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 no consensus, defaulting to keep.

I agree with the details of the pre-closing analysis given by Kww, save that (1) I think the analysis arguably leans to "no consensus"; and (2) the analysis was followed by further reasonable keep !votes, which tips the balance firmly into "no consensus" territory.

Given that the specific content identified by the nominator was addressed during the discussion, the discussion concerned the general content and purpose of the page. There is a widely held view - approaching a consensus - that there are numerous elements of the page that are problematic, because of their divisiveness or potential construction as attacks on other editors. A number of keep !votes that say this is the case (of course, which elements are "problematic" will differ between editors so there is no specific consensus on any part of the page that would warrant me remove anything from the page now). But there is no consensus for the views raised by most of the delete !voters that the page as a whole is problematic, contrary to policy, or requires deletion at this stage.

Editors should feel free to raise concerns with specific elements of the page with Dream Focus and pursue dispute resolution if there are disagreements over particular content. I'd implore Dream Focus to genuinely consider any such concerns in light of the "widely held view" mentioned above.Mkativerata (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dream Focus

[edit]

This page is an excessively lengthy, blog-like collection of this user's mostly divisive thoughts. Specifically, it violates WP:UP#POLEMIC in that it actually specifically refers to me as being "lazy", and accuses me of "spamming 'delete' on AfD's tagged for rescue". See User:Dream Focus#Another typical day for the Rescue Squadron where he/she refers to a specific editor who nominated an article for deletion, then links to the AfD showing me as the nominator. It is also an example (from WP:UP) of "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article." The extensive, divisive, anti-deletionist comments are actually unhelpful to the community, as they are chock full of assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, including (but not limited to) calling people "insane", "idiotic", "evil", "crazy", "stupid", "unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists", and whatever else is in the copious sections I can't be bothered to read. None of this is helpful towards building an encyclopedia. SnottyWong speak 02:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misquote me. I never said you called people those things "by name", I only said you specifically singled me out. Just because the other personal attacks you made don't single people out doesn't mean they're ok. SnottyWong chat 03:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a personal attack if it doesn't single someone out? Can you give an example of this? Dream Focus 03:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the idiotic, raging inclusionists are retarded and deserve to have their testicles dipped in boiling radioactive waste. Seriously, how utterly stupid do you have to be to want to keep XYZ Article? (Example of an inappropriate personal attack that doesn't single out an editor.) SnottyWong verbalize 04:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, an example from my page of a personal attack. I never said anything like that. I do not call people retarded, nor do I make any insane comments about what anyone deserves to have happen to them. That would be a personal attack, which is something I have not done. Dream Focus 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was nearly a year ago. Your comments singling me out as lazy and your assumptions of bad faith about my AfD voting patterns were not in that version. SnottyWong prattle 03:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the rest of your nomination about it unhelpful, and my comments about the deletionist mentality some people are unfortunately infected with. Instead of discussing all of that again, why not just read through the past discussion and save everyone some time? Its all Wikipedia related, so its fine. Dream Focus 03:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did plenty of work on it while it was at AFD and then again when it was moved to my user space. Check the history. [3] I found some references for some of the gangs, but was having trouble finding information for the rest. After days of working on it, I moved on to other things, no one else there to help me, and there more important things out there. What other pages do I have that are like that? Some might've been restored for me to transwiki them. How do I find a list of all side pages that are out there? Dream Focus 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the sentence after that says "Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:" and then list examples of things not related to Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia related, I am allowed to complain about things concerning it and list how they should be improved. Dream Focus 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the exclusion you are searching for is "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." I don't think your userpage qualifies as "non-disruptive".—Kww(talk) 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-disruptive is too vague and impossible to define. Anyone who disagrees with you is disruptive. Dream Focus 20:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly an ""I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it" kind of thing. In this case, your page has little or nothing to do with policies or guidelines, and is basically a diatribe against a group of people with whom you disagree. It does nothing to further intelligent debate on the topic you disagree with them over, and instead serves to paint a childishly bad caricature of a large group of experienced editors. There's nothing beneficial to anyone or anything on the page.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is all about Wikipedia. Mentioning the problems as I see them, is the first step to changing guidelines and policies. I still believe that reason can prevail, and that one day people will stop trying to delete best-selling novels just because they didn't get reviewed anywhere, and that someone will be seen as notable based on their accomplishments, not on the reviews they might get somewhere. Dream Focus 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then make a page debating the merits of why a novel should be considered notable despite the fact that no source took note of it, not a page describing the people that disagree with you as "unreasonable vicious hordes." You aren't making arguments for a position, you are vilifying a group of editors.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't understand why being a bestseller makes something notable, and not just the random opinion of whoever happens to decide to review something, then nothing I say will convince you. And I do in fact explain this problem somewhere on my user page. The unreasonable vicious hordes bit started as a joke, stimming from various AFD discussions I had with some rampart deletionists early on. But it does fit rather well. I consider them unreasonable, and I'm sure some feel the same way about me. They do viciously go after articles they don't like, calling them cruft, and trying to destroy them by any means they can, and there are Wikiprojects infested at times with hordes of people that think the same, and all vote the same in every decision. And I am not vilifying them, just pointing out their horrid actions of mindless destruction. You have people who do nothing at all to contribute to Wikipedia, but rampage about each day looking for articles to nominate for deletion, articles which are doing no harm to anyone, which have been around for years, and have been read and enjoyed by many. Their actions vilify them above all else as far as I'm concerned, for there is no greater evil on Wikipedia than the deletionists rampage. Dream Focus 20:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've made my point quite eloquently.—Kww(talk) 21:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"And I am not vilifying them, just pointing out their horrid actions of mindless destruction." You are a walking contradiction. SnottyWong express 21:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link, since you said it singles an editor out. Dream Focus 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I said the exact same thing on your talk page before starting this MfD, but your response was, shall we say, different. SnottyWong confabulate 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, all you did was whine and threaten to take it this place and that until you got your way. [4] You could've stated what FeydHuxtable did, that the link might lead someone to believe I was talking about just one editor in particular, instead of just using that as a general example of the common problem, and that would've been the end of it. Dream Focus 22:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That would be because you are a member of the ravening hordes of evil deletionists whereas Feyd Huxtable reckons Dream Focus shows "refreshing moral clarity", (which gave me an awkward coffee/keyboard moment) pablo 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I listen to everyone's case, and consider it equally. Don't assume bad faith. Dream Focus 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume I'm assuming bad faith. I am going on my knowledge of your editing, and the picture of your motivation which you have painted in great detail on your userpage. Oh, and this edit summary pablo 22:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Pablo: Alcohol preps can clean-up most of that sort of keyboard incident. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Feyd: re upgrading to strong keep; you think that strengthens anything? I could show you how to make it blink, be red and have shadows on the words if you think that would help, too. re 'moral clarity'; wut? That another bit of real-world political jargon being infused into wiki-speak? Jack Merridew 03:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I use the word "idiotic" on that page is when talking about certain "idiotic guidelines". That isn't attacking anyone, its insulting the ridiculous guidelines. The word "crazy" is only used at one spot, and not directed at anyone at Wikipedia, me just complaining about the conspiracy theorists with the most ridiculous ideas and assumptions getting a book published, and that counting as a credible source for something in an article. [5] Please don't take things out of context. That'd be rather evil of you. ;) Dream Focus 23:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the word "insane" only appears on my talk page in two places. User:Dream_Focus#Wikia_is_now_insanely_popular.21 and me commenting on people "making insane numbers of edits". I did not call anyone insane there either. So the entire argument against me seems rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The animosity engendered ..." do you mean the animosity actually on the user page or the animosity which is a reaction to the user page?  pablo 16:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The animosity engendered by this page is precisely why it should be deleted, and the "... and delete Snotty!!" is precisely the kind of behaviour that is unacceptable in these discussions, as it is "detrimental to the purpose of the project -- creating an encylopedia".—Kww(talk) 16:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the comments in my defense, but they are likely unnecessary since the absurdity of Milowent's comments are almost certainly apparent to everyone. I'd suggest refraining from responding any further and heeding the sign to the right. SnottyWong communicate 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References to Sherlock Holmes are not disruptive. If someone actually clicks on the link and learns that Moriarity was Holmes' arch-nemesis, they will have learned far more than they will by reading this abomination of a deletion discussion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where am I abusing others by name? And how can you abuse others by opinion? And what's this nonsense about an inclusionist army? How is one guy stating his opinions and observations about Wikipedia make an army? Dream Focus 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were abusing others by name. I said you were abusing others generally rather than individually, and in my opinion that is just as bad. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol. i'll get right on sourcing it.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly help you with the "abusing by opinion" thing. A quick scan yields
""Snotty Elitist Deletionist"
"Yet another decent legitimate article destroyed by the unreasonable vicious hordes of deletionists"
"Things some evil deletionist seem to say at times"
and the contrast of
"Unreasonable Deletionist" v "Reasonable Inclusionist"
These characterise editors with whom you disagree as snotty, elitist, unreasonable, vicious and evil. I personally loathe the terms 'inclusionist' and 'deletionist'; they serve only to polarise editors more than they would naturally polarise. You shovelling in the adjectives certainly doesn't help, and does in fact become personal attacks against a group of editors whose opinions you do not share.  pablo 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that you 'hadn't singled anyone out', this was more a response to your post above where you ask "And how can you abuse others by opinion?" You certainly did single Snottywong out though, hence this nomination when you failed to remove the link as he/she requested.  pablo 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did remove it already, after someone made a valid case, which convinced me. That even though I was talking about a problem I commonly see in AFDs, linking to that one example did cause some to think I was talking specifically about this one editor, who I never named on my user page at all. But that isn't what most of those here now are complaining about. That was a slight misunderstanding, now resolved. Dream Focus 22:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant. Every nasty thing anyone says about him as an individual could be true, people could have excellent cases against him at AIV, ANI, RFC/U, and every other alphabet board there is, and it would have no impact on the suitability of the content of your user page.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ever see a discussion about anything on Wikipedia where people didn't disagree and argue? And I don't think about what I put in the edit summary, so stop over-analyzing it. Someone else said it might be confused as a personal attack, not just the one guy who appeared to be whining over nothing with his long rude conversation on my talk page where he kept threatening to do something if I didn't do what he wanted. So their opinion I took seriously, as I would others who I was certain weren't just holding a grudge against me. It honestly was not a veiled personal attack, that never entering my mind. Its gone now, so there isn't really a problem. Stopping people from expressing their concerns about Wikipedia matters on their user pages, doesn't stop them from feeling how they do, and making their case in AFDs and elsewhere. Wikipedia is not censorship. As for the Rescue Squadron tag, I'm not sure about that, it seems rather odd. Dream Focus 01:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that there is no "collegial respect" shown by those who viciously wipe out the work of others, not caring about their feelings at all, nor the people who actually come here to read their work. They constantly call it all cruft, and often state they dislike for it. Many people try to delete articles, or do massive trimming, simply because they don't like long articles, and this is mentioned by them often enough in discussions throughout Wikipedia. Is it wrong for me to complain about these horrid actions, when its Wikipedia related? Dream Focus 01:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about the edit summary and the response to a single editor with whom you have been having a long-running dispute, but it's not the only divisive statement that is/was on your user page. WP:CIVILITY and WP:UP#POLEMIC are not about how you feel or think, they're about how you interact with others. It is not wrong to complain about actions you disagree with, the issue is in how to complain. Do you believe that calling people "unreasonable vicious hordes" is helping the project? VernoWhitney (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)@Verno: The fact that I am outraged at Snotty as part of this discussion is not a reason to delete this page. I am outraged at many of his edits, it has nothing to do with the content of this page. It is interesting, though, that Snotty votes to keep on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (3rd nomination) at same time he votes to delete here. I have !voted to keep both.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletionist admins like yourself are quick to sanction content creators and inclusionists while the converse does not apply. It seems that the two go together. Admins who are more tolerant of content are also more tolerant of bad behaviour. It is thus a systemic bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah bless, it must be terrible when someone points out that, as usual, most of your postings aren't actually based on reality, mustn't it? "Deletionist Admin"? Lucky for you that's not another personal attack, eh? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a brief recap of the history of the situation might help clear some things up. Firstly, I'm not aware of any significant interaction between myself and Dream Focus before this MfD. I could be wrong, but I don't think we've ever really had an argument before this. So, while it's clear why Dream Focus wouldn't like me (because, in his eyes, I'm part of the vicious horde), I don't see any prior interaction which would justify labeling this MfD as "poking a hornet's nest". Secondly, after I randomly happened upon Dream's user page and found the comments that were directed specifically at me, I asked him on his talk page to remove his comments. I was going to go straight to MfD or ANI with the problem, but I gave him the chance to remove the comments without having to go through all of this drama. Predictably, he refused, and the result was this MfD. I have no desire to interact with Dream Focus and would have greatly preferred to have handled this on his talk page, but I also refuse to allow personal attacks directed specifically at me to persist on his user page. Dream has since removed the link from his user page which links his comments directly to me, although his assumptions of bad faith about me still remain. It is now just a lot harder to figure out exactly who he is referring to. I would have preferred if the entire section were deleted, but I don't think I could stand more interaction with Dream, so I'll probably just let it stand. So, to clear things up, I didn't bring this page to MfD because "I don't like what he says", I brought it here because he refused to remove clear personal attacks that were directed specifically at me. Whether MfD or ANI (or elsewhere) was the appropriate venue for that complaint is a valid argument. I still think the rest of his user page is a divisive battleground, but it appears that the community believes he's within his rights, and I can respect that. SnottyWong chat 20:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section refers to many other people as well, as I have said. Just now I found yet another case of someone nominating something for deletion, which no one else had any trouble finding a great deal of sources for. [15] It is a VERY common problem. Dream Focus 05:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe any rule was violated by me? Dream Focus 11:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about a "rule", it's about commons sense. Why can't you make a blog and link to it on your userpage? This is, what, the third AFD? Obviously it is problematic and disruptive. Mike Allen 01:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't want to be insulting or uncivil, but I don't think I've ever seen a more moronic conclusion", now this says to me this participant in a discussion knows policy but obviously disregards it when it seems to serve a purpose.
  • The same user suggested that an article did not conform to BLP policy. The person in the article had been dead for more than ten years. When I politely asked if that policy was really relevant I got no answer.
So, my question is, can we delete this page because we do not like it? Quoting policy and a lack manners is a tactic and in my opinion not a very good one in this case. --JHvW (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that no one answered you. I opined delete, but am not much fussed if it stays. It's not about "liking" it; I don't "dislike" it (I can laugh at stuff I really disagree with), it's that I and some others don't see it as helpful. It's "toxic wiki" material, to use the term-of-art that's emerged over the last few years. See Uncle G's comments on my talk above your post and the stuff linked there and further. We have users that are endlessly divisive and that does not serve the project well. Most questions about "approach" boil down to that. We tolerate too much toxicity. None of this is surprising, though; just look at the real world: all the same issues, the same lack of solutions. Click the real world's history-tab and you'll see that it's a long-term problem.
I saw your user page but don't know you or what happened; you're not-the-first; there are many. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind remarks. We obviously do not agree on some points. I am aware that I am not the first to go, nor do I think it will make much difference to this project. Nor do I think that this page constitutes a threat. As has been stated, this page is chaotic and contains the rambling and ranting of a single user. If this were a court of law we would now be in the stage of closing arguments. It is my opinion that none of the users that have contributed to this discussion seem to have taken offence. Besides which it is my opinion that you would have to look very hard to find something that could be construed as being offensive and this would mean that you would have to look very hard. So I do not see this page as "toxic", some of the parts I find very funny.
But I do agree that this project (Wikipedia) is worthwhile, the core policy being to disregard policy if it works towards improving the over-all quality of this project. I do not see this page or this user as a threat to the over-all quality of this project, so I have opted for "keep". And I do agree with your point of view on the goings-on in this project as being a reflection of society on the whole. Maybe this page should be toned down a little (but that is personal and I do not think that is what a deletion discussion should be about). My personal preference in this case would be the alarming similarity to what is described in Eric Blair's Animal Farm. In Wikiland all users seem to be equal, but some seem to think that they are more equal than others. --JHvW (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. DF's certainly not a threat to the project per se, but he's unhelpful (IMO;). His user page is denigrating a class of editors he disagrees with, and I'm certainly one of the ones he has in mind; ex: UT:DF:How bad editors try to delete things and UT:DF:Wikihounding versus wikistalking (cf. my history). All editors in good standing are "equal" but DF's approach seems to be about relentlessly casting-out some as less equal. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach and it contributes to the toxicity of the editing environment and impedes collaboration. As I said below, the issue is more DF as an editor than his chaotic rantings on that page. If he were a genuine threat, someone would bother to make the effort to properly make a case for some form of remedy regarding his approach. He asked above if he broke any 'rule' and I'll offer that he has a serious issue with WP:AGF. It's all us vs them, to him. See the real-world for numerous examples of where that leads. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First I would like to point out that I think your reasoning is clear to me and that you make a some valid points. I agree, in part, because I have difficulty understanding this page, because it is chaotic and I do not understand some of the arguments made, that is my opinion. But there are also things that I find (very) funny. I prefer to look at those, also personal. And as this is a -more or less- public debate, I will state that I respect your points of view. But you have pointed out that, if this user were a genuine threat, somebody should do something about it. This is my point about this whole nomination. It is a waste of everybodies time and does not seem to add to the project, rather the contrary. And maybe your are right about the inference about being "less equal". But you will also notice that I have (and I did this on purpose) left the ambiguity as to which users consider themselves "more equal" (and by inference considering others "less equal"), wide open. Not because I do not have an opinion (which is usually personal), but I was brought up to believe it was preferable to be civil, a policy that I believe is subscribed to by this project. All this mudslinging is not something I care for. That is all I have to say. --JHvW (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "less equal", that just nonsense. Do you mean "less than equal?" And how would my words "impedes collaboration"? You can't collaborate with someone whose only goal is to destroy things they don't like. And you can not assume good faith when you see the same people rampaging about calling everything they don't like "fancruft" and stating how the Wikipedia doesn't need it. They have decided what they don't want to see, and go out of their way to eliminate it, by any means possible. These are the elitist deletionists, not the folks who naively think they are helping by mindlessly following guidelines. That's a different problem. See here [16] for an explanation about the problem. Dream Focus 16:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You've just given us: ABF: [people] whose only goal is to destroy things they don't like, an explicit declaration of an WP:EQ-exception for those 'rampaging' re fancruft (nb: I don't "like" genocide and I'll stipulate that genocide is not fancruft;), re: eliminate it, by any means possible: I've not sought to stop the fusion reaction in our sun in order to effectively delete Pinstrips on Starfleet shuttlecraft or Mordor–Sodom bilateral relations, 'elitist' as some sort of pejorative intensifier, an offer of 'mindless' as a false alternative to 'elitist', your Snotty Elitist Deletionist link that's a peach with its use of terms like 'snobs' and 'high society' contrasted with 'common folks' and the use of the word 'hate' and 'mindless[ly]' (again). You're just a rolling battleground emitting personal attacks, generalized disparagement, aspersions and divisiveness. I think you love this attention. Mebbe we should close this as DENY and RFC/U you? Wikipedia has 'delete' functionality and editors who believe some things should be deleted. To re-use a term: "If you don't like it, go home."ref Jack Merridew 03:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a big difference here, Colonel. I am describing Dream Focus's user page as it is- or do you think that his user page is not a long, vicious and unfair attack against people he considers "evil lunatics"? The people he attacks there have done nothing to deserve it. Reyk YO! 04:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'd describe it more as a long rambling collection of drivel which makes it fairly clear that he doesn't understand a lot of the basic concepts of Wikipedia. If that's the impression he wants to give, then ... frankly, the most worrying bit about it is the part where he suggests censoring images. Signed, Evil Deletionist #1476 (aka Black Kite (t) (c) 06:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • nb: you can get your proper 'deletionist' number by clicking 'preferences' — it's just under your username ;)
    Rather than delete his user page, mebbe we should restrict him to editing his user page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly a major worry that he agrees with Jimbo about images. The most worrying part for me is the advocacy of American spelling. That's the nature of the page - it is so huge and sprawling that there's something for everyone. Cherry-picking the bits you don't agree with is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc and Jack put the "evil" in "evil deletionist".--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ARRR, that I do me hearty! The other problem I have though is with the frequent Bawwwing over those "evil deletionists". This looks like its heading for the ever-popular "no consensus" though, so at the end of the day, meh. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milo, see WP:NPA ;) Jack Merridew 03:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I self-exempted myself from that one. Plus i mean evil in the nicest way.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not allowed to close this thing, but, if I were, it would be delete. Here's the summary of why: the nominator holds to description as a personal attack. We then have:

  • The deletion arguments:
  • Pablo holds that it is disruptive, as demonstrated by the discussion, rendering it immune to the Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project exception.
  • Kww holds that it violates WP:SOAPBOX, and doesn't fit the Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project exception.
  • Animate agrees with the personal attack description.
  • Tarc calls it a "platform", which is a part of WP:SOAPBOX.
  • VernoWhitney goes for WP:UP#POLEMIC
  • Chaos5023 goes for WP:UP#POLEMIC
  • Jack Merridew goes for WP:UP#POLEMIC
  • Reyk goes for a trifecta: WP:UP#POLEMIC, WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. I'll note that WP:DICK is an essay, not policy.
  • Mike Allen basically goes for WP:MYSPACE, although he doesn't phrase it that way.
  • Keep !votes that are really deletion arguments
  • 195.14.196.124 is arguing that allowing Dream Focus to keep the page will make it easier to ban Dream Focus from Wikipedia. That would seem to paint the page as unacceptable content.
  • Keep !votes that are contingent on the removal of material that Dream Focus has never agreed to remove, rendering these !votes irrelevant
  • Salvio
  • Acather96
  • FT2
  • Black Kite
  • Alzarian16
  • LibStar (tagged as "comment")
  • Keep !votes that are used as platforms for further personal attacks:
  • Milowent
  • Bali Ultimate is borderline in the opposite direction
  • Keep votes that can be discarded due to personal bias:
  • Dream Focus
  • Keep votes that fall into WP:ILIKEIT or its unwritten equivalent WP:ILIKEDREAMFOCUS
  • Alpha Quadrant
  • Milowent (also counted under personal attacks)
  • Keep votes that attempt to argue policy
  • Colonel Warden (weak argument: describing this page as "restrained" begs reality)
  • Collect (basically holding that it isn't offensive enough to go outside limits)
  • Michael Q Schmidt (basically holding that it isn't offensive enough to go outside limits)
  • Protonk (basically holding that it isn't offensive enough to go outside limits)
  • PhilKnight (basically holding that it isn't offensive enough to go outside limits)
  • Marasmusine(basically holding that it isn't offensive enough to go outside limits)
  • Tothwolf (basically holding that it isn't offensive enough to go outside limits)
  • JHvW basically argues that policies aren't a good reason to delete things, which I think betrays a lack of process understanding).
  • In the end, we have seven well argued deletions referring to multiple polices vs. eight keeps that at best describe the content as borderline (i.e. we recognize the problem, but wouldn't hit delete ourselves). I could understand a closing admin going for "no consensus", but I'd still go for "delete".—Kww(talk) 16:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well of course, those who agree with you must have the best arguments, while those who believe the opposite can just be dismissed outright. Most said "Keep", that what consensus is. And I see many of those saying delete, who have previously argued with me in AFDs and elsewhere, so I do have to question their motives. Dream Focus 16:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For what it's worth, the original complaint which triggered this MfD has been resolved (although barely). If the community decides that the rest of his page doesn't violate WP:UP or WP:SOAPBOX, then I think this discussion should be closed. I wish, though, that the situation didn't have to escalate to the point where an MfD was necessary. Had Dream Focus been capable of discussing my complaints rationally on his talk page, this whole waste of time could have been avoided. I plan to resume avoiding and ignoring Dream Focus and getting on with more important things, and I encourage the rest of you to do the same. I would encourage Dream Focus to take a look at his user page from someone else's perspective, and consider voluntarily removing the most divisive parts of it. The comments made above should be enough to prove that I am not the only one who thinks that such comments are unhelpful. SnottyWong converse 18:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty, that's very gracious of you, especially as Dream probably should have rewrote or delted the objectional section as soon as you raised the matter on his talk. As you say Dream did remove the key objectional material during the AfD and so contary to KWW there is no reason to consider the wishes of Salvio, Acather96, FT2, BlackKite, Alazarian16 & Libstar as irrelevant, even if they had made their keeps conditional on a removal (which seems doubtful). In your nom you very clearly pointed out the possible WP:Polemic violation so the fact around 20 editors still voted keep suggests they dont think the page violates that policy even if they didnt say so directly. Only about two delete votes appeal to WP:notsoap and that policy seems almost entirely geared to external matters rather than being intended to suppress the passionate discussion of Wikipedia internals. So hopefully we now have a very good chance of a keep close, which should discourage a 3rd timewasting MfD. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He removed one specific detail, while the voters referenced indicated that more material needed to be removed. Dream Focus's actions indicate that he won't consider requests from the people he insults to remove the material, which means the chances of him removing the bulk of the material is pretty slim.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream removed the key objectional link and as Snotty has just confirmned the issue that understandably prompted him to raise this MfD is resolved. (even though several would ideally like Dream to further tone down the page, there is no concensus to delete if Dream doesnt comply). FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kww, what an interesting way to twist things around. I never said I wouldn't consider request, provided I thought they were sincere ones and not just people whinning about nothing to get attention, such as the case Jack linked to above, at UT:DF:Wikihounding versus wikistalking, where Merridew pretended to be offended just to have something to complain about. If you believe you have been personally targeted, then discuss it. This was all just a simple misunderstanding, which turned into an excuse for certain people to try to gang up on someone who doesn't think the way they do. Dream Focus 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I twisted nothing. When SnottyWong asked you to remove the material, you said "No. Everything I said was true.". When Feyd Huxtable asked, you said "link removed because FeydHuxtable's opinion matters to me". There was no misunderstanding: you understood Snotty's request and refused to honor it. You only acted when someone you classify as an inclusionist made the request.—Kww(talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus; I was quite clear on your talk page that I was sincerely bothered by your attacks. Doug Weller got you to quite explicitly clarify that you meant stalking "by every definition of the word", i.e. "calling Jack Merridew a criminal" (and the specific criminal being used as an example was Robert John Bardo). Further you stated that "[Dougweller] appear[s] to be hounding me [Dream Focus], defined as 'to drive or affect by persistent harassing'". Doug's an AC-clerk and your attacks were on a page he was charged with clerking. I was, and am, not "whinning [sic] about nothing to get attention", I did not "pretended to be offended just to have something to complain about." I've tried to discuss these issues with you; as Kevin has said, you're not open to the concerns of those you attack. You do not get to cherry-pick users or classes of users as being not covered by core policies, guidelines, and norms; that's WP:Wikibigotry. If you do not take our fundamental wiki-principles to heart, you will be asked to go home. You and others taking such stances, poison the editing environment. Please stop hurting Wikipedia; see WP:UP and note the part about bringing the project into disrepute. I am ashamed that your page exists on a project I participate in. Frankly I see it as a CSD per WP:ATTACK. You're viciously disparaging those you hate. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of context as usual. And hopefully no one is falling for your little act. If someone didn't know of your past, they might actually fall for your little routine here. How many times were you blocked/banned, told to stop harassing certain people, or otherwise sanctioned by Wikipedia? Dream Focus 05:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
little act, little routine. The attacks and bad faith just go on and on with you. I already gave my history, above; it's known, has been reviewed many times. The Arbitration Committee commended me. Jack Merridew 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no end to history. Your history page states, "User:Jack Merridew agrees ... to follow ... dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts". And yet in this very discussion, we see you pick an editing fight. After I reverted your bold move of my comment, you did not engage dispute resolution, you just repeated your edit with an uncivil edit summary. This is elementary edit warring and one would have thought that a person in your position would be squeaky clean in observing such niceties. But no. My impression is that you have come to this discussion specifically to annoy and bait your perceived enemies and that the spirit of battle still burns bright in you. Your parole was a farce because you continually behaved in this way. If DreamFocus wishes to say something about Wikipedia's poor practise in matters of this kind then this seems to be appropriate and fair comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am ashamed that Jack's comment above exists on a project I participate in. How shall I ever recover from the guilt. Perhaps more vicious disparagement of evil deletionistsold ladies down by the pub.--Milowent • talkblp-r 07:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm traveling. I've been visiting a nursing home everyday for the last week. 90% of the people in there are old ladies and one of them is my mother. She's in for a two week stint of physical therapy following a fall and a hospitalization. Fortunately, she's quite lucid and doing well. I got a day-pass for this week, and took her out for 6 hours, today. I didn't take her to a pub, but did take her to a nice restaurant. Sure, I could be lying, crafting a little act —I did, after all, spend twenty years designing theatrical productions. But I'm not lying, I'm not an actor (I'm a techie); this, too, is well known and documented to a fair number of serious people on this project: decent people that I trust. Good luck with your recovery. Jack Merridew 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is a case of "what we do matters". Dream Focus has chosen to make his user page into a vitriolic attack on a class of editors. We need to make it clear that such a page isn't within the range of things that improves Wikipedia. There is no "outrageous attack on Dream Focus" involved, just a simple boundary-setting exercise, and this is clearly beyond the boundary.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have now commented 13 times in this discussion. I had to comment once more to tie you.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a participant in this discussion has been allowed to make a summary and add something about policy. As none of the participants have objected, I presume I will be shown the same courtesey. There are some things I would like to point out. First is that I live in the GMT timezone which will mean this is my final statement before I go to sleep. So this will be my final remark.

But there are more important issues:

The userpages in Wikipedia are the property of the community. The community gives these pages to the users for personal use. If a user should feel that another user is not using the alloted pages appropriately than a nomination can be made bringing this to the attention of the community. The community decides, often giving users the possibilty to debate the issue.

In this case a nominiation for the deletion of a userpage has been brought forward and is to be discussed in this debate. The key issue in this debate is wether or not the page in question is considered offensive or not.

One of the participants in the debate has kindly offered a summary, which I would like to discuss. The user who has made the summary has also pointed out policy. To me, this means that that user is aware of the procedure. So now my remarks:

One of the users who has opined delete, has since then made remarks which are not in line with delete.

The user that made the summary suggests that there are users who have voted delete based on a single policy. If the community decides that the policy does not apply, then the delete is void and those deletes are to be discounted.

The user also draws conclusions about the keep votes.

The key issue is wether this userpage is to be considered offensive. There are users that have the opinion that they do not consider this page offensive. However the user making the summary argues that this opinion is not relevant. Excuse me? Having an opinion about key issues is not relevant, is that not what this debate is about? This says a lot about the respect that this user has for the opinions of others. Although I do not wish to argue for the user whose page is in question, it is my opinion that that is exactly the point that the user in question is trying to make.

My personal is opinion is misrepresented and therefore discounted. I do not take offence. It is the opinion of a user about the opinion of another user. The community will decide.

The user is trying to be helpful, but I do not agree with the opinion formed. It is my opinion that this summary should be considered a biased opinion and should be disregarded in the discussion. Anyone reffering to this summary, in my opinion, is referring to a biased opinion which seems to disrespect some of the participants in this debate. But that is my opinion, it is for the community to decide.

If I were a lawyer, I would suggest that this summary is trying to influence the outcome of the debate. But as I am not a lawyer I will leave that decision to the community.

This debate is interesting when you look at the debate in chronological order.

This debate is about the proposed deletion of a userpage.

The rest of the debate seems to be filled with mudslinging which is meant to slander or descredit specific users. That is not what this discussion is about. It is therfore my opinion that having an opinion about a user and how that effects this project is not part of this debate and should be taken elsewhere.

My opinion is also that the remarks that are not relevant to the discussion at hand should be disregarded. One of the participants has pointed out that an attempt seems to have been made to illicit an undesirable response. If that response is made than it should be disregarded as it is not part of the discussion.

There are more than thirty participants in this discussion. The majority have put forward a clear vote. The community should be able to decide on that basis.

The rest is part of a different debate. Please take it there.

Good night fellow Wikipedians. JHvW (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god can someone please close this MfD. SnottyWong speak 22:15, 5 October 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.


More