Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the "article namespace") which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline). [edit] Introduction The only currently-used namespaces in which pages are eligible for deletion here are: - Help:
- Portal:
- MediaWiki:
- Wikipedia:
- This includes WikiProjects, although it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.
- User:
- When a page in the User or User talk namespaces seems worthy of deletion, please explain your concerns using either a personal note or by adding
{{subst:Uw-userpage}} --~~~~ to their talk page. While this step is not required, it does assume good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. The same applies to personal userpages you want deleted; there is no need to list them here, simply tag them with {{db-userreq}}. - Also be aware of not biting new users -- sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
- the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes, regardless of namespace.
The undeletion of pages deleted after having been discussed here, and debating whether discussions here have been properly closed, is the purview of Wikipedia:Deletion review, which operates in accordance with our undeletion policy. [edit] Please familiarize yourself with the following policies [edit] Prerequisites Please bear in mind that: - Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.
- Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is generally frowned upon. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
- User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
- Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
- If a page is in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), simply move it and tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-reason}} using the reason: Redirect left after a cross-namespace move - G6 Housekeeping and notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
[edit] How to list pages for deletion Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) | I. | Edit PageName. Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: - {{mfd}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|PageName (2nd nomination}} or - {{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several related pages in an umbrella nomination. or - {{subst:md1-inline|PageName}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page. - Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. - Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
- Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
- Save the page
| | II. | Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" - Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
- Insert this text:
- {{subst:mfd2| pg=PageName| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} --~~~~
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted. - Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
- Please use an edit summary such as
Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. - Save the page.
| | III. | Add a line to MfD. Follow this edit link and add a line to the top of the list: - {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName". - Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. - Save the page.
- If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
- {{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions. | - If nominating a page from someone elses userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} --~~~~
to their talk page, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. - If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
- If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
Closing instructions [edit] Active discussions - Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
Purge server cache I'm completing this MfD on behalf of an anonymous editor, 98.248.33.198. Their rationale is: "It appears to be some sort of list of terms that doesn't appear related to editing WP." --A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC) - Delete - somebody's homework perhaps? Vietnamese is one hell of a language. Crafty (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Diegusjaimes complaints 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC) - Ignore IP user talk pages are not generally deleted, but blanked if needed. This one does not even reach that level yet. Collect (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This page was never used. It is over 2 years old, has only had 1 editor, and nothing links to it. The project does not use subpages for assessments. A similar page has already been speedy deleted as housecleaning, which I also think this should qualify for. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete? Objector in the article edit histories suggests there is, but since I can't recall, can anyone point me to somewhere that says "not common practice to delete inactive project pages"? Wouldn't people just be able to add project tags onto articles and vandalize them endlessly if that were true? Extreme case, but from the same principle. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever not to go along with the pretty obvious precedent set with the one that had already been CSD'd, and since it's an orphan it doesn't have anything to back up against to justify its continued presence. Actually, you could make a case it's not even "in" the project since it's orphaned without use and doesn't have the appropriate project tags. If there's a guideline spelled out I'd much rather know that, but I really hope the "not common practice" was in regard to it being specifically G6 instead of a different CSD type. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Datheisen: It seems there's a mixed record on this. Apparently if the WikiProject or task force was never used, was created improperly, or never amounted to more than one user, deletion may be appropriate, as it is here. On the other hand, if a WikiProject or task force was used by more than one user, it may be kept and tagged as historical or inactive. I don't think there's anything as explicit as "not common practice to delete inactive project pages" out there – that's awfully black-and-white – but in the past, WikiProjects and task forces have been deleted at MfD for reasons similar to those put forth in this nom. Here's one example. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Userfy Smallman might have been intending to work on this. It can be deleted if he doesn't come back from retirement after a few months, or if he requests deletion on his own. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Userfy 6 months for an innocuous page does not seem like a reason for actual deletion at all. Collect (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Abandoned WikiProject which also has an incorrect name (ie has a "/"). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sentence to deletion. The {{wikiproject}} template never got substed, making it impossible for anyone to even join the project, and the creator has been blocked for disruptive editing (including attempting to block users for "100 years"). Zetawoof(ζ) 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Capital punishment ...Delete: Probably could have gotten away with speedy under some odd mashing together of, um... R3 C1/C2 and P2? None are seem entirely right, but can we pretend? Ok no, good call for the MfD without an exact source. I don't suppose we could have the CSD policy updated to include "Projects" along with "Portals" in the Ps? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Zetawoof. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Fringe theory which the editor has previously been prevented from incorporating into Twin paradox. He would like Wikipedia to provide a forum for discussion of his fringe theories. Somehow, I don't think so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - Delete it. Softvision (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as nominated. TimeCube ftw! :) Crafty (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Premature. There are better ways to resolve good faith misapprehension. I recommend getting User:Softvision to talk about the meaning of WP:NOR. These things should be resolvable without resorting to a deletion. Come here when the problem won't resolve. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Joe, should have added that I had had some conversation with Softvision [1], and this seemed the right process to me, rather than demanding he get rid of it or speedy tagging it. Apologies if it cut across another discussion. No intention to be pointy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd prefer reference to failed discussions to be in the nomination. If the discussions are failed, yes, this is the right venue. This sort of page is not OK, even in userspace, unless, perhaps, the editor is extremely productive in mainspace on similar material, which he is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Softvision said earlier in the debate that we can just delete it. I get where you are coming from SmokeyJoe but that sounds like G7 to me. Gigs (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Retailing/Noticeboard_archives Terribly outdated noticeboard and archive of the same. I fail to see how two very short lists of ancient PRODs are worth keeping around. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC) - Keep for historical/archival purposes. The retention of this noticeboard and it's archive cause the project no harm. I can see no pressing reason to delete. Crafty (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- That's not what "it's" means, I'm afraid. Do "his" and "her" have apostrophes? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Well that explain's why you have such a fetish for the'se kind's of pointless deletion's. Crafty (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- So let it sit another zillion months just because every one of the project's editors mysteriously stopped editing in 2007? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The idea of "archiving" is, indeed, to keep stuff for a zillion months. Collect (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This is more like a test edit than a task force. It can easily be seen that this page was copy and pasted from the Command & Conquer task force. The only edit ever related to this task force was it's creation in September 2008. The task force was never formally recognized by WP:VG as it's not in the navigation or included in the project template. The creator still edits, but seems to have just abandoned the page. There is not even a talk page. Nothing worth keeping. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC) - And related template: {{SMB WikiProject}}
This page has been lingering in the background for a while. It was created as it's own WikiProject in December 2006, moved from to a task force of WP:VG in March 2007, and has had no activity since. The task force also never seems to have been formally recognized by WP:VG as it's not in the navigation or included in the project template. The only member seems to have been the creator, who has not edited since November 2007. There is not even a talk page. Nothing worth keeping. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Abandoned subpage. Only one peer review was ever placed here, none since 2007. Absolutely no use anymore; any peer reviews are already archived on talk pages anyway. Not unlike Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Game Shows/Precedents, which is also on the brink of deletion via MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Blog-like usage of user page, violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. User's only contribution to the encyclopedia thus far. I have warned them prior to nominating for deletion, so they have time to save their work. BlazerKnight (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Withdrawing nomination I am relatively new to XfD, and I thank you for your comments, it is clear that I had not determined the right threshold for inclusion/deletion of user pages. I definitely did not intend to bite any newcomers and will be more careful in the future. As such I am withdrawing my nomination. Sorry for wasting your time with this process. BlazerKnight (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep We should post a note on his talk page steering him/her in the correct direction. Its just a text only page and he may find it useful for the project. A little redirection would be better in this case instead of needless process.--Adam in MO Talk 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I already did that. It does not set a good precedent if we let unproductive users do what they like with their userspace. BlazerKnight (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok we aren't in any danger of running out of server space and it isn't doing any harm. Should we stop users from making to do lists? [2]--Adam in MO Talk 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- That was a low blow. WP:UP clearly states "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand those with whom they are working." I have used my user page in a productive manner, while this user has not. BlazerKnight (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Does not read like a blog to me, nor does it seem excessively long. It does not appear to reflect badly on WP ... um, what real rationale is left? Collect (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment All I can say is that this is a very effective way at driving away a new user. Please let a new user respond to your notices before biting their head off. Vodello (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. This probably won't pass, but we should make an effort to integrate new users before we execute unnecessary process on them.--Adam in MO Talk 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
A rather dubious essay by vanished user. No significant involvement of other wikipedians. I don't think wikipedia shoul be a repository of all possible rants about wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - Keep It does include some things that some people might disagree with, however essays do include a disclaimer. Normally in a case like this we might userify, but since the user has exercised the right to vanish, I think we should just keep this. Essays don't need to reflect consensus. Gigs (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- It was actually in the user space, but before vanishing it decided to litter the wikipedia space with it. Yes, essays don't need consensus, but wikipedia is not a soapbox. Essays by respected wikipedians or groups of wikipedians go; random musings by abusive users are a no-go. - Altenmann >t 01:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Userfied or not, it's still a massive soapbox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid essay, and good opinion related to wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Validity of the essay as an issue does not count. What matters is that it violates no policy at all. Nor does categorization of an editor as "abusive" have any bearing on whether his essay should be deleted. I find no basis for deletion hence default to keep. Collect (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ancient page that doesn't do any good by telling stub makers that they should somehow be courteous with their edit summaries. Most of these users are inactive and this isn't really a Wikiproject. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - Delete Just a bunch of now-inactive users who got together to do God knows what. Nothing worth keeping here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Good idea. Was originally, is now. Is an active page, listing active users, who do something definitely in the interest of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't see more than a couple active users. Also, may I ask what "definately" means? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Fixed typo. I blame microsoft.
- As long as there are a couple of active users, live and let live. Otherwise tag as historical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep or tag historical - was once useful for its intended purpose. It was created when unregistered editors could start new articles, probably so that new page patrollers of the time could more easily separate the wheat from the chaff by checking edit summaries. Informative edit summaries are always a good idea. There's no reason to delete the history of this page, as it contains nothing objectionable, so either keep it, tag it as historical, or move it to the historical archive. Graham87 06:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Two new editors in it. Article does not say "be courteous" -- indeed it says to make sure the stub has references. Collect (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete cruft which serves no purpose or the good of the project. Verbal chat 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and Historicize Seems not destructive to the project, just inactive. --Blargh29 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Outdated list of AFDs related to the game show wikiproject. Last update was in 2007, almost no incoming links, not touched since 2007. I fail to see what's keepable here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Extremely large attack page, presumably about an ArbCom case to be filed at some point. However, the page seems to consist solely of attacks against large numbers of editors loosely grouped into various "cabals." Parties intended to be named include sixteen editors, an entire WikiProject, and finally, "[a]ll admins on WP:ANI from 15 October, 2009 – 20 October, 2009." Solutions to be sought include injunctions on a large group of editors "preventing them from reverting any of my edits on any page in any namespace; preventing them from involving themselves, in any way, in any page in any namespace I might involve myself in." The page also includes a large section accusing others of attempting to "wiki-murder" the author. Seems to be an extreme case of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. GlassCobra 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC) - Attack? No.
- Only one cabal not various.
- I thought it was recommended that a subpage be created in userspace for a future ArbCom case?
- Shallow analysis from GlassCobra.
- Large group? Three who have been Wikihounding me, and one who made an explicit declaration to revert anything I did.
- The large "Wiki-murder" (my quotes) section is about 4 paragraphs.
- Any other misrepresentations?
- The scope of the "case" is not for you to comment on - if you don't like it, tough. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment HarryAlffa, are you intending on filing a ArbCom based on this page in the very near future? The reason I'm asking is that I feel that I cannot make a reasoned !vote unless I know your intentions in the near future (say the next few days)? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Clarification To clarify my reason for asking, HarryAlffa, on WP:USER in the section about what you cannot have, there is 10. Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason. (emphasis mine) - that is why I need a reply to my question, so I can make a reasoned !vote under the criteria of that guideline. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
At the centre of this is Wikihounding by the "cabal", here is that part of the document[3]. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC) - I'd like to hear an answer to PhantomSteve's question, HarryAlffa. In my mind that seems to be central to whether or not this page should be deleted. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is not only a new page, it falls squarely into a specific protected category of pages in userspace. It is not in the purview of MfD to make any determinations as to whether the accusations are right or wrong - just that pages representing material which might reasonably be presented to ArbCom are not deletable, as that is entirely a matter for ArbCom to weigh in the future. Otherwise we would routinely see material from userspace which is intended for transmittal to ArbCom be deleted by people in MfD. Collect (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- On the list of involved parties is "All admins on WP:ANI from 15 October, 2009 – 20 October, 2009." This doesn't strike me as something that might reasonably be presented to ArbCom. It rather looks like a fantasy, and I'm inclined to vote to delete, pending HarryAlffa's answer to PhantomSteve's question above. Equazcion (talk) 18:29, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment Wikiproject Solar System comprises 3 co-ordinators and 47 members; a quick check through the ANI archives showed 35 admins leaving posts between 0000 and 2000 on the 15th Oct - I stopped counting at that point (and I may have missed a couple). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. His listing me as a litigant notwithstanding, I think that, justified or not, this... whatever it is... is nonetheless part of Harry's user space and he should be free to edit it as he sees fit. Call me when he actually tries to bring this forward. Serendipodous 18:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't care. As one of the accused I am not the least bit concerned since the only person this reflects badly upon is HarryAlffa himself. However, since he seems to be editing under his real name I have added the {{NOINDEX}} template. We don't want t find people's medical history or similar on Google. Hans Adler 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as he's doing it in user space, he's not harming anyone, and it keeps him busy... --Kotniski (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral. The page, while distasteful, does clearly illustrate the real problem. --Ckatzchatspy 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral, as I have somehow found myself named as a party. I may comment more, later, but Phantomsteve's question is a valid one. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, for now. The user has every right to draft an Arbcom filing in their userspace, and since the contents are essentially brand new it's a little early to pass judgement and say that it is being used as an attack page. If HarryAlffa intends to file a case with Arbcom then let him do so; if this thing lingers with no action in the near future it can be safely deleted at that point. As someone pointed out above, should HarryAlffa actually go throug with it and file a case I believe it reflects poorly upon himself rather than those he has singled out, but if an editor is intent on embarassing themselves that is their own prerogative. Shereth 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep drafts are an allowed use of userspace. ArcAngel (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, and I say this as one of the named parties. He's allowed to prepare an ArbCom request like any other user. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per all the "Keep" arguments above and also Wikipedia:Attack pages"...However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes..." The name of the page indicates its intent sufficiently. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If the people named on the page have no problems with this being kept, I see no reason why I should object. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Allowed use of user subpage, it's clearly not abandoned, and appears to be a draft for a planned ArbCom case presentation. If it becomes obviously and significantly stale at some timely point in the future, renominate. This does not mean I agree or disagree with any of the content, however. — Becksguy (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I like criticism. Thank you, HarryAlffa for your input regarding my participation here. I'll think about what you said. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I add one comment to HarryAlffa, who I assume is reading. Harry: If, as you wrote, your wish is that GTBacchus "never, ever involves himself in any aspect of my life again," then listing me as an "involved party" to some ArbCom case you might or might not file... is a poor strategy for keeping me at a distance. When I wish not to see someone, I don't summon them to court... because I'll see them there, and that's what I didn't want. It's just something to think about. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I seem to be tilting at windmills but this is an attack page, only formatted to look like an arbcom case, which doesn't make it any better. If those being attacked don't mind it, I suppose IAR could apply, but in my book, this page should be deleted. It would be a different story if the author were claiming that it's an actual draft to be used in the near future as an arbcom case, but he is not, and the page in its current state couldn't be used that way. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)
-
- On point of policy, is it a personal attack to call editors incompetent, or to accuse them of lying? It's possible that a Keep result should include a request to redact some of the more egregious comments not directly related to evidence. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, but you're operating under the good-faith assumption that this is a draft of an actual case to be filed. My good faith expired when the author referred to it as a ""case"" above, quotes included. Along with his refusal to answer the direct question of his intentions, I'm not seeing any reason to continue assuming this is intended as an actual case, rather than "the recording of perceived flaws", which is not allowed. Equazcion (talk) 23:49, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)
-
- Good or bad faith doesn't enter into it, and rules don't enter into it. There either is a good reason to delete the page, or there isn't. If there's no good reason to delete it, then we'll let it be. It's better to argue from reasons than from rules, I think... or maybe I'm soapboxing again if I say that. I'll quit while I'm ahead (or "ahead"). -GTBacchus(talk) 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Depends who you ask. I think there's a policy or guideline somewhere that says policy-based arguments are the best kind. If you want reasons instead, I think we should be discouraging the use of process drafts as a guise for attack pages. But again I realize I'm in the minority in this case, and will bow to consensus, whatever it ends up being. Equazcion (talk) 00:01, 4 Nov 2009 (UTC)
-
- You shouldn't judge HarryAlffa by normal standards. I am 100% sure this is a good faith action. Whether HarryAlffa is fit to contribute to Wikipedia is a different matter and can't be resolved here. Hans Adler 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure it's intended for Arbcom, although by now he knows he can't simply dump this material there. [4] [5] Hans Adler 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Wait, hang on. I didn't even see that he'd already tried to file this as an actual ArbCom case. That changes the situation considerably; I didn't know that it had already been rejected. GlassCobra 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Point of Order: it wasn't "rejected" per se - the filing was too lengthy (even allowing a little leeway!) - it was about 20 times longer than the reasonable limit of 500. Dougweller didn't say that it was rejected - just that it was filed incorrectly, as well as advising WP:DR as as refiling "is likely to be denied". Personally, I agree with Dougweller - but if HarryAlffa wants to refile, he is entitled to - and as such is entitled to prepare his ArbCom case on his user page before submission - if only so that it can be edited to a more reasonable size! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. If it's part of a draft for (possible) filing, it has a legitimate purpose in general, and I don't (with a quick skim) see much evidence that it qualifies as an attack page. It shouldn't hang around indefinitely, but if it's under active development, then it's fine. Rd232 talk 00:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see how it is anyone's business to nominate a user space page for deletion. Neuromancer (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Is this a serious comment? Userspace pages are nominated for deletion on a very regular basis. See several other current discussions on this page, as well as any number throughout this page's history. GlassCobra 20:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Harry says In my first contribution to this page I said, "I thought it was recommended that a subpage be created in userspace for a future ArbCom case?". The initiator of this page said, "...presumably about an ArbCom case to be filed at some point". Take these as replies to later questions. But I will not be pressured into a timetable. I was criticised, with an implication of subterfuge, for including quotes when calling it a "case". Get real. It only becomes a case when actually a case at ArbCom, till then it is a "case". You will never find any contribution of mine which is deliberately dishonest in any way. I actually find it quite difficult to deliberately lie. I just don't like it. And to lie here seems pointless - all the evidence is there, which brings me on to corruption. Evidenced, deliberate lies have been ignored by admins - in an ANI[6]. Hence "all the admins ...". As I said to LessHeard on my talk page, "I've come to regard Wikipedia as the most corrupt society I've been involved in". This page was initiated with this; Extremely large attack page, presumably about an ArbCom case to be filed at some point. However, the page seems to consist solely of attacks against large numbers of editors loosely grouped into various "cabals." Parties intended to be named include sixteen editors, an entire WikiProject, and finally, "[a]ll admins on WP:ANI from 15 October, 2009 – 20 October, 2009." Solutions to be sought include injunctions on a large group of editors "preventing them from reverting any of my edits on any page in any namespace; preventing them from involving themselves, in any way, in any page in any namespace I might involve myself in." The page also includes a large section accusing others of attempting to "wiki-murder" the author. Seems to be an extreme case of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Obviously I will accept opinions as opinion - Extremely large attack page
- seems to consist solely of attacks
But facts are facts: Facts? | comment | Fact | Truth | | Parties named include sixteen editors | True | | | Parties named include WikiProject Solar System | True | For incompetence | | Parties named include admins on WP:ANI... | True | ignoring evidenced lies. | | loosely grouped into various "cabals." | False | One cabal | | injunctions on a large group of editors | False | One group of 3, plus one other individual | | large section accusing others of attempting to "wiki-murder" | False/True/False | the section is 4 or 5 paragraphs / "wiki-murder" is True / the quotes around "wiki-murder" were mine, not given by the quoter | This careless approach to veracity and accuracy have not improved my view of Wikipedian society. But as I also said to LessHeard on my talk page, "However, in a triumph of hope over experience, I do hope that my current view of endemic corruption and dishonesty of Wikipedians will be overturned". With the obvious effect that making this prediction will make it become untrue - I'm sure I'll be described as saying, "HarryAlffa thinks Wikipedia is a corrupt society", omitting my counter-part quote of triumph of hope over experience except to be couched in a way to make it sound negative, though it was obviously intended as a positive thing, and if it wasn't obvious it is now. The lie would be in not describing my full view - the hope part.
That hope, although still critically ill, has been stabilised by those uninvolved who said keep. To those of you I did not name individually in my "case" I extend my thanks, while fully accepting that this in no way says anything about your opinion of the evidence & conclusions. I think User:Collect gave a good argument for the big picture. To those who are named individually in the "case", I say nothing, in particular I especially say nothing to anyone involving themselves here when it is transparent I desire no such involvement, I did not call you here - save it for ArbCom, when it will be ArbCom you will be speaking to, not me. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - point of order: the nominator seems to have notified every person you identified on the page, so it's not surprising at least some of them commented. Rd232 talk 18:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, whether Harry called anyone here, he might as well have applied ordinary common sense to realize that his actions were very likely to bring named editors to this page. This makes his claim, "it is transparent that I desire no such involvement," sketchy at best. Those who desire no involvement do not do things that are 100% likely to result in involvement. What you get is precisely what you desired, Harry, otherwise you wouldn't have asked for it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was unaware of canvassing efforts by the nominator.
- My legitimate action would not be expected to result in anything. Drafts like this should be left well alone - as the consensus and common sense agrees - so this nomination was surprising to me, although it weighs in my opinion of corruption. Further faulty analysis is the "sketchy claim" by one who earlier quoted the relevant part of the document asking for that one for no involvement. The further involvement by that one is starting to look like baiting on that one's part. To recast my earlier comments on honesty - I say what I mean, and mean what I say. Don't flatter yourself, this wasn't a come-on. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this is an engaging chat, but no, I'm done here. Good luck to you. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - some people 'round here could do with thicker skins, they could. Crafty (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - The ONLY person this silliness reflects badly upon is the creator and no one else. If he really feels the need to reveal to the world that he is the kind of person who would create a page like this, then we are better served that we can see that out in the open. Let him have this. It only lets us know what kind of person he really is. --Jayron32 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- He's already been rejected? Delete. If he wants to re-file, do so: shit or get off the pot. If he wants to save it, that's what hard drives are for. And shame on those who offer mewling words about "civility" for encouraging his fantasies. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I find it hilarious that Calton would comment on this since his own page is just as bad of an attack page yet nothing seems to be veer done about it. 67.76.14.222 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Collect. This is absolutely a legitimate use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:UP#NOT, Wikipedia is not a personal web host and should not be used to host archives of Wikipedia articles. This is basically just a copy of an older version of the 2009 Formula One season article with "2009" replaced with some nonsense distant year in the future. --GraYoshi2x►talk 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC) - In addition to that, let me bundle in User:Aquadeias/4018 Brazilian Grand Prix, User:Aquadeias/4018 Japanese Grand Prix, and User:Aquadeias/4018 Singapore Grand Prix. GraYoshi2x►talk 02:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Inappropriate use of userspace. GlassCobra 14:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete all as G3:Hoax violations. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all. Per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a webhost. This user has made no productive edits, and only one outside their userpage. GlassCobra 02:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Nominating the following pages: Large walled garden of subpages about a non-notable band. The article makes some claims of notability, such as "became the fastest-selling self-released alternative rock album in history of Brazil," but a Google search disproves these. The user had also previously placed a protection template on his page, despite the fact that the page was not protected[7]. About 90% of this user's contribs have gone towards creating these articles. Wikipedia is not a webhost for personal pages. GlassCobra 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC) - Hold off While WP is not a webhost, it is also true that userspace does not require notability. Thus "non-notable" is insufficient in itself for deletion. I note no apparent request to the editor to reduce the assemblage. Collect (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK and... Sorry? ... Everything found in this USER page and its sub-pages is about a fictional band/artist created only for imagination. There are no references, and nobody here is trying to being boring. Sehbueno (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Userspace is supposed to be used for purposes related to the encyclopedia, not just entertainment. Fake articles even in userspace can be damaging to the reputation of wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention that you are building this elaborate set of pages instead of contributing to our actual encyclopedia. As I stated in the nomination, Wikipedia is not a webhost. GlassCobra 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax/roleplay/game. Gigs (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - about a fictional band/artist created only for imagination!? we are not your webhost, Sehbueno, and you have no right to abuse our resources this way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: To me this looks like someone is trying to build his own alternative wiki within wikipedia.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per Orangemike, clearly inappropriate and WP:IAR if necessary. – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- IAR deletion during the course of an XfD is not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Snowball delete then. Articles about fictional band in userspace. Let's not draw this out any longer. BlazerKnight (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Refer user to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, and give him a few days to move the material off-site. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all as nonsense articles about fictional bands in userspace. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all-- mash together WP:GARAGE, WP:HAMMER, WP... well. Okay, it's not a garage band, nor it is a myspace band, but the end result is no different. This is just a planned mass blanketing of new articles to eventually be added at once, perhaps in an attempt to get some of them by patrols. Precedent is also pretty clear about not allowing "Band"/promotional pages in userspace, and we had an even more recent precedent where blanked band pages in userspace were deleted if previous page versions would have qualified for the standard deletion process. I completely forgot which guideline/essay says something like "some people like to hide their band in their userspace while they 'look for sources' but..." so I suppose I'll not be able to give a link to that. ...Wait, I just realized I used WP:HAMMER on the comment directly after its sage. Nice. Well it had to happen eventually. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Closed discussions For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives. |
![Truth In Cosmetic Surgery Blog: Weekend Miscellany Links [TB]](http://open.thumbshots.org/image.aspx?url=http://cosmeticsurgerytruth.blogspot.com)
