Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dwain/Freemasonry Page

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 delete. (Radiant) 08:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dwain/Freemasonry Page

Violates the guideline for what is acceptable in userspace. Ref What can I not have on my user page?, in particular the statement from Jimbo Wales. Contained, until yesterday, a list of Wikipedians who identifies as Freemasons, which makes me think this is an "attack-page". WegianWarrior 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. User is clearly trying to make a point that says Freemasonry is evil and/or occult. Per Jimbo: "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". This page is clearly campaigning against freemasonry - with or without the user list. - Mgm|(talk) 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete It seems like a gathering of information against a group of people, going as far as listing those who are identifying as freemasons (very suspicious). It is worrying that the users should be listed, especially with such negative comments about them further up the page. The list was added by User:Pitchka who has a similar page User:Pitchka/Freemasonry Page. Will nominate aswell. James086Talk | Contribs 13:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on reference and WP:NOT, user is free to rent some private webspace.ALR 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - As per the above. This is not the way to include potentially negative information about a group with which one has disagreements. Badbilltucker 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Contribs will show that I attempted to open a discussion with said user about this page, and the end result was that my comments were removed from his talk page with no dialogue being opened. MSJapan 15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Your story keeps getting better each time you tell it! Too bad it's not true. See here: User_talk:MSJapan#Your_userpage Dwain
  • Delete--Vidkun 22:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete attack page, quite possibly designed to coordinate harassment. Koweja 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comments to the above MfD, and also consider warning user for personal attacks. Attacking Freemasonry is one thing, while unallowed it's a global organization, a page that 'calls out' individual wikizens is way out of line and could be for no other reason than to cause/elicit/aid in harassment. Wintermut3 06:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Lightbringer? Anomo 12:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so.ALR 12:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology (whether they want to or not) contains individuals who are both decidely in favor of Scientology and decidedly opposed to it. I have to assume Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry would have to do the same thing if someone joined for the explicit purpose of presenting the negative side of the story. For all I know, the various other projects dealing with religion and other controversial topics would have to do the same thing, and may have already done so. Maybe joining that group in an attempt to create a more neutral perspective might be the way to go here. Of course, it would have to be done in a spirit of fairness and neutrality, but that is what wikipedia is about anyway. Badbilltucker 16:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There already are members of the project who wish, and achieve at times, to represent the craft in as negative a light as the guidelines allow.ALR 18:15, 17 December 2006 (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.