I must disagree. This discussion addresses the consistency of WP's decision-making process. If no personal attacks were found there, I hope none is found here. The precedent was set, unless someone proposes it for review. Same applies to Raul's list (which presumably is ok if his blatant personal attacks are ok?) --Childhood's End 16:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
              • No. This is an MfD. We are addressing whether one single page should be deleted, in line with policy. Similarity or response to any other pages is irrelevant. If you are unhappy with other pages, they should be addressed elsewhere. --Dweller 16:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
                • I think part of this stems from a genuine effort to understand why Raul's statements might be OK and CE's page is not. Part of addressing the current issue is understanding where the line is so that a rational argument can be made as to whether CE's page has crossed it, and more importantly to CE (I assume), whether there is a way he can fix his page so that it doesn't cross that line. Hence, whether or not Raul's comments are appropriate do relate to the issue at hand. For example, would CE's page be OK if it wasn't a page, but merely a section on his talk page? What if it were posted as a reply to a comment on his talk page? Do you understand how the issue seems vague in light of the fact that an administrator (Raul) is claiming that his comments do not cross the line, but CE's page does? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
                • Dweller, what is in line with policy is almost always up for interpretation, and deletion decisions are usually taken upon such interpretations. How policies are interpreted should, I hope you agree, be consistent with past decisions and be reflected upon future decisions. If this page is deleted for reasons that are not consistent with past decisions, and for a rationale that we know is not going to be used in future such instances, WP does have double-standards problem, do we agree? --Childhood's End 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't agree. I might conceivably agree if you were wishing to link this MfD to another XfD, but you're not. --Dweller 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dweller: He was stating an antecedent: "If...". So assuming the antecedent, do you agree with the consequent? (I.e., if those statements were true, would WP have a double-standards problem? The reason that question is valid, even if you believe the antecedent to be false is that it addresses the question of whether it is relevant to bring up cases in evidence of the antecedent. Naturally, only half of the antecedent can currently have evidence brought up for it.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
What I said above is at the very heart of any justice system that does not upholds totalitarianism. I hope that by "no, we do not agree", you meant that you disagree with some underlying consequence of what I said rather than with what I said per se... Anyway, see my other comment below. --Childhood's End 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul's comments can be addressed in parallel with this deletion debate. Go ahead and open an RfC. Instructions are here. This page is a deletion debate on a userpage and even the most egregiously bad behaviour by another user would not justify keeping this page if it is deemed worthy of deletion. There is, therefore no "balance check" issue here. --Dweller 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to discuss this MfD there? If not, how does one address this question? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that this is a fair comment, although I also think that Ben has raised very legitimate and material questions that should have been addressed but that have been left ignored by all here (notably with regard to how I can fix my page without crossing a line that is set for everyone, not only me). --Childhood's End 17:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Addressing the ad hominem comment again, I'd like to point out that if I truly thought that a lack of acknowledgment of Raul's mistake made the 'delete' arguments invalid, I wouldn't have changed my "keep" to a "neutral". I obviously have found some of the "delete" arguments compelling. I'm just troubled by the "team" mentality that I'm witnessing (and which is why I don't care for CE's page). I'd be satisfied if Raul654 would simply admit that he acted inappropriately and stated that he wouldn't cite that list again — assuming he still believes that such lists are inappropriate. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, if you found any of the deletion arguments compelling wouldn't you have changed to "delete"? I thought that is what "compelling" means... ;-) --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I do suppose "persuasive" would have been a better word. :P Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sectionbreak for resumption of MfD debate

  • Delete Wikipedia has a history of removing potentially divisive or inflammatory material from User space. The page could only serve to reinforce an us-and-them mentality which moves away from useful debate. While I tend to think people should have a pretty free hand in User space, and I do think this page was created as a good faith attempt to clarify the discussion, I do not think it actually serves that function and is rather an all-around bad idea. I should also note that the page lists me as an admin, when in fact I am not. --TeaDrinker 17:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Let people waste their time making such subpages, so that they do not waste our time in endless talk page discussions. As a comment, the user who created this page apparently thinks that Wikipedia is run by administrators. This is a common mistake new users (and those who do not learn fast) make, so please observe WP:BITE. User:Krator (t c) 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: The creator is not a new user. As for the remark about "endless talk page discussions" -- well, I guess it's best not to go there. Raymond Arritt 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • TeaDrinker speaks to my mind. I agree and suggest that the page be deleted. --Iamunknown 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Krator. If you think Childhoodsend's point is wrong, make your own page to contradict it, or disagree on the user talk page. Censorship is less effective than debate. Λυδαcιτγ 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:USER. The page isn't that controversial or can be seen as a pure attack page. feydey 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consent to deletion

After consideration, and in view of some comments made herein, I agree to delete my page. I want to emphasis that I find that there is no convincing rationale to force its deletion, especially with regard to policy, and that accusations to the effect that this was an attack page were themselves quite hostile and really failed to assume good faith. There was no 'evil' purpose. But out of respect for those editors who, in all honesty, felt that the page was somewhat inappropriate, I will delete it.

I dont know about the process from now on, but I guess that some administrator will need to close this review with a closing summary. My consent to deletion is contingent on the summary being restrained to this specific sentence : "No decision reached but user agrees to delete the page."

I further hope that 'some' who happened to be listed on this page will take example and accept to recant as well when appropriate.

Thanks to all who took the time to participate and give honest feedbacks, for one side or the other. See you around. --Childhood's End 00:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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