Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jefferson Anderson

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 No consensus, defaults to keep. Uninvolved parties were closer to having a consensus to keep than to delete, but for the fine difference between no consensus and keep, it isn't worth the effort to decide how much to weigh the involved parties versus the univolved parties. GRBerry 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jefferson Anderson

Personal attack page created by problematic user who has left WP. Not only does it totally misrepresent the user and his actions, the page violates WP:NPA, and is probably borderline WP:SOAP. MSJapan 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE to closing admin: This MfD has been initiated and populated by many people apparently involved the disputes listed on the nominated page as reasons this user has left Wikipedia. While their comments can be evaluated in this discussion, care should be taken in determining consensus due to the conflict of interest. —Doug Bell talk 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. A user with three months of editing and over 1,000 edits is allowed to use their user page to proclaim their reasons for leaving. I don't see any personal attacks either—just statements concerning activity, not personal. —Doug Bell talk 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Doug Bell. Frater Xyzzy 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    It should be noted that Frater Xyzzy is personally involved in the dispute. - WeniWidiWiki 07:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Not true. This is based on false accusations of sockpuppetry, which affected me as well as J.A. Frater Xyzzy 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    The accusations have not been disproven, and this is glossing over the fact that you instigated the situation which led to Jefferson Anderson becoming involved at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism and were involved in the RfC which did not turn out in your favor. - WeniWidiWiki 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'd advise you to take a care with your personal attacks. After 10 days, a sockpuppet report which has not been acted on is presumed closed, regardless of whether an admin has taken the time to close it, and RFCU returned negative. All venues to pursue this claim have been exhausted without any indication of merit. It's a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to keep bringing it up. Frater Xyzzy 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to banter with you back and forth here. We both know that that this is false. - WeniWidiWiki 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please speak for yourself alone. I believe that what I have said is completely accurate. Frater Xyzzy 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep At least when somebody leaves, it should be permitted to say why. I also I have to point that the nominator is personally involved in this dispute, as clearly written in Jefferson Anderson's user page. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)C on 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Doug Bell as well. Misrepresentation of his actions or not, there is nothing problematic in the page to justify deletion. The so-called personal attacks are just mentions of users which accused him of sockpuppetry or otherwise were involved of his decision to leave. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jefferson Anderson has not left wikipedia, and has created an WP:ATTACK page in retaliation for other editors using dispute resolution processes which found him in breach of various policies. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jefferson_Anderson. Slandering people on your userpage is not part of the dispute resolution process, because those accused cannot defend themselves. - WeniWidiWiki 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    It should be noted that WeniWidiWiki is personally involved in the dispute. —Doug Bell talk 20:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    Also, the above is based on the false assumption that I am a sockpuppet of J.A. which I am not. I've been cleared by checkuser and ALR's subsequent sockpuppet report also failed to convince anyone. Frater Xyzzy 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WeniWidiWiki - Chtirrell 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Firstly, we have an attack page - a page which aims to disparage a person or a group of people. "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, which appear to be effectively controlled by Paul Pigman, Kathryn NicDhÃna and WeniWidiWiki" - this is a false statement that could have potential negative effects on the innocent users who were acting in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to place to nuture hatred or fear. Jimbo Wales has commented specifically on the matter - [1]. We do not, should not, and will not tolerate pages that aim only to criticize our contributors. Yuser31415 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    That statement is not an attack. You seem to be making your comments from some personal knowledge or involvement in the issue? —Doug Bell talk 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    From WP:ATK: "A Wikipedia article, page or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page." This page disparages its subject, and that is its sole purpose as it does not provide any encyclopedic or positive information. Furthermore, the definition of a userpage, as stated by WP:UP, is "Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in the project." The userpage in question does not serve that purpose. Yuser31415 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    Frankly that's a bit ridiculous to say that the user page is not facilitating communication between participants—that's precisely what it is attempting to do. And listing your viewpoint in a dispute is not an attack, at least as done on this page. If we were to go by that standard, we could do away with RfC and ArbCom because nobody would ever be able to state their position with out it being considered an attack. BTW, you didn't answer my question regarding your personal knowledge of or involvement in the issue. —Doug Bell talk 04:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    But it isn't. The user has supposedly left WP. What's to communicate with? A one-sided conversation is not communication. MSJapan 17:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    He's communicating his reasons for leaving, which is completely valid. —Doug Bell talk 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Doug Bell, I didn't come here to argue. In response to your question, however, I have no personal involvement in the issue. I'd also like to point out we are here to debate the suitability of the page for Wikipedia, not the issues surrounding those involved in the dispute the page proclaims. Yuser31415 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for clearing up your involvement, it just wasn't clear from your statements. Just to be clear, I also have no prior knowledge of any of the users or the dispute. While I agree that this discussion is in regards to deleting the user page, it does seem almost unavoidable that some aspect of the dispute is going to be involved here since it forms the only possible basis for deleting the page. —Doug Bell talk 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and Yuser31415. Note that User:Jefferson Anderson also has a page at User:Jefferson Anderson/Evidence which - in light of the fact that he never submitted a sockpuppet check, has allegedly left Wikipedia and left it behind - is hard to see as something else than an attackpage. I suggest that it should be deleted along with this page. WegianWarrior 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the page appears to simply be advice from the user concerning civility; the users cited are obviously used as examples rather than attacks. The "what is considered a personal attack" section of WP:ATTACK has not been violated. Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I was speaking of WP:ATK, not WP:ATTACK - there is a fundamental difference. Yuser31415 23:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WWW and Yuser. Note - I am one of the editors Anderson is attacking with this page. I think it's largely a "give him enough rope" situation, and I'm obviously not unbiased (given that he's attacking me (among others)). That said, I don't think using his userpage as a soapbox for his unsupported accusations is doing anything to further the encyclopedia or promote civility in the Wikipedia community. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person is obviously upset, but he has a right to free expression. His "attack" is mostly toward the project as a whole, with his personal experiences as examples. YechielMan 07:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment:I think that freedom of speech is a straw-man in this instance. The editor has a means of dipute resolution available to him, but chooses not to use it and instead makes accusations which cannot be challenged by those accused. The pertinent question:Is making accusations on a userpage an acceptable means of contravening the dispute resolution process and undermining civility? Take note this material will come up later, as this seems to be a de facto means of bypassing policy. - WeniWidiWiki 07:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Vidkun 14:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    This user is a Freemason and has sworn an oath to "always aid and assist" other Masons (see Obligations in Freemasonry), a serious COI issue on WP which has not been adequately addressed. Frater Xyzzy 17:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    If you have any proof of what I swore to, provide it, and PROVE it. Otherwise, cease the personal attacks.--Vidkun 14:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NPA and Wikipedia is not Myspace.Storm05 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:ATK says "It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior." I see no argument here that this user is acting in bad faith; which does not mean I think he is correct. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • To dispell more bad faith: He is not AFAIK related to me; I've never heard of him before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • This isn't a good faith report, it's a good/bad faith userpage that was never intended for reporting purposes. Yuser31415 19:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment The principal reason for saying delete is the naming of individual users opposed to his edits, thus making it an attack page. . If the page talked only about the edits and resulting controversies, I'd think it altogether legitimate. Anyone interested could still check he article talk pages and find out who he has been disputing with.DGG 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    From a philosophical perspective (i.e. divorced from the discussion of this specific page), I think it is an overly broad interpretation of "attack" if it gets to the point where the name of the editor can't be used in a discussion of the dispute. —Doug Bell talk 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep suggestions section. I think it best to remove all sections except for the "Suggestions" section. More specifically, remove the sections labelled "Article protection", Accusations of sockpuppetry", and "Uneven application of policies", since these appear to be unverifiable attacks. The suggestions section contains no personal attacks; despite its usefulness, I would recommend not deleting it. Removing half of a page isn't a conventional outcome for an MfD, but there's no reason to delete it all. GracenotesT § 23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - I think this is a useful suggestion and compromise. I think it would also be reasonable to leave the section headers above it, such as: "Article protection - it is clear that a group of three editors working together can control an article." I think leaving his opinions while removing his unsupported accusations against specific editors would be a workable compromise.
(And in a bit more detail) A user page is not a discussion forum nor a part of the DR process. This user was named in an arbitration and then called for a mediation when it had already been bumped up to a higher level. Those of us he named in his request for mediation said we would mediate with him after the arbitration was done, if he still wanted to. Anderson later apologized and said he should have withdrawn the request for mediation: [2]. As things had quieted down with him, I am actually puzzled by this parting shot on his user page. I think this user page shows a bad-faith refusal to use the DR process, or even to dialogue with other editors. When I come across these sorts of complaints offered without diffs, I tend to ignore them as they are usually not only unsupported but unsupportable. While Anderson is grossly misrepresenting the situation, I'm not overly troubled personally by his accusations, as the situation was resolved to my satisfaction; however, I do think the accusations should be removed from this user page. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd support that, actually. My concern is the personal accusations of particular editors in an arena where said editors cannot respond (and Kathryn's observation of the gross misrepresentation that results - I don't think that everyone else but Jefferson should be blamed by Jefferson for the situations). However, general comments regarding overall Wikipedia workings are another thing entirely, and wouldn't represent any great divergence from opinions held by others. MSJapan 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - accusations are not considered personal attacks. For example, see the responses from Kathryn, Paul Pigman and WeniWidiWiki in the mediation that Kathryn brought up here. These are much stronger accusations against Jefferson Anderson than he has left on his user page, and when they were brought up in arbitration, they were not seen as personal attacks at all (see here and here). If the accusations lodged in that mediation are not attacks, then neither are the ones under discussion here. Frater Xyzzy 16:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The use of the page to blame named editors for his laving the project is a personal attack (albeit a mild one). I can see no corresponding advantage (the "facilitatng communication" approach obviously won't wash; shouting accusdations and running way isn't facilitating communication, but cutting it off. I've no idea whether or not the accusations are true, of course; also, I'd have gone for "keep" if the specific editors hadn't been named — that wasn't necessary for an explanation of his leaving. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think a user has a right to give his side of the story on his own page, though I'd be more comfortable if he'd toned it down. It's not so much that he names names that makes me uneasy, it's that he keeps repeating and linking the names over and over- that makes it seem personal. As for whether his accusations of meatpuppetry have any grain of truth to them, I did have the "Freemason three" line up on the other side of an AfD once, though Blueboar's ultimately reasonable attitude helped it to close as "no consensus." --Groggy Dice T | C 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Not quite - see here for the discussion in question. MSJapan 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If you feel that the naming names goes against policy, then edit the names. I've seen what he's describing in practice, and deleting his comments would basically be proving him right. I don't see personal attacks; I see accusations of wrongdoing. If there's any truth at all to his comments, perhaps they should be investigated - not squelched. -- TomXP411[Talk] 03:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:POINT and WP:NPA. There are processes in place for an individual to deal with these objections, refusal to participate in these processes should not be seen as clearance to conduct this type of soapboxing without the opportunity to respond.ALR 16:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redact - As one of the editors mentioned on this page, I do consider it an attack. I am called a "meatpuppet" simply because I agreed with other editors in a dispute (on his associated "evidence" page, he calls me a "sock", apparently because my work ISP is owned by a company that is in turn owned by a parent company located in the same country as the supposed "puppet master"... if it were not so laughable I would have complained sooner). While I agree that he has a right to express his feelings about what occured, and to state why he left Wikipedia... I don't think he should have the right to name names while doing it... not, at least, without more definitive proof of his allegations. Given that the page is essentially a litany of unproven accusations, I think it should be deleted, but I would accept simply deleting the names, or deleting those sections where he gets personal. Blueboar 19:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The page never says you're a meatpuppet, that section is just complaining about what he sees as uneven application of the term. As for the "Evidence" page, IMO there's a better case for that being deleted than this. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It should be noted that the proclaimed personal attacks were already brought up by MSJapan on ANI four days before this MFD where they weren't deemed worthy of any action. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 20:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a valuable contributor has left us with suggestions and discontent. I would not consider it personal attack, he is simply telling his grievance (think about yourself what happen if you are falsely alleged to be a sockpuppet). In his sock case overwhelming evidence has suggested he did not use sock. Let's not disturb the departed and move on. Wooyi 21:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Wikipedia benefits by retaining records of what motivates contributors for good or bad. bd2412 T 02:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This is why I agree that a redaction is perhaps more appropriate than a complete delete. His suggestions and expressions of discontent are fine, up to the point where he names names... I find it ironic that someone who complains that he has been falsely accused of puppetry turns around and falsely accuses others of the same. Let him express his discontent and make his suggestions without mentioning other users by name. Blueboar 14:23, 25 February 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.