Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeff Rudd
- 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 RESULT: Speedy deletion via G10 and G12, would have been the consensus here anyway. Huon (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Jeff Rudd[edit]
Blatant violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTBLOG which is also being used to attack specific editors. Stalwart111 23:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- delete - as per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTBLOG. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Probably keep I'm inclined to let him keep this page. Its relevant to why he is editing Wikipedia (and is about Wikipedia in general), even if his edits have been viewed as problematic in the past. I don't believe his comment on CommieMark qualifies as a personal attack, though those parts could be removed without deleting the entire thing if the consensus is that it is an attack. Expressions of opinion, especially regarding perceived flaws in Wikipedia, are allowed in user space, even if they aren't formatted as pretty essays. Gigs (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- It blames another editor, personally, for the edits he calls "lies" and (without any evidence whatsoever) claims he is "breaking the rules", is biased and has a conflict. Accusing someone of all of those things without proof is a personal attack. Opinion is fine, and formatting is irrelevent, but this is is an unsourced "alternate history" kept in userspace because he wasn't able to edit-war it into an article where he has a massive conflict of interest. Cutting it right back to a few points that serve to help him make coherent arguments about content would be fine, obviously, but what is there now shouldn't be. Stalwart111 20:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I could accept a delete outcome here if the content is upsetting to other editors, but I'd prefer an edit to trim down the offensive content. Regarding Charmlet's comment, attacking Wikipedia with prose isn't really prohibited in userspace. In most cases we don't use MfD to silence criticism of Wikipedia. Note that I am somewhat playing devil's advocate here, I just don't want to see the guy get steamrolled because of his lack of savvy regarding our processes. Gigs (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- It blames another editor, personally, for the edits he calls "lies" and (without any evidence whatsoever) claims he is "breaking the rules", is biased and has a conflict. Accusing someone of all of those things without proof is a personal attack. Opinion is fine, and formatting is irrelevent, but this is is an unsourced "alternate history" kept in userspace because he wasn't able to edit-war it into an article where he has a massive conflict of interest. Cutting it right back to a few points that serve to help him make coherent arguments about content would be fine, obviously, but what is there now shouldn't be. Stalwart111 20:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete posthaste - I'd go so far as to say {{db-attack}} on Wikipedia and it's editors, but I won't tag it. ~Charmlet -talk- 21:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - blatant attack page. Snappy (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete userpages are not lent to us to use them in this way. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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.