Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Ed Poor subpages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete all.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ed Poor/Aspects of evolution

[edit]

Archived POV forks of articles that are not being edited in preparation for replacement in mainspace. Wikipedia ia not a free web host. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of proposed deletions.

For complete list of subpages see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Ed_Poor

  • I am dubious about mass nominations, especially when all pages nominated do not fall into the same class of problem. Some of these pages are apparently drafts or storage for article material. Some are essays, and those so labeled should be treated accordingly. One is a list of grievances against another editor. They can not all get the same consideration, and it will be a logistical nightmare for every participant in this MfD to write up a separate evaluation as to each nominated page. I suggest speedily closing this MfD and renominating these pages in smaller groups bound together by specific attributes common to the group, with some attention to the time that the pages have sat unattended. bd2412 T 18:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a host for your ill-thought-out screeds against reality. // roux   19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep VERY long term editor. Material does not appear to be any worse than many others in userspace, and as a group, has not been on an inordinate length of time, and the deletion action ought to fail. Collect (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is not concerned with who the editor is, nor if similar material exists elsewhere. As to if these pages contain material that is being actively-prepared for use in mainspace, several of these pages have not been edited for years - take a look at their edit histories. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should have used that argument on a page which had not been edited for well over three years. And was kept. There is no requirement that userspace articles be intended to go to mainspace at all. IMHO, mass deletions require a stronger argument than that. YMMV. Collect (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. " - see WP:USER. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Might be valid had not three years been considered reasonable in another MfD. And, absent an indication that the user intended the material to be part of the encyclopedia or that the material was "previously deleted" that part also fails. Meanwhile the discussion on "userfication" is available for comments, I think, and you might wish to indicate your opinions there as well. Collect (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per just above, Wickipedia is not a webhost, and WP:other stuff exists is not a reason to keep it. dougweller (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tim Vickers's very apt quotation from WP:USER. There's no arguing that. --Cyde Weys 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except User:Ed Poor/Journalistic Fraud (2003 book), which has been edited by Ed within the last year. No reason Ed can't save the rest these in a notepad on his own computer until he is ready to work on them (should that ever happen). bd2412 T 22:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication that this batch of articles is kept for any other reason than spite. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't have a formal system of precedent here, so going by how long another article survived in Userspace is counter-productive. Right now, these are not being developed. If Ed wants to work on them later, an admin can provide them via email. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the moment, they have not been deleted, so if Ed wants to work on them later he can save them on his computer. Or post them in a blog at MySpace or any of thousands of other places on the Internet. If he hasn't done so already, he can post them on Conservapedia, where he is an admin. bd2412 T 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Is there any evidence that these pages are being used for disruption? without that that, i think they're well within policy. They are suggestions for wp content, tho ones that have not been accepted here. I'm sure they;'re intended in the hope that they may become content yet, if others agree, and i think that's a valid use. the sort of material I'd expect on a web host site would be very different and much more polemic. I am prepared to extend the widest possible tolerance to good contributors, especially those whose world views are so different from my own. If he were an evolutionist with a variant on what these pages should look like, would we be trying to remove them? DGG (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy does not address disruption, it instead states that userspace cannot be used to permanently archive deleted material or POV forks. Do you think three years after an AfD delete is still too short a time for an editor to rework their preferred version of an article? Userspace isn't somewhere that people can keep a permanent archive of content that violated our policies. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Collect, and in light of Ed's longevity. I see no compelling reason that these are brought up for deletion, which in my mind is a better question than divining whether they are actively under development for promotion to mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:DGG 70.100.83.62 (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is not an unreasonable use of subpages and should be permitted as a courtesy to an established editor. Everyking (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:WEBHOST, failure to make any effort to turn these pages into legitimate candidate articles (and a number of them don't appear to be even candidate topics -- e.g. 'Aspects of Evolution'), their growing number, and the potential for some newbie reader to mistake them for mainspace articles (a potential that rises as the number of them rises). Pruning is needed. HrafnTalkStalk 05:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:WEBHOST, and WP:USER, the pages are relatively ancient, not used, and basically POV forks. rootology (C)(T) 06:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while Ed is a long-term contributor, he can add these articles to Conserveapedia...most or all are unreferenced/ barely referenced and have POV sprinkled throughout...if he was working on these right now, I wouldn't have a problem....but a year or more is a lonnng time to not be working on something. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ed Poor can keep all this stuff on his own computer. No need to clog up Wikipedia with it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a webhost. The pages are old, not used and not appropriate to be turned into articles; as such, it cannot be argued that they are articles in utero. The length of "service" of an editor should not impact on how we treat them. While length of service is a good way of judging someones knowledge of policy and experience it is not a way to apportion trust; we have RfA for that. Ironholds (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per above. 250+ user subpages is a ridiculous amount of server space for one user and not respectful of the foundation or the donors who support it. Then there's the many previous issues with POV forks which sprang forth from his userspace requiring in AFD and xFD, literally several dozen over the years. Stop the madness. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have time to checdk the rest now, but User:Ed Poor/Evolution is linked to in an archived discussion on the intelligent design talk page, so deleting the user subpage would make the archived discussion make less sense. I'd be inclined to keep any subpage which is linked to by archived discussion on a talk page, because user subpages are a common tool used by editors when they want to put across a point which can't fit in a simple message. I'd have no problem with deleting subpages that aren't linked to by any page outside Ed's userspace and this MFD. The MFD that Collect mentioned above is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, where I argued to keep the page. Graham87 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - collection of POV forks; Ed's habit of creating these kinds of articles is one of the major problems with Ed's editing. Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot; Ed has nearly 300 subpages in his userspace: Special:PrefixIndex/User:Ed_Poor/ which is a violation of WP:NOT on several levels; I note that at least one is simply an attack page - which Tim is apparently planning to Afd seperately. None of them are necessary or useful for building an encyclopedia. Ed's endless POV pushing and attacks and smears on those whom he views as opposers of his very narrow fringe view has led to nothing but trouble both for him and the rest of us. Ditch it all. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on two main grounds: first, the different pages are unequal in scope, intent, and quality. Second, although most of the content is original research, it is not intended to actually make it into articles. If E.P. wants to bring this stuff up in talk page discussions about how to interpret sources for articles, it is not clear to me that this would be a problem. Ultimately, I'm not certain what the harm to WP is from allowing E.P. to keep this content in userspace. <eleland/talkedits> 22:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the content is original research, not meant to make it into any articles, has no use for furthering the project... how does that not run afoul of WP:WEBHOST? In addition, this all seems like stuff that Ed was trying to insert into multiple articles, as seen at the ArbCom cases. // roux   22:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I obviously can't say I know what Ed was thinking in all the cases where he requested that articles be copied into his userspace after AfD discussions, but at Naturalistic evolution his intentions were clear, since his move summary said "(moved Naturalistic evolution to User:Ed Poor/Naturalistic evolution: I want to see if I can whip this article into shape. It's a creationist term for evolution which SPECIFICALLY denies God had anything to do with the process)". Here it looks like he intended for the article to be eventually replaced in mainspace. With Journalistic Fraud (2003 book) Ed's motives appear different, since his edit summary stated "moved Journalistic Fraud (2003 book) to User:Ed Poor/Journalistic Fraud (2003 book): to prevent deletion, i.e., censorship)", on the face of it this move sees to be an attempt to circumvent the AfD deletion consensus. Similarly, the Ed's article on Aspects of evolution has now been moved from article namespace, to Wikipedia namespace and now to userspace (where it has remained for three years), as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of evolution. That also looks to me like trying to avoid deletion through gaming the system. However, trying to infer people's intentions is always difficult, so I might be wrong. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Roux, I agree that the content is original research, in the same sense that many behind-the-scenes aspects of Wikipedia are original research, such as the arguments used in this discussion we are having. I agree that it is unlikely to make it into article state in its present form. I disagree that it has no use for furthering the project and I do not understand how you could honestly derive this impression from my keep vote. <eleland/talkedits> 23:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably when you said "Second, although most of the content is original research, it is not intended to actually make it into articles." (emphasis mine), as well as the fact that many of these haven't been touched in ages. All these pages are is Ed's POV forking moved into userspace. They will never be moved back into mainspace, and serve no purpose covered by either WP:ENC or WP:USER. // roux   23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These all appear to be defunct POVFORKS. Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just did a count of Special:PrefixIndex/User:Ed_Poor/, and it turns out that (by my rough count) he has approx 300 subpages. I would submit that this is excessive, even for "an established editor", constitutes using wikipedia as a WP:WEBHOST, and that severe pruning (probably going well beyond this current MfD) is required. HrafnTalkStalk 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Aspects of Evolution' is the 3rd Google hit when you type in the phrase. Moving deleted articles into userspace is in fact a way of keeping them as articles. I don't know the motivation here, but I am sure that there are more than a handful of editors who know that they can get a lot of publicity by putting stuff in userspace. dougweller (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a bunch of POV forks that, based on Ed Poor's previous history, will be used to add into mainspace articles. Not necessary.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not contributing to building an encyclopedia, and causing potential confusion. . dave souza, talk 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Apparent indefinite retention of material contrary to WP:USER, per Tim Vickers. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If these pages were once intended to be worked into the mainspace, they have long been abandoned. -kotra (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least long enough for me to copy them all somewhere. And I object to the POV fork comment. The only reason I made these, is because the NPOV policy was being violated, by users refusing to allow minority views into articles on controversial topics. As some of you may know, the arbcom ruled that it is inappropriate to delete well-referenced information merely because that info "advances a point of view". I was collecting this material so I could report the systematic NPOV violations of people who censor Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:POV pushing, an essay I wrote which almost got deleted a while back and is I suppose on the chopping block once again. If you guys censor that one, you'll be making a bright line distinction between neutrality and bias. Think it over carefully before you commit yourself. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - about 2/3 of the above nominated pages have now been speedily deleted by author request (file this under "all you had to do was ask"), along with a bunch of pages not nominated here. I'm fine with holding off on the remaining handful for a few weeks to give Ed time to work that out (although, let's be frank, it can't take more than an hour to get them all copied to a text file). bd2412 T 21:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as inactive copies of deleted mainspace material; userspace is not intended to be used to preserve such material indefinitely, and these pages are not apparently being worked on. Ed Poor should be allowed a chance to copy the material for his own use, but these subpages violate our userspace policy and should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Ed_Poor_subpages&oldid=1142594562"