Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Halliburton Shill

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. I'm going to replace the page with {{indefblocked-username}} as well. - brenneman{L} 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Halliburton Shill

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

POV personal attack (even if it is on a public figure), advertising for an nn blog. Recreation of previously-deleted article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no personal attack and there is no shortage of people, including admins, linking up their personal causes on their user pages. All I do is link to my blog, not embed graphics to all sorts of personal causes that I want to shill. As referenced in the discussion of the speedy deletion of the Halliburton Shill article, there was no personal attack and POV has nothing to do with deletion. The final answer to the deletion is that it was because the article was made in "bad faith".--Halliburton Shill 00:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a place on Wikipedia to file the equivalent of a counter-suit for nuisance suits (deletion requests) by users.
  • The answer is called a disruptive user. Also worth noting from the MfD Nominating a user's page for deletion without discussing the page with the user, either on the user's talk page or on the talk page of the page in question, is generally frowned upon....--Halliburton Shill 01:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also worth considering is whether User:Zoe is gaming, especially when considering there was no attempt to discuss this prior to the MfD.--Halliburton Shill 01:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
What would have been User:Zoe's motivation for doing so? Did you two butt heads at some point?Yeago 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, never. This is solely about the content of the page and the fact that it was deleted as an article and recreated as a User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Example of an admin/user filling their page with POV and what might be broadly called personal attacks via embedded graphics: User:Rory096
What the hell? How is anything on my userpage a personal attack? You're just biased against me because I tagged your pet page as a speedy delete and showed on WP:DRV#Halliburton_shill Deletion Review that you're nothing but a POV pusher. --Rory096 01:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like a frivolous VfD.Yeago 01:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Whatever you say. By looking at the comments on your Talk page, I'd say the Axe is more likely to come down on you than on Hallib. While he may be a little ignorant of WP policy, you're simply not interested.Yeago 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh-huh. You mean that guideline that says What can I not have on my user page? ...Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. ... Examples of unrelated content include: ... Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, I thought I was here to write an encyclopedia, not engage in inimical internet battles.
You could delete pretty much everyone's Userpages according to that logic.
This is quit a cause you're supporting. Surely it leads Nirvana.Yeago 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or request user to change username, if it is deemed a personal attack. I disagree with the political slant, but personally don't see the issue with the username. Justin Eiler 00:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Does not violate WP:U. Justin Eiler 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I misunderstood the original MfD request, and thought Zoe was speaking of the username, not the content of the userpage. Justin Eiler 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing too bad here, and not a good move to try to cut a new user off at the knees if they might be able to add something. To Halliburton Shill, I'd say tr to stick to facts and maybe leave editing Cheney's page until you better understand how we operate (WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, etc.) Harro5 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Same story at Halliburton. User is clearly new and unfamiliar with several guidelines. Obviously no reason to terminate. I am very interested in knowing the events which led to this VfD. Somewhat suspicious.Yeago 16:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I had no memorable contact with User:Zoe prior to this, so it's difficult to guess, in part because I am knew and unfamiliar with all the little tricks to game the system.
  • Keep Although the content is stupid and I don't agree with the idiotic notions, it is okay for it to be there even if the article was deleted. Dwain 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointlessly divisive and inflammatory, not useful to the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - user name violate policy. Should get {{usernameblock}}. Johntex\talk 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WTF does this have to do with building an encyclopedia? —Cryptic (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think all user pages should be deleted along with all the user boxes, for reasons similar to those given by Mr. Parham above. However, while awaiting that happy day, I can not countenance singling out this new user who is not doing anything worse than so many other users and admins who feel justified in advertising their little political POVs or meaningless blog doodlings on their user pages. That the nom has resorted to obscene language in some of the responses here, in contravention of WP:CIV, is further argument for the immediate withdrawal of this nom. -- JJay 20:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I can absolutely countenance singling out this new user who says right on his user page that he's attempting to manipulate google results. Did you even look at it? —Cryptic (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes I did look at it, thank you. Of course, now that you have taken matters into your own hands by blanking the page, I have to assume that your question was merely rhetorical. Since you have decided there is no need to continue the discussion maybe we should just close it as: blanked by Cryptic. Or would you have new participants express an opinion based on the blank page? Congrats for taking a first step to ending the user page manipulation of google. -- JJay 20:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Now the focus is his grammar? Flagrant Don't_bite_the_newbies. Obviously nobody is perfect.Yeago 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Asparagus sprouts. —Cryptic (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Non-sequitur precisely! =) I'm purely confused as to why you're defusing the topic you brought up as non-sequitur.Yeago 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also note that he tried to create this in the main namespace, at Halliburton shill, several times. It wasn't appropriate there, and it's not appropriate as a user page, either. That he was ready with an email complaint before I even got confirmation that my block went through shows he knew exactly what would happen, too. WHBT, we should HAND. —Cryptic (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I assume good faith. It seems simply an act of confusion.Yeago 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would you assume good faith with this person, but not with me? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Cryptic, while Hal's actions do appear to be violations of the spirit of Wikipedia policies, they are within the "letter of the law," as it were. Perhaps it might be a better course to allow him the rope. If he's a good-faith editor, he'll make a productive addition--and if he's not, IMrhO he'll hang himself in short order. Justin Eiler 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
He's free to hang himself with a different username. —Cryptic (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's great ... but has anyone asked him to change his username? Justin Eiler 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
He's a reckless but salvagable new contributer to WP. His participation makes him distinct from a vandal; we should not treat him as such.Yeago 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep: No need to shove this page down the slippery slope of censorship over the simple matter of a non-offensive though quite pov username. Ombudsman 21:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Innapropriate username that was correctly blocked. Userpages are for editors- This person is not an editor. We would tolerate a userpage such as this if there were a good contributor behind it, but in this case there isn't.--Sean Black (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This person is not an editor- What is the basis for that comment? Having perused User:Halliburton Shill's edits, he seems to have been involved with the editing of a number of contentious pages like Abortion, and while I see POV, I don't see anything too excessive that requires being banned. In fact, some of the editors defending him here look to have been participating in the same pages. Moreover, the nom has claimed that the user page in question was a "POV attack page". If that is true, why should it be tolerated for anybody, good or bad? -- JJay 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • He's not an editor because he's blocked, rightfully so. Not to mention that many of his edits are promoting his attack page. He has made very few usefull contributions and has been blocked indefinitely due to his poor choice of username. This userpage is highly undesireable, and as I said, would only be tolerated if it was the user page of a good contributor with an appropriate username, and even then many people (myself included) would consider it an innapropriate one.--Sean Black (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
"He's not an editor because he's blocked" but he was blocked because he was not an editor since had he been a good editor he would not have been blocked he would have been tolerated. Thanks it's all making sense to me now. -- JJay 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? I said this userpage would have been tolerated (yes, I use that word specifically, because it's innapropriate but not quite as bad as it could be) if he had an appropriate username and was a good editor.--Sean Black (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think JJay, in a humorous way, is referring to circular logic. The deletion request is for the page, not the username, per Zoe's request and follow-up comments. Good is a POV judgement call. Fact is user has several contribs that remain. So from the POV of the articles, user is a good editor.--Ban.WMA 18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The userpage serves solely as direct and indirect advertisements for a blog and relates in no way to Wikipedia and editing thereof. Userpages should serve as a useful reference tool for fellow editors not as myspace profiles (WP:NOT) for random people who creates an account for the sake of exposure. Userpages like this undermines the general purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia contrary to a social forum. Let's stay focused. Celcius 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - while I personally sympathize with the political statements of this user, it has been repeatedly shown in this MfD that the user page is in violation of several clauses of WP:NOT and WP:USER. The user page itself proudly touts all the google hits for the blog... Wikipedia should not be used to get a few more. --JerryOrr 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing the offending content is a much simpler solution than Deletion of account.Yeago 06:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I dont' see how either apply.
  • Delete per Zoe and Celcius. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be tactful and cooperative for the name not to have appeared, and the page's content to have been a lot more subtile. It isn't encyclopaedic and it doesn't look like the jottings and odd links that oen sees on many user pages which look like the working notes and a few helpful comments to colleagues of people working on a project together. Is it too late for this to be resolved by the user asking for a name change with edit attributions being passed on to the new name, and restoring only a prportion of th ematerial, if any, to the new users page? Its a hint ... I don't need to vote here. Midgley 15:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (and while we're at it unblock since there's nothing wrong with the user name). Lots of people have links to their blogs on their web pages, lots of people state their political opinions on their web pages. The so-called "Google bombing" attempts will increase the Google rank first and foremost of Wiktionary. Angr/talk 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Considering the (my subjective opinion, YMMV) "dishonest" or "disingenuous" nature of Googlebombing as a method of illegitimately increasing one's rank in the Google index, I don't think that Wikipedia benefiting fromn someone else's chicanery is appropriate to the aims of Wikipedia. Justin Eiler 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I said Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, but my point was the claims of Googlebombing are extremely tenuous. He has a grand total of one (1) link to his own blog on his user page, the same as dozens of other Wikipedians. Angr/talk 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll certainly agree that the claims are tenuous ... but I'd feel more comfortable avoiding even the appearance of wrong-doing. Justin Eiler 21:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What about avoiding the appearance of wrong-doing to contributors?--Ban.WMA 18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Justice sometimes requires choosing a lesser wrong over a greater one. Justin Eiler 18:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and unblock. I decided to contribute to Wiki after reading the user's blog. I don't see a personal attack. I don't understand the google bombing comment, so can't comment on it other than there are links to Google searches for citation, but nothing embedded like an ad or pop-up. The only thing that seems out of place on the user page is the blog link at the top. It seems more like external link material you see in articles. Certainly not justification for a delete/block.--Ban.WMA 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After reading the Google bomb article, it is easy to see that the page contains no bombing. Everything is linked only once. The anchors do not repeat. There is not even indirect bombing (linking to another page that has the repeated anchor and hyperlink).---- —This unsigned comment was added by Ban.wma (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete POV on user page one can hardly wonder what could happen in the article space. --Garglebutt / (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't have to wonder. User had valid contributions to several articles, including Hurricane Katrina, that remain in place. Just click on the contrib link.--Ban.WMA 18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV is just about acceptable on user pages where it helps build the encyclopaedia by revealing the user's biases, but this is an indef-blocked user. On the toher hand, simply blanking it and leaving the indef-blocked template would have been sufficient, since the page is not bad enough that having the former history visible is going to compromise the project. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I would agree, but the content in question has been removed several times, only to be restored, unfortunately.--Sean Black (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
comment: This particular vote should be considered with a serious grain of salt. Take a gander at JZG's comments on the Simon Wessely talk page, and at the the relentless diversions that have derailed efforts to actually build an encyclopedic article there. Halliburton Shill should be given the benefit of doubt, rather than being railroaded out of the Wiki for essentially political reasons. Ombudsman 23:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per Zoe, and investigate to see if HS has any socks *cough Yeago cough*

  • Seems like this is stretching the personal attack rule. But, if not, I guess Zoe has a sock at 128.197.249.61. One has to wonder. Swatjester seems new to the discussion, too, and eager to support Zoe.--Ban.WMA 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • According to ARIN, 128.197.249.61 is registered to Boston University. I'm in California, and post from AOL. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 20 March 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.