Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grue/howto

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. The relevant guideline states that "[m]aterial that can be construed as attacking other editors" is not appropriate to user space. The case that this page is by design intended to disparage is made in the arguments in favour of deletion and by the creator's comments. The arguments for retention do not address this issue. This page is an attack on other editors and thus an inappropriate use of user space. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grue/howto

• User:Grue/howto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is unusual in being a request to consider deleting a user's subpage. The grounds for deletion are that it is an unacceptable use of userspace.

The page purports to give instructions on "How to delete a template you don't like", and was created on 21 November, shortly after the closing of the deletion review of the now-deleted Template:Spoiler, and it was then linked by the owner, User:Grue, on Template talk:Spoiler, so clearly drawing a link between a list of very serious alleged policy breaches and an actual deletion of a template.

I don't want to address whether the allegations are true here, because although I think they're obviously false this shouldn't be a discussion about whether or not they are true. I want to address the question of whether this page and ones like it that are used to poison the well of debates can legitimately be used on Wikipedia.

Worthy of consideration is the fact that allegations similar to this have been persistent during the debate on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler over the past five months or so, and persisted beyond the deletion debate that saw the spoiler template eventually deleted. A case for arbitration was prepared by User:Kizor but rejected by the arbitration committee. Mediation was also attempted but failed. No further dispute resolution steps have been attempted. In the wake of the deletion debate and the deletion review further allegations (which are listed in Grue's template) were made.

So this page seems to me to be an attempt to exacerbate a dispute without seeking dispute resolution. I suggest that this kind of page is thus not a legitimate use of userspace, which is reserved for improving the encyclopedia (and not making it worse by attacking fellow Wikipedians). --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Replacing comment removed by accident.

This deletiong request seems ill-considered. While in it's current form it's not much use, a thread has been started at User talk:Grue/howto channeling the energy into appropiate dispute resolution mechanisms. There's a long history that suggests that deleting things (or protecting them, or blocking, etc etc etc) to stop discussion serves only to increase hysteria. In the (quite likely) event that no real attempt is made at resolution, for example by forming a proper request for arbitration, perhaps then the page needs blanked. Barring that, it's massive overkill to delete a "mostly harmless" grouse in someone's userspace. - CygnetSaIad 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Grue could engage in dispute resolution simply by approaching those people whom he believes to have made illegitimate blocks, meat puppeting, lies and deception and the like, and tackling them about it on their talk pages, then escalating if necessary through dispute resolution until the dispute is resolved. Writing a page in his userspace and posting links to it can only exacerbate the dispute. Editing the existing page to catalog the problems without showing actual evidence of his attempts to resolve the dispute won't get anywhere. --Tony Sidaway 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, inappropriate user subpage that's mostly an attack page and/or uncivil in tone. --Coredesat 06:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • One last hurrah from me: Do we believe that deleting this user page will serve to decrease attacks and/or uncivility? What will serve to decrease it is to give the, urm, naysayers an appropiate venue to ahh, complain on. Help them make meaningful additions to the page. Guide them to productive ways of solving the problem. Deleting this page will do none of those things. - CygnetSaIad 06:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • And keeping it will help what? Mr.Z-man 06:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, it is a bit uncivil, but there WERE unapproved bots running around removing the spoiler templates. Can hardly blame someone for calling shenanigans on that. —Random832 06:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  Again, without addressing whether or not your claim is true (I've made a comment on your talk page about that), the allegations are much more serious even than use of unapproved bots, and encompass lies, deception, and illegitimate blocks. Why isn't this chap attempting even the first step of dispute resolution, going to those people's user talk pages and airing his grievance there? If he has evidence of such serious wrondoing, where is the evidence? This is arbitration material if substantiated, and a very serious and unwarranted attack on identifiable editors if not. --Tony Sidaway 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  This statement is, as far as I know, entirely false. Many people repeated the allegation, but it remains false - David Gerard 08:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  "Manually attended" is insufficient if the person is not judging each page case-by-case (and its _repeated_ hits on pages where it was reverted shows that whoever was "manually attending" at least one such script was just blindly clicking OK), and use of scripts at all, manually attended or not, to make controversial edits is [or was at the time] against the bot policy. The defense used at the time by the people who were doing it was a claim that these edits were not controversial, rather than that they were not running an automated task. (also, I'd actually thought BetacommandBot was used for this, but I can't find any of the contemporaneous discussion about the spoiler issue at all). As for being an attack on identifiable editors, the page doesn't even say it's talking about the spoiler template. —Random832 13:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  As for "lies", when people who revert are told that the matter is settled and that no templates is the new consensus at the same time as the argument is made elsewhere that the lack of reverts shows widespread support for the removals, those may each be honestly believed by the people saying it, but someone who sees both from what he thinks are a unified group of editors can hardly be blamed for thinking he's being lied to. And if it's not deceit, it's self-deception, which is in the end even more harmful.—Random832 13:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  Again, without getting into an argument about whether the allegations are true, they are serious allegations that if repeated without any attempt being made to resolve them only poison the projects. The solution is dispute resolution, not personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  Who is it a personal attack against? --Pixelface (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  At minimum, the nominator of the TFD, the closer of the TFD, and the closer of the DRV. These parties are explicitly identified. More generally, the target is against anyone who was actively involved in the move to delete {{spoiler}}. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  These parties are explicitly identified? We're talking about User:Grue/howto right? Where on that page does it explicitly identify anyone? --Pixelface (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  The editors are not named, but the actors (nominator, closer, closer) are named. Considering Grue's comments here and at Template talk:Spoiler, I don't see how there can be any doubt or confusion as to identify of the editors to whom the page refers. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  The actors of what are named? If there is no doubt as to the identity of the editors that the page refers to, provide their names. --Pixelface (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  The actors in the process are identified: nominator, TFD closer, DRV closer. In this case, they correspond to L337 kybldmstr, JzG, and Xoloz. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Divisive, inappropriate use of userspace. Mr.Z-man 06:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can see how you may be offended by this page, Tony. Truth hurts. But since it doesn't mention any specific persons, or situations, this page doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies. To delete it would be censorship. This page relates to Template:Spoiler just as much as Userbox templates. It is also satirical in nature, so some things are naturally exagerrated.  Grue  10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  You've just said, or implied ("Truth hurts"), that your allegations of improper blocks, lying, and deception, early closing of deletion discussions and ignoring opposing opinions is true with respect to the spoiler template deletion. Those are serious allegations that, if true and not resolved, should probably be handled through arbitration if necessary. Whether they're true or false, simply flinging them around like this can only make Wikipedia worse. I again suggest that you take this matter to dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neutral, the page's content doesn't do any good, but absolutely do not delete the talk page.—Random832 14:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 19, Clause 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarsaparilla (talk • contribs) 2007-12-03T15:04:45
  • The same First Amendment that says the WMF is free to choose which speech it decides to publish, on the website it owns? --krimpet⟲ 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The very same. Sarsaparilla 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. You have the right to fork and the right to leave. Mr.Z-man 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Didn't he basically exercise his right to fork by putting his opinions on this subpage? Sarsaparilla 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Fork means going to another website. Mr.Z-man 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly intended to disparage. --krimpet⟲ 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, it is plain from the text that this is a grudge page. Suggest that the author, and any people who might share that grudge, instead seek dispute resolution. >Radiant< 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not currently in dispute with any user, so I don't see what's to resolve here. Nor is the page related to any particular dispute. The fact that it is relevant to Template:Spoiler deletion discussions is not actually my fault. I wrote a general "guide" how to delete any template. The fact that User:Tony Sidaway sees this as a personal attack on himself is only Tony Sidaway's problem and nobody else's. I think this page may have triggered guilt in him and he may now need to resolve disputes with himself.  Grue  22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• O RLY. >Radiant< 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The page attacks no one. I don't know why Tony Sidaway thinks it's about him. Guilty conscience perhaps? --Pixelface 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  Not an attack on me (though Grue has made a comment ("truth hurts") that suggests that he thought only a person who though it was aimed at him would complain about it) but certainly about identifiable individuals. You have repeated the essence of Grue's comment. I remind you and Grue of the Assume good faith and No personal attacks policies. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for assuming you thought it was an attack on you. Do you think it's an attack on someone in particular? --Pixelface 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, for instance it attacks the various people who have closed deletion debates, and also makes accusations against those who have blocked people for edit-warring. It also accuses those who have argued for deletion of the template of using lies and deception. Although Grue is trying to distance himself from the implications, he made the connection by posting the link to the deleted template. He clearly intends the reader to understand that he is talking about those who were involved in the deletion of that template. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  I thought it was a how-go guide for future reference. Are you suggesting these steps were actually followed by specific editors? --Pixelface (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  I'm saying that by deliberately posting a link to the talk page of a deleted template, very shortly after its deletion, Grue is accusing fellow Wikipedians of systematic lies and deception. This is unacceptable. If he had evidence that those editors (especially the admins) have acted deceptively, he should take it to dispute resolution, and not poison debate by casting innuendoes against them. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  I really cannot tell which fellow Wikipedians, if any, he is accusing. Would you please tell me who, specifically, you think Grue's page is referring to, instead of casting innuendoes against Grue? --Pixelface (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  See above. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment However, if the instructions in the how-to guide are effective, administrators could follow the steps in order to get around the TFD process. We probably shouldn't be advising administrators how to do this. Wikipedia is not a guidebook, although the page is in userspace. Informing administrators how to disrupt Wikipedia is probably a bad idea. But I certainly don't think it's an attack on any particular user. --Pixelface 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In its current form at least, the page is accusatory of and offensive to at least a few editors (no one is actually named, but "close the discussion early, ignoring everyone who argued for overturning" doesn't call for much guesswork). Besides, The Prince is a more informative how-to guide. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• If the page does not name any editors and the steps in the how-to guide have never actually been followed, how could the page be offensive to any editors? --Pixelface (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Grue posted a link to the page at Template talk:Spoiler, which leaves little doubt as to the context for the "suggestions". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It is not a constructive attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - perfectly reasonable, no violation of WP:USER as far as I can see.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:UP#NOT: "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Which editors does the page attack? --Pixelface (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see my response above to your comment of 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC), made in reply to Tony Sidaway. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Makes a fair point, what he saying sounds true to me, pluss he should be able to say what he likes this is not conservapedia. Ajuk (talk • contribs) 18:03, December 7, 2007 (UTC
  • Please see WP:UP#NOT: "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Also, please see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry forgot that the rule Nazis were in town! AJUK ^Talk!! 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you've just lost the debate. Chaz ^Beckett 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If this page is just a rant against deletionists, then I would say is too incivil and attacking for inclusion. If it is a protest against some TfD, a form of dispute resolution should be consulted. Captain panda 03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not helpful to the project in any way. Any perceived benefit is far outweighted by its costs (personal attacks, prolonging dispute, divisiveness, etc...). If the allegations in the page are true, the matter should be taken to dispute resolution. Chaz ^Beckett 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not helpful to the project? If the how-to guide works, it would have come in handy when I nominated the {{trivia}} template for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Its his userspace. Elassint (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Editors do not own their userspace. It is his userpace, but that doesn't mean he's free to do whatever he wants there. In particular, he is not free to host content that harms the encyclopedia, such as content that attacks or accuses other editors. From WP:UP: "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." – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think this page harms the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.235.151 (talk • contribs) 06:28, December 10, 2007 (UTC)

• How so? It's either a guide for lying and cheating one's way to deletion of a template or it's intended to disparage particular editors. Either way, it's not something that is conducive to collegiality and collaborative writing. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:38, 10 December 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.