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 userfy to User:CFCF/Verbage. The consensus here is that the page on its face is not polemic. If it is being misused in a manner to personally attack someone, that kind of conduct is best for WP:AN or other mechanisms not here. The redirects are going to be redirected to the new page which I believe is the typical result. They can then be discussed at RFD. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with its numerous redirects and sandbox, per WP:POLICIES#Essays, WP:POLEMIC, WP:ASPERSIONS (and WP:CIVIL, etc., behind it), WP:SANCTIONGAMING, and WP:NONSENSE. This micro-essay on incoherence is itself completely incoherent, and was created and is maintained as a WP:ARBAE-connected dirtlist against one editor, with over a dozen accusations in it that the author, CFCF, cannot prove. To the extent any sense can be made of it, it is completely redundant with Wikipedia:Wall of text and Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read (which should probably merge, but that's another discussion), and if the polemic material were removed there would be essentially nothing left. CFCF's attempt inject the gist of the page into WP:GAMING[1] was rapidly rejected as WP:CREEP[2]. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In more detail:
It alleges that unclear writing and changing your position in the course of a discussion is WP:Disruptive editing. This is ridiculous and totally against policy and practice at Wikipedia. The entire reason we have WP:Consensus discussions at all is to arrive at compromise by changing others' and often our own minds, and it's a rare discussion here indeed in which every comment is perfectly cogent and no one has any doubts at all. There is absolutely no requirement that talk page posts be models of reason and English language usage. An editor who is afraid to change their mind in the course of discussion is fundamentally incapable of consensus-based work, and so is one more interested in picking at others' casual writing style rather than addressing the meaning of what they're posting. Ergo, this should at bare minimum be userspaced, per WP:POLICIES#Essays: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Essays.)" WP:ESSAYS in turn notes that MfD may userspace or delete anti-consensus essays.
It violates WP:POLEMIC, which simply mandates deletion: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." The fact that this is a one-editor attack piece being updated on-the-fly to needle a specific other editor by "recording perceived flaws" is easily proved with diffs. For example, the page's author added the "changing your position" invective at 10:36, 28 February 2016, only minutes after stating outright that the entire "essay" is about [his idiosyncratic perceptions of] me personally, at 10:02, 28 February 2016, and falsely accusing me of shifting my position in that discussion in some kind of untoward way that CFCF cannot articulate (note also that in the same post, CFCF goes all the way to back to 2007 in an attempt to find "dirt" on me with which to perpetuate the personal dispute he was trying to inject into an unrelated guideline wording discussion for no apparent reason). The number of aspersions cast in the "essay" are almost too many to catalogue; virtually every sentence of it has more than one:
At least 13 accusations CFCF cannot back up
dismissal of everything I post (or if this were taken as an honest essay in general, dismissal of everything posted by anyone who is not as concise as CFCF demands) as "word garbage" and "noise" (see the list of shortcuts)
a bad-faith accusation of a "deliberative [sic] strategy to silence dissent" (he apparently meant "deliberate"; being wikt:deliberative is an unqualified virtue)
a bad-faith accusation of trying to mislead others into thinking one is "winning" by posting more (i.e. the author of the essay doesn't think he is WP:WINNING, and that must be because the other party posted too long, not because the author doesn't have a proper rebuttal) – and since when are we supposed to do posting-length analysis to decide whether we're allowed to comment any further? That would mean anyone could dominate a discussion by posting clipped one-liners, then complaining that everyone else was posting more than they were!
accusation of "lack of any real arguments" (if anything, I hit every salient argument that is applicable, to the displeasure of some, like CFCF, who find it hard to refute me when I'm onto something)
of "obscuring the issues" (which is of course not possible when the length of one's posts is accounted for by covering all the salient issues in-depth)
an accusation of incompetence with words
apparent accusation of being unclear and of having comprehension difficulties
accusation of incoherence, and a bad-faith accusation of using it specifically as a strategy for being able to change one's tune later
of disruptive editing by reason of all of the above unsupported and unsupportable accusations
of filibustering (an accusation CFCF added after I commented filibustering at WT:MEDRS).
(I needn't get into the hypocrisy of many of these allegations.) What we have here is an editor who doesn't like long or complicated posts, no matter why they are, and who has collected every suspicion he's ever had and every fault he's ever found in anyone's post that happened to be long by his measure, decided they are all the exact same problem when they clearly are mostly unrelated issues (and largely paranoid, evidence-free assumption of bad faith), further decided irrationally to pin them all one other person whose arguments are hard for him to refute, and then grandstanded about it in a finger-pointing way. Well, here's a very concise and uncomplicated response to that: No.
As an unrelated WP:POLEMIC point, the piece's first sentence leads with a verbal slight against Republicans [in the sense of the US political party]; just because someone somewhere used this neologism that way doesn't make it appropriate to enshrine that usage in a WP: essay as if it's exemplary; political sniping is a WP:SOAPBOX matter.
The author "cites" the essay in ways that are even less cogent than the essay. E.g., here, giving the essay as a rationale for opposing a "pointless" proposal by a third party at WT:MEDRS (with whom CFCF is also frequently in conflict, over both WP:ARBEC and WP:ARBGMO matters, among others). I suspect CFCF thought it was my proposal, or was objecting on the basis that it was proposed in response to my having raised the issue initially; CFCF is very sore at me personally for going against him at WP:ARBEC and a strange proposal).
I believe this should simply be deleted (not userspaced) as unsalvageable nonsense, and because Wikipedia essays are not a magical safe-haven for behavior and content that transgresses WP:ASPERSIONS / WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA / WP:AGF / WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the deliberately unveiled attacks and aspersions were removed, nothing usable would be left, for further development or for merging. Given that on 1 April 2015 the community imposed general sanctions on the subject area of ARBEC which ArbCom upgraded to discretionary sanctions to encourage more enforcement, I considered taking this to WP:ARCA or WP:AE for action, since it's clearly WP:SANCTIONGAMING the remedies in ARBEC by perpetuating ad hominem disputation related to that case. But I believe MfDing this page will send a strong enough signal.
Strong keep — This is an absolutely silly rationale and an essay which under no circumstance points fingers to individual editors. The mere fact that the behaviors it outlines may be felt as an affront because one so blatantly displays them is not reason for deletion. CFCF 💌📧 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already pre-refuted that with cold, hard proof, of course: [3]; all you're doing (here and with additional hostilities like this) is reinforcing my point. If you spent more time reading posts instead of writing hate "essays" about their posters, you'd probably notice evidence diffs included in the posts. For the third time, I demand that you prove your allegations that I engage in the bad-faith behaviors you project onto me in your "essay", or retract them. Your post above constitutes another WP:NPA / WP:ASPERSIONS violation. As I thought I made clear, I will not hesitate to take this to ARCA or AE if it happens again. You've received and ignored far too many warnings already. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fact that I believe your behaviour to be disruptive is not disallowed. The first post is a perfect example of trying to silence dissent by virtue of large volume of text. I don't see why I should answer your allegations, beyond stating that I find your writing unbearably incoherent (a position I am entitled to, and which I do not divulge unnecessarily). This has no relevance to any arbitration discussion, but to the fact that I and many others can not make out what you write (especially so in policy discussions, such as on WT:MEDRS). This is not a "hate-essay", the mere fact that it applies to you is not enough to make it hateful — and any independent party will be quick to notice this. CFCF 💌📧 14:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Edit: underlinedCFCF 💌📧 15:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More incoherent ranting that's not responsive to anything substantive. Replying to you with a few sentences is not "a large volume of text". Keep digging that hole, though, and cf. your own "essay" positions on trying to weasel your way out of previous statements, and on language competence. My policy arguments may be detailed, but they're very, very clear. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse than I thought. Update: CFCF is busy at WP:NOTHERE work on another similar piece at User:CFCF/sandbox/Waste, an anti-WP:GNOME piece also full of invective and aspersion-casting labeling of other editors, like "sociopath", "stupidity", "you are actively being disruptive and the world is lesser for your existence" (I couldn't make this stuff up!), "Don't be an inadvertent troll", and the planned creation of an anti-barnstar for people who make edits CFCF considers trivial (it shouldn't be lost on anyone that this rambling, unfocused diatribe is precisely the "verbage" [sic] and "waste" that CFCF is shaking his fist about.) I believe this page should also be MfDed for deletion, with prejudice. CFCF needs to ask himself the question he poses at that second page: "does fulfilling my esoteric desire to engage in this pointless manner ruin things for others?"
A third one in the same vein appears to be in the works at User:CFCF/sandbox/Fool, with shortcuts like WP:CALLOUT, and content thus far of "don't feed the amateur" (which is ironic for a reason that's obvious from reading CFCF's user page). It's time to bring to a close this misuse of WP resources for the nonencyclopedic pursuit of damning other editors with idiosyncratic complaints. (Someone else should probably MfD these two.) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I consider my sandbox — especially the contents I do not link — a forum for my personal ideas, which may or may not be widely accepted. This essay is not published anywhere, and would not be published in the form it is now — and the difference is I have never expected anyone to read it — thus never wasting other people's time. CFCF 💌📧 15:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to make clear that the essay is intended to be ironic and humorous, and it may have been poor judgement to create a barnstar, but finding the pretty S-icon with Sisyphus almost obliged me to draft one. I never intended it to be used, and neither has it — mainly because noone has linked to the page beyond now SmcCandlish. CFCF 💌📧 15:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear that you think of your userspace (and essays you move out of it) as a forum for your personal ideas, and that's the crux of the problem. See WP:NOT#WEBOST, WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:USERSPACE, and the policies already cited. Pages being in your userspace does not make them mystically immune to AGF, CIVIL, ASPERSIONS, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send essay to userspace under the presumption that it's a draft of a Wikipedia essay or a personal reflection on Wikipedia (which are usually allowed in userspace). If it's being used disruptively, the removal of the imprimatur of authority projectspace can give is a decent enough stopgap until we can address it as purely disruptive. Delete or retarget redirects: WP:VERBIAGE and WP:Verbiage (the whole point of "verbage" seems to be that it's a misspelling or portmanteau and not related to this word at all, which should point someplace else entirely... for instance an essay dealing with how policies and guidelines are interpreted); WP:NOISE (would be better targeted to WP:INDUSTRIAL, which deals with the genre of noise music); WP:SUCCINCT, WP:SUCCINCTLY, WP:BESUCCINCT, WP:BE SUCCINCT, and their lowercase versions (should target any of a variety of other places, or point to a shortcut dab page); WP:WORDGARBAGE (probably should be deleted as incapable of being used civilly). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a draft. It was drafted in userspace [4], and it now exists as a WP essay. Userspacing it does nothing about its WP:POLEMIC failures; it would be deleted as polemic even if it already existed in userspace. Redirs: It's probably "namespace pollution" to retarget these, since they were unused before this essay, and the essay has no currency, so they are effectively still unused. We don't need to preserve lowercase shortcuts or those with spaces in them at all, since we don't use shortcuts like that (a few exist, but they are disused). If WP:INDUSTRIAL wants WP:NOISE, they can use it after it's deleted. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. If the usual procedure is to delete and then allow recreation of the redirs if wanted, rather than just retargeting, then that's fine. I've not hung around RfD much but I think we should follow the same standards they would. We are in agreement that it's a case of shortcut pollution. I'm not with you on the polemic argument, though. What's written doesn't strike me as more polemical than other, accepted (even if controversial) essays/links (WP:DICK, WP:LEW, WP:TIGER, WP:DBO to name a few). I admit, your nom statement indicates there's probably some additional background here, but I don't think that contaminates what's written here. If CFCF is misusing this essay, then that's something that can be addressed elsewhere. I'll conclude by saying I don't find this particular essay valuable, and think it's clearly redundant to others, but my experience has been that the bar for allowing something to stand in userspace is quite low. I think that this essay may meet that bar. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it were just some essay, I would agree with you, but it is not. CFCF has loudly advertised it in an off-topic post to a highly-watchisted guideline talk page as being specifically, entirely, personally directed at me [5]. He cannot hide behind the fact that the wording doesn't name me as the subject of his bad-faith accusations, when me makes a shameless point of announcing them on a different page. That's patent WP:SANCTIONGAMING. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Neologism. Connection to Wikipedia not strong, application is singles user's opinion. Not so polemic to be disallowed from userspace. In general, disputed single author essays belong in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: It should not be kept, when the author intended it as and uses it as nothing but a one-target attack page [6] (it makes specific but unproven accusations of bad-faith action), and he is gaming the system to avoid accountability for UNCIVIL, POLEMIC, NPA, ASPERSIONS, etc., by playing a "make the accusations here, but only identify who I'm accusing there" shell-game. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:19, 24 March 2016 (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.