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 discussion was remove the section in question (which I have done) as the consensus of the discussion below is that maintaining such a list is not what a user page is for. The "about me" section of the userpage is not a problem, so deletion of the whole userpage is unnecessary. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghostofnemo[edit]

WP:UP#POLEMIC Cptnono (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostofnemo has created a user page for the purpose of "Dissent and peaceful protest"Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618 which at one time was called a "Hall of shame" that provides reasoning for his deleted material. It is now only a "Hall of Questionable Deletions" but still includes bits of conversations from talk pages "for your amusement". Other editors and myself have questioned that it takes conversations out of context and it appears to me to be a laundry list of perceived slights that Is against WP:UP#POLEMIC ("Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons") The guideline is clear: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used..." He has been asked to not have this listing attempting to shame other editors but has continued to update it. The next step is AE since it is in violation of decorum in the 9/11 topic area.Cptnono (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to delete my user page? Is that possible? Anyway, it's not "negative material", unless you and the other editors are ashamed of your own comments and your own deletions. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intent is negative and you know it. Perfect example of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Cptnono (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not conductive to harmonious editing, if it was used to store diffs for later, that would be one thing and would actually be useful, taking comments out of context and using the userpage as a soapbox is not an appropriate use of the user space. Given that they were warned about it on the ANI thread and still continue to try and use it as a soapbox, I see no course of action other than to delete it and protect the page until they can think of a more useful and appropriate way to use the page.--Terrillja _talk 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is impossible to assert "intent" as a rule. Does it attack specific editors? Not as far as I can tell. Does it use vilifying language? Not as far as I cn tell. Would it be better to let this page simply be ignored rather than bringing it to MfD? Yep. Does it violate WP policies regarding userspace? Nope. Absent a reason to delete, default is to keep. Unless, of course, we were to delete all clerly wrong opinions on controversial topics <g>. Collect (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not policy but WP:UP#POLEMIC is a guideline. Shaming editors for other user's "amusement" is not appropriate and inexcusable regardless of the other editors ignoring it or not. We could ignore it but he could also delete the questionable content. And considering that the 9/11 topic is currently sanctionable there is little room for leeway.Cptnono (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a list of posts by editors that have shot down various edits contrary to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH that GoN has been trying to make. It's pretty obvious he doesn't like it, and intends them as a "Hall of Shame" as he used to call it. It's a purely one-sided list (odd, that, isn't it). If the closing admin thinks lists like this are a bad thing, then remove them. If the closing admin doesn't think so, then don't and we can all have such lists on our user page. Ravensfire (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to propose an amendment to the guideline to remove the words like "laundry lists", "divisive", and about just all the rest if it is deemed that these are now acceptable.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is to show a pattern of questionable deletions that seem to be aimed at keeping well-sourced, relevant and NPOV material out of articles. Is it censorship? That's up to the reader to decide. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, but you forgot to add that the material was OR/SYNTH! Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a topic of debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Questionable_interpretations_of_SYNTH Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your forgot to add that your edits were deemed unacceptable there, just like every other venue you've tried. In addition, your proposed change to OR/SYNTH was snowball closed as rejected - not a single person agreed. Nobody here doubts that you disagree with the policy. But you don't seem to get that the community disagrees with your interpretation, and ultimately, that's what we go by. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read the discussion, two other people questioned the current policy and seemed to see my point, but they didn't bother to vote in the poll. I'd love to nudge them to vote, but I guess that's against the rules. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is totally unacceptable to build what we all know is an attempt at an attack page. Sure, it's a very weak attack, but no amount of AGF can excuse a list of edits made by other people, together with extracts from comments made by other editors. Even if Ghostofnemo has noble intentions, displaying this list is exactly what would be done as some kind of payback or shaming mechanism. However, that is not acceptable on any page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to discuss these deletions, at great length, on the article discussion pages, but have not succeeded in preventing repeated deletions. These deleted edits are my attempt to show that Wikipedia is dysfunctional and allows censorship by aggressive editors. If you can suggest a better method of resolution, I'm willing to try it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything in the first section, leave the "about me" alone. I agree that the top half of the page should be removed by the community as an improper usage of user space, but the bottom is fine and what I would expect to find when clicking a link to a user's page. Imzadi 1979 → 01:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're denying users the right to comment on Wikipedia on their Userpage? How does that differ from censorship? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but delete references to specific editors. References to specific editors in such a context is against WP:No personal attacks. Otherwise disagreement with wikipedia policy on a user page isn't something I think we should get too worried about. I just wish editor who disagree with policy could just have the decency to follow the policy and not cause trouble for other editors and I think the user should be banned if they persistently break policy in such a disruptive fashion after being warned. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any personal attacks there. I think it's fair to hold people accountable for their actions, and it points out that some editors do this repeatedly. Should I label them "Editor A", "Editor B"...? I don't see any policy violations either. Many editors are calling some of these edits SYNTH, but what I see on the policy page does not seem to correspond with how they are interpreting the policy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No change to decision about page but you can delete it if you ban this editor for continued disruption and inabilityto follow policy. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The top section, leave "About Me" alone. The about me section is fine, and normal for a userpage, but everything above it should be removed. The top part is most certainly a misuse of userspace. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 19:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up to both Dmcq and Hi878: I also do not have a problem with the other portions of the page. There is a consensus emerging that the top section of his user page needs to go. However, he continues to expand it. So whatever removes the information (deleting the entire page while he copies and pastes the acceptable parts in or something else) is fine by me.Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To show that my documentation of these deletions is being done in good faith, as an effort to alert the Wikipedia community about a pattern of perceived questionable deletions that are not being addressed by current policies, I've added diffs of the questionable deletions I've noted, so that interested parties can see them in context. I would love to see this issue resolved in another manner, but no one seems to be offering a better solution. I'm sure we can do better than to erase the evidence of a perceived injustice. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and in effect, sweep it under the rug and steamroller me, instead of resolving it in a manner acceptable to all parties. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a solution. Consensus went against you in multiple talk page sections in multiple articles, ANI, and the OR noticeboard. If you want to foster more collaborative editing the last thing you should do is create an ongoing laundry list. Simply have a list that says: "I disagree with the current OR policy. Here is a link to that discussion. Here are some edits I think should be in, x,y,z." Couple that with your removal of "for your amusement" (which was done) and removing the out of context (even in context might be considered annoying and divisive) comments by other editors and there should be no problem. You have so far not tried hard enough to meet the user page guidelines. And I personally don't see anything "questionable" or "illogical" about the deletions and so far others have agreed in numerous venues.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be objective about this. It really comes down to whether or not the removed material is relevant to the article, reliably sourced and NPOV. All of the deleted material I've cited seem to meet these criteria. None of it seems to really be synthesis or coatracking. I'm not stating any original conclusions or tacking on material that is irrelevant to the articles. It could be that the policies are messed up and the editors are acting in good faith to enforce messed up policies, or it could be that they don't like the material and they are deleting it and using policies as an excuse. The fact that the material is being completely deleted instead of being modified to comply with the policies leads me to believe it is the latter. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing your contributions here. I know you think they are fine and neither of us are changing our minds it looks like. The question is if you can have the laundry list of wrongs on your user page.Cptnono (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, it could be that the policy is just unclear, and editors are misinterpreting it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep if the user promises to cut the first part. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your act of benevolence in allowing me to keep part of my Userpage. As a token of my appreciation, I'll let you keep your Userpage, too. Ghostofnemo (talk)
You know, comments like that really aren't helping you... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come yell at me!)} 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because Wikipedia consensus doesn't always align with your own personal opinion doesn't mean you need to cry about it. SnottyWong ^confabulate 22:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good faith comment! Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SnottyWong, do you deem the 'about me' part 'crying about it'? Kayau Voting IS evil 11:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.