Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lihaas

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 No consensus. Looking at just the !votes that came in after the 2/7 trimming, there is no consensus to delete the user page entirely. However, Lihaas is warned to limit the amount of content he places on his user page and adhere to WP:UP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lihaas

[edit]
User:Lihaas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's a user page underneath, a few hundred thousand kb long, with a million contradictory userboxes, some of which very offensive (there's one that claims that the user is a Nazi, for instance). The rules on user pages aren't always clear, but this one needs to go, I think--it is disruptive, a total waste of server space, and does not contain, as suggested in WP:UP, "limited autobiographical and personal content". See also discussion on the user's talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there is NO claim of being a nazi. And regardless of the pt that was never sought to clarfy anyways, a person's politics doesnt ban them if there is NO disrputive editing to push a pov. Where is that then? youre an america/european/whatever so that disqualifies you from editing? Is there any logic? You have a political support for liberals/conservaitives/whatever means you cant edit?! ("you" in general) Seen the list of additions and sources ive made to numerous article (and if you must know to israeli articles too that are NOT critical or blindly critical just as ive done to the other side of the issue with criticism sourced and the opposite). Youre (genearal not specific) call for a nazi is offensive tpoo, where there is nothing to say so.
but per UP its all and only personal.Lihaas (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO userbox claiming to be a nazi, that is the presumption at topic. Secondlty size on a userpage is irrelevant because no one is being there, its not an article. See Nightstallion's also has large userpages. Its not disruptive beacuse and individual doesnt LIKE it? Remember: offense is not a reason to remove like Mohhammed cartoons or virgin killers. Furthermore, content is similar to others with userbozxes and wikilink logs, dont BLIDNLY assert deletion.
Offensive is never a reason to remove on WP as censorship.
If anyone dont like/want to then dont read the page, but dont delete just cause.Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I said on ANI:

Still, the "This user is a National Socialist" userbox may be disruptive in itself === The userbox itself is clearly causing strife among Wikipedians. Per Wikipedia:UP#Excessive unrelated content perhaps Lihaas should be asked to remove it. As Kiefer.Wolfowitz points out, it has come up before. I recall that User:Hail the Dark Lord Satan‎‎ was indef blocked recently for causing disruption by choosing a divisive persona. This issue isn't very far from that. Disputes about the meaning of national socialism (which Kiefer mentioned above) should be resolved on the redirect's talk page, not via userboxes that are prone to misinterpretation and may cause unnecessary aggravation of some good faith editors or just act as flamebait.
— User:ASCIIn2Bme 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not divisive per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, if users adhered to such guidelines as WP:NPA they would then find no need to resort to such ad hominem attacks and pre-judgements (per the ANI). Furthermore per WP:NPOV all editors should NOT one worldview regardless of whether its liked ot not. SPECIFICALLY WP doesnt Censor because of offensiveness.
Comments should be on CONTENT and additions instead of NPA/POV-forks (as this became). Disruptive is based on enhancing the CONTENT of the "encyclopaedia" (or not doing so, rather) not the whims of users (either others or myself). You only get baited if you want to feed on it. you cant force people to bite on it.Lihaas (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is needlessly large, complex, hard to load, and confusing. Yet that doesn't really matter. What does matter is that is is divisive to the point of being disruptive, as can be seen on ANI. Keeping this page would be keeping running into drama for no good reason. I don't care how it goes, weather through mfd, or if Lihaas trims it himself, removing anything that's needlessly divisive to the point of being disruptive (say 80% of it), and comes back within the scope of WP:UP, but it should go. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"excessive content" is then also for the numerous subpages.
Secondly there was only ONE cited "offensive conytent" which then leads to a blanket call to delete EVERYTHING? like the wikilink logs on the page?! Consensus is not vote counting?Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to reiterate saying its only disruptive because of those who dont like it, thats explicitly forbidden. this is a user page (and ive seen many LONG talk pages) not an article. NO ONE NEEDS to read it but the user himself. if others resort to presumptive NPA's based on their whims then thats BOOMERANG. and as said on the ANI the userboxes are seemingly contradicted and dont mean anything. (in this case R-41, who brings up a needless side issue for his personal vendetta and changed the whole topic from "alleged harassment" (after i pointed out nicely on his talk page) to resorting to nazi calls that are then picked up by others "who i dont like that," yet say it keeps coming out again.
and see this Wikipedia:ANI#Still.2C_the_.22This_user_is_a_National_Socialist.22_userbox_may_be_disruptive_in_itself. only one user had a problem then, which was disavowed by The Bushranger and NuclearWarfare.
Instead of meaningless arguements on idssues that dont matter if WP is to keep out NPA and NOTAFORUM issues, it would be MUCH more productive to go on adding content to pages itself.Lihaas (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its offensive and divisive why? Hipoctite UNILATERALLY decides to delete and move my page because he doesnt liek it [1] without any consensus as the discussion is ongoing and then says i should be blocked?Lihaas (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking the user would be using a sledgehammer to crack an egg, and totally inappropriate. WormTT · (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ive made an accomodation here. Is that better? Is there something else "offensive" that i should change?
EVERYTHING on that page (except the flag and text) IS related to/from WP directly. if you mean userboxes then why not take them all away since thats whats theyre there for. Please dont POV-fork from a first assessment of offense to blanket calls for deletion without trying dispute resolution. And how may i ask is the SIZE a suggestion of insubstantial content? Or is that your Synethesis bias?Lihaas (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? I just asked above the statement what is needed? I change the one, what else~?
Now that ive rationally calmed down ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is just an example of how bad a user page can get bogged down. If you don't like the length, there's nothing that says a UP has to be a certain length or less. Userboxes? Then get rid of the offending user boxes. The rest of it could simply be condensed or archived per WP:DELETE. Just because some copyediting/paring is in order doesn't mean an entire page needs to be deleted. Buffs (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:POLEMIC is about posting "statements attacking or vilifying groups" of people, and I don't see any of that on the page. Lihaas should be free to mention his radical viewpoints, even the nationalistic right wing ones, as long as he doesn't use them to promote hatred or injustice. And no, being a Democratic National Socialist doesn't automatically mean you engage in hatred or injustice. If the community disagrees with me about this, they can remove the infringing userbox or block of text, but surely the whole userpage doesn't need deleted. ThemFromSpace 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and thats all im saying. Ive also made an accomodation. If there is anything else then i will reword/remove.Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Navigating this user page is a headache and then some, but sadly, that's no reason to delete a page.--WaltCip (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a waste of server space, but it does waste resource, of people viewing the page, of people trying to find everyone with a given user box, etc. Lihaas should spend some time to make sub-pages for the various bits and pieces, but it's not a huge deal. (Incidentally I speedily deleted a much bigger page a few weeks back - that certainly was disruptive.) It might also be worth Lihaas reviewing the user-box policy. Rich Farmbrough, 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
thx and this is constructibve. i reworded one vbone of contention. better? any thing else?Lihaas (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however. →Στc. 02:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps putting the lengthy text into a collapsible box would reduce the apparent page length Buffs (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment This whole thing is a violation of WP:DEL and an abuse of the process:
    "[[If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum...issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user."
  • It seems none of these avenues have been attempted and this discussion should be closed on those grounds alone. Buffs (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the nomination statement, this discussion was opened because it was believed to be a "severe case". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. I also found it interesting that the editor never participated in the ANI discussion involving them, though they were active while that was going on, and from that I concluded that they didn't have an interest in it--i.e., were not willing to discuss their side of the debate/disruption. Moreover, it seems to me that the amount of participation here shows that this is a valid nomination. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Goes way past the purpose that user pages are supposed to fulfill:

    User pages are pages in the User and User talk namespaces, and are useful for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users. User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content. User pages are available to Wikipedia users personally for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site.

    A huge page, impossible to navigate, full of contradictory user boxes (which might as well be a catalog of them for all the information they convey), with archives discussions, and extensive lists of... something or other -- this is not a user page, it's the bottom right desk drawer where you throw everything you don't know where to put. Violates WP:UPNOT, WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTWEBHOST and probably others as well. Just junk it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is ridiculous. Having a bunch of userboxes on your page is no reason to force you to remove them. There is no basis for this posting. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are plenty of policies concerning user pages, and this page violates most of them. The amount of nonsense not related to WP alone is very much NOTWEBHOST. Intent of userboxes aside, no one userpage should aspire to be a catalog of userboxes. There's a lot of obscure material on the page as well, and I frankly don't know of any natives of the American Deep South who are gypsy National Socialist Indian Basque Cyrillic users. Wikipedia is not a playground. MSJapan (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Buff said, this seems like a misuse of MfD and it seems to be aimed at the content of the user boxes---in particular the national socialism box, which Lihaas has explained repeatedly, has to do with nationalist socialist movements. Lihaas dislikes the monosemantic understanding of "national socialist" as Nazi. It may be reasonable to ask Lihaas in dialogue whether he could reduce his collection to a smaller size. It may be reasonable for Lihaas voluntarily to rephrase "national socialist" as "nationalist socialist", if this change does no harm (because it would do us plenty of good!).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see some of my comments are featured on there. If not deleted, can the lengthy copied discussions please be removed? Also needing removal are the many contradictory userboxes—which place the user's page in categories used by Wikipedians to find certain kinds of editors. Nightw 06:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: "a total waste of server space" is a ridiculous reason for deletion, as hard drives are extremely cheap and deleting only hides content. But maybe I have problem with my irony detector, Bulwersator (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or remove offensive userbox(es) (BTW National Socialism redirects to Nazism - it is similar to placing giant swastika on userpage and claiming that it is used as symbol of eternity/good luck/Buddhism) Bulwersator (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
? It is. How is that equivalent? There is absolutely nothing wrong with displaying a swastika anywhere as long as it's not related to Nazism or any similar ideology. Nightw 15:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It seems to be within community standards. MichelleBlondeau (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Banned user. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. Except for talk pages, where meddling 3rd parties are constantly removing correspondence that doesn't deal with them... Now it's IDONTLIKEIT blankings of user pages... There is one user box that is the cause of the trouble, in my estimation, and Lihaas ultimately needs to take it down on his own. Carrite (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might like to take a close look at WP:NOTCENSORED, which deals only with articles and images, not with user pages, which are subject to WP:USERPAGES instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Subject to WP:USERPAGES, eh? Okay, I'll bite... For the record, here's the COMPLETE applicable section on Userboxes from that the esteemed guideline you cite ("Permitted Content" portion): "USERBOXES: All the userboxes can be found here." That's it. Finito. Now, show me where it says it's cool to IDONTLIKEIT blank another User's Userpage for "violation" of this guideline... Carrite (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument is premised on the idea that the only thing wrong with the page is a userbox, but, as many commenters have made clear, that is not the case. There are multiple violations of WP:USERPAGES, all of whichhave been mentioned here, and which I don't intend to repeat -- but the bottom line is that the purpose of having user pages is to facilitate our work on Wikipedia, and there is no way a page like this that is disturbing to so many editors serves that function. If one user was upset about it, that's WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but when there's a community consensus that it is disturbing and disruptive, it has to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar situation: User:Gr8opinionater. This was another individual who had something to do with a (the? ... one of the?) National Socialist userbox. Interestingly, his page is quite similarly infected with the userbox collectivism collecting bug. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot understand the claims that this box list is "contradictory". It seems to be a fairly consistent. As a believer in 'greater India' Lihaas can claim to belong to both India and Pakistan. Other boxes imply a Rosenberg-like belief in ethno-racial nationalism, hence the numerous endorsements of ethnic-nationalist separatist groups. Of course, one may find these views inconsistent, but many people have possibly inconsistent views about what nations should be united and what should be split. It's a fundamental paradox of ethnic nationalist ideology. I find his willingness to list his various beliefs useful, and no more contradictory than any similar inclusive rag-bag of ones personal beliefs would be. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — aside from the extensive list of userboxes on the page, I cannot see much wrong with the userpage itself (maybe at a stretch the "Why" section could be seen as harbouring old grudges). Its length should make no difference here — I refute any claims of "not a webhost" because I see no proof he's using Wikipedia as a webhost, merely listing his own political views (which can be seen as useful in that people can watch his edits in these areas). I am no apologist for Lihaas, and I could really care less about the outcome of this either way, but this is nothing more than a witch-hunt. Would it please people if he split his userpage off into subpages? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on now--a witch hunt? Thanks! A little good faith here, please. On the one hand I have an editor pissed at me because I won't block Lihaas, on the other I have Lihaas bugging me because I think their user page is not in accordance with the rules. First I defend Lihaas from charges of harassment, and then I supposedly turn around and start witch-hunting them? Give me a little more credit, Strange Passerby. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Judging only by the Page itself and not the contributions of the editor (remember, argue the edits, not the editor). So far the only arguments for deletion have been one political Userbox (and the way I see it, if an editor can have a UBX claiming to be Center-left, then a UBX claiming an editor holds an unpopular political opinion has to be just as valid) and the length (on which there is no policy). Absent sound rationale to remove, WP:UP seems to suggest that this page can stay. Achowat (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, and the length of the page, as measured in bytes, can never be an accurate measure of how much content there is on a page (only a measure of how much server-space it takes up processing that information). I keep hearing this "content unrelated to Wikipedia" line, though no one has really ever gone about explaining what content the object to. It seems that people are caught up in the contentious manner in which the editor contributes, one potentially offensive UBX (that reasoning is the only one put forth in this discussiong that I flat-out refuse to accept as valid; Politics is politics and MfD can't be a place for us to say that one political idea is "good" and one is "bad"), and then just defaults to TL;DR. I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely convinced that there's anything wrong with this page at all. Achowat (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok. This whole thing is blown WAY out of proportion. Easy fixes are available and I truly find that this entire thing is a pitiful case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This entire thing can be fixed with a little editing (at worst). There is NO valid reason for deletion.
Would ANYONE have an issue with a user page like this? Put the user boxes on a linked page and voila! Problem solved. Right? BTW, if you have a problem with a user box(es), nominate THEM for deletion, not the user pages of those who use them. Buffs (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs: Please look at the code for Lihaas' user page, you'll see that the "National Socialism" userbox is not a template transcluded to the page from elsewhere, but is coded directly on the page. Thus, it cannot be MfD separately from the page. This is true of several other userboxes on the page as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good to me, as ive already indicated on my talk page an dother usersf rom here have supported. Except to keep the links open. (for personal use)Lihaas (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in your opinion, how many editors need to not like something for it to become clear that the page should be deleted? So far there has been little, if any, attempt to justify deletion with policies or guidelines. Achowat (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the examples at WP:IDONTLIKEIT concern articles. Userpages involve rather different issues. Serious reasons for not "liking" userpages - eg, that their content seems perhaps willfully disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia as a project - are a good reason for deleting them. I wouldn't suggest that any specific number of people had to find a userpage disruptive before it gets deleted; actually, if a userpage is blatantly disruptive, then it could be deleted if even a single admin finds it disruptive. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:IDONTLIKEIT and all the arguments to avoid exist to remind us that consensus isn't built on numbers in support/opposition but rather by the strength of the arguments provided, as it relates to Policies and Guidelines. The contention, if I may opine, seems to be based on the actions of the editor himself (in which case I would remind you that, in this forum at least, we should be arguing the content and not who made it) or one Userbox with an unpopular political opinion (in which case, I would remind participants in this discussion that WP:NPOV isn't just a Policy, it's one of our pillars; disagreeing with someone's political opinions is not a reason to delete their User page). Achowat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. WP:IDONTLIKEIT involves a specific set of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions related to articles; I see no evidence that it was intended for this type of situation. WP:NPOV is likewise about articles, and was never intended for user space issues. The bottom line is that if a userpage looks disruptive, then yes it can be deleted, either at the discretion of an admin, or because of community consensus. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "Arguments to avoid at AfD", but WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. By disagreeing with my assertion that WP:NPOV prevents us from censoring (for lack of a better term) a userbox of one political opinion and allowing userboxes proclaiming adherence to others? This is a serious question. And I disagree that admins are entrusted with the authority to unilaterally delete a Userpage, but this isn't the forum for that debate. Achowat (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that a strong majority favor deletion here. The margin appears to be over 2-1 at this point, in favor of deletion. Many editors favoring deletion have pointed to policies and guidelines. Others have pointed to common sense. I understand that some editors may not agree with the consensus, but it appears to be strong and based on policies and common sense -- which, after all, editors are permitted to consider.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the delete comments, the only arguments brought up that are based on policy were WP:NOTWEBHOST (which was based entirely on WP:SIZE, see Buffs' comments to that end) and WP:UPNOT, based on too much content unrelated to the encyclopedia (though no one has actually pointed to what that content is). What there is, however, is no fewer than three people saying things akin to "the policies this violates have been detailed above". Sorry, as I've said before, even if 30,000 people don't like something that is in keeping with out policies, it's still WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Achowat (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the 2-1 keep !votes were not in keeping with our policies, we would ignore consensus. But they have indicated in many cases why they believe the material violates various policies -- even the nom began the discussion with reference to the guideline WP:UP -- though I understand you disagree, there, with their interpretation and application of policies. Others based their delete !votes on not only WP:UPNOT, but also on Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:SOAPBOX. They have also indicated why they believe the material should be deleted with arguments consistent with wp:COMMONSENSE, and why they believe on a cost-benefit basis the material is more disruptive than it is beneficial. And that in addition to being divisive it is offensive, nonsensical, unrelated to the editing of Wikipedia or its goals, and a waste of server space. You, I understand, disagree on those points as well. But the arguments are based on both policy and on common sense, and what is in the interest of the Project. It has received a great deal of scrutiny, by many editors, and the overwhelming consensus is to delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this issue, I guess it's going to be tough for the closing Admin (I don't envy hir) to figure out where the Consensus is (remember, 2-1 support is not necessarily a according-to-Hoyle consensus). Achowat (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least I'm pleased that we have found something to agree on. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (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/User:Lihaas&oldid=1136743170"