Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/Bash.org

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. –Black Falcon (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short version

There was legitimate disagreement over whether the page violates applicable policy (WP:NOT) and guideline (WP:UP), as well as some arguments that seemed to lack grounding in established policies and guidelines. –Black Falcon (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long version

While it is true that standards for userspace material are comparatively low, that fact does not support a conclusion that "not actively harmful" (e.g., attack page, copyright violation, spam, unsourced and negative BLP) is the only standard or that Wikipedia:User pages simply does not apply. Likewise, the fact that the guideline should not be applied robotically does not justify ignoring it.

The user page guideline applies to userfied drafts of deleted articles, and it treats such pages somewhat differently than other pages in userspace. The phrase "content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia" in particular highlights a distinction between pages that are drafts of articles and pages that list a user's contributions, barnstars, or personal configurations. Even speedy deletion criterion G4 indicates that the criterion exempts "content moved to user space" only when it is done for improvement and not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy (i.e., to indefinitely keep on Wikipedia content that does not belong on Wikipedia).

According to Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages:

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. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.

In other words, it is acceptable to userfy deleted content with the intention to improve it, but it is not acceptable to userfy deleted content merely with the intent to indefinitely archive "previously deleted content" or "content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", such as a draft article. In addition, even when there may be intent to improve deleted content, a failure to do so for an extended period of time ("used solely for long-term archival purposes") may be a valid reason for deletion.

I considered the discussion in light of WP:NOT and Wikipedia:User page and attempted to balance the arguments themselves, rather than to compare the quantity of policy- or guideline-based !votes (using the latter approach, the outcome would have been "delete"). There was some legitimate disagreement over questions related to intent and acceptable time periods for keeping unimproved deleted material in userspace, though less so about the potential value of the page (none of the comments on the "keep" side really addressed that issue).

A "no consensus" close carries no prejudice against re-nominating the page, but I would recommend allowing at least several weeks or a few months for improvements before taking that step. Since users do not own pages in their userspace, any factual errors within the draft may be discussed, edited or removed by other users (note that this does not override any ArbCom- or community-imposed editing restrictions); however, editors should also remember that "it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission" (emphasis added). –Black Falcon (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tothwolf/Bash.org

[edit]

Disclaimer: I own bash.org. This article was restored as part of the refund process, though I question the reasoning behind it. Article was properly deleted some months (years?) ago; Tothwolf requested it be restored during his Arbitration litigation. There have been no improvements to the article since that time, nor did he ever contribute to it while it was an actual article. I further suggest that it can never be improved to the point of inclusion in Wikipedia, as there are no (and will likely never be) any reliable sources dealing with the subject. WP:REFUND and userspace are not to be used as an end-run around deletion. Sufficient time has been given for Tothwolf to either demonstrate improvements to the point of overcoming the previous AFD, or scrape out whatever content he wishes.

  • Delete as nom. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum -- most relevant policy is WP:FAKEARTICLE, which clearly states (emphasis mine):

    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

    //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no deadline for userspace stuff. This page is not an attack page, a copyvio, a potentially problematic BLP, or anything but an Internet culture article which was below Notability. Stuff in userspace has traditionally been held to different standards than articles in main articlespace, because they are utterly invisible to the outside world and the province of the respective user; if they are not harmful and are relevant (as this obviously is), they stay. Calling userfication of marginal articles an 'end-run around deletion' is a rather hostile interpretation. --Gwern (contribs) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I should expand on my interpretation. Tothwolf requested a WP:REFUND of this article after I made a statement in an arbitration case against him. The purpose of this restoration seems twofold: one, I believe he was fishing for some way to try and color or discredit my statements based on long-forgotten talkpage discussions from the bash.org article; two, he's repeatedly attempted to add this userspace restoration to mainspace categories despite several admonishments and explanations (which does sustain my interpretation of attempting to sidestep previous the previous AFD). I recommend reviewing the ArbCom findings regarding Tothwolf when considering my reasoning above. Given that the article contains what I know to be factual errors, and also that there will (likely) never be a reliable source to verify or correct any of those claims, I hope the community decides to uphold the original AFD results. Hope this helps clear things up. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that Blaxthos doesn't understand how categories work or that the {{ccl}} template already disabled the categories on the page in my userspace. See the edit summary he provided when he edited [1] the page in my userspace after creating this MfD (which Gwern helpfully restored [2]). I would suggest that Blaxthos strike out those comments above and elsewhere in this MfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it would appear that tothwolf forgot about when he edit warred to keep the mainspace categories in his userspace back in november [[3]] [[4]]. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is, moreover, unusual for the nom to add a !vote as well. Userspace does not even require notability, nor has any deadline been set in userspace. 2 months is surely not it. Collect (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unusual so much as redundant; presumably someone nominating for deletion would vote delete. --Gwern (contribs) 18:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find it unusual at all, in fact I do it all the time and appreciate it when others do too. I don't care to assume what the motives of a particular nomination are, not to mention at times they can be procedural. This takes the guesswork out of things even if it may be implied to some degree. In short, I find it helpful. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwern. The surrounding drama relating to the categories is not a valid reason to delete, and I'm not particularly swayed by the "I know there is never going to be reliable sources for this" argument. Killiondude (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Category dramallama is only present to provide background regarding my otherwise distasteful reasoning (specifically, the assumption of bad faith. Regarding the rest, I am fairly confident it's highly unlikely that a truly reliable source will ever decide to publish research or analysis regarding bash.org; if they did, it would likely involve statements from the owner (me) anyway. I don't think there is any evidence that suggests there ever might be sourcing that would overcome the deficiencies identified in the AFD, which is why I said "never" instead of "highly unlikely". Corrected. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • super delete - the intentions behind this article are clearly contrary to building an encyclopedia, as can be seen here [[5]] when it was attempted to remove the mainspace categories from tothwolf's userspace article, and tothwolf edit warred to keep the categories in. what this means is that the article was not "invisible", but rather completely accessible and listed in the mainspace category. it was eventually removed by someone else. you might ask yourself as a matter of practicality, why was this deleted article requested to be userfied, if the user never has edited or improved it in any way? the obvious answer would be retribution against blaxthos for the aforementioned arbcom proceedings, but that's only speculation, even if it's quite likely. i propose that this unencyclopedic article is deleted because it serves no helpful purpose for wikipedia, and it doesnt seem like it's going to serve any useful purpose in the near future. the existence of this deleted article, with no apparent future of becoming a real article, is simply an exploited technicality which must be removed. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • and by the way, for those unaware, tothwolf was strongly admonished for his behavior in the conclusion of his arbcom case. the userfication of this article was not part of the arbcom evidence against tothwolf, but it easily could have been. i suggest that this is taken into consideration if you wish to speculate on the usefulness and purpose of this userfied article.
  • Delete as a violation of WP:UP#COPIES. While there is no deadline, we're not a webhosting service either and pages are not meant to be kept in other parts of the wiki indefinitely. JBsupreme (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwern. The fact that I'm being harassed and tag-teamed by a small group of individuals has made it virtually impossible to edit anything substantial since sometime in September-October 2009. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intent is an important part of userspace. It isn't here as Arbcom evidence. It isn't here to be made into a future article. It's being hosted for personal reasons and Wikipedia is not a webhost. Miami33139 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was only userfied about two months ago, and it's been edited since then. This is a perfectly valid use of userspace; if it's abandoned for six months or more, then the WP:UP#COPIES argument might hold water. Until then, this is perfectly acceptable. Having read through the ArbCom case, I urge editors not to vote for deletion simply due to the identity of the userspace "owner." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see the value to keeping this page. As others have said, it has basically no chance of becoming an article, and it otherwise does not appear to be valuable to work on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the arguments against deletion don't assert that the page is valuable. Especially considering that this could be a means to preserve a deleted article (which strikes me as rather similar to an end run around deletion), there is a compelling case to delete. Croctotheface (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is no such thing as an 'end run'. AfD is about articles in the main space. If Tothwolf had copied it to a personal website, would you characterize that as an end-run? After all, on his website it would be far more accessible and findable - it wouldn't be hidden by robots.txt and NOFOLLOWs and all the other anti-spam measures. AfD is not about destroying every single bit of material that may exist anywhere that an en admin bit holds sway. --Gwern (contribs) 15:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is "no such thing" as an end run around deletion, whyfor does WP:FAKEARTICLE specifically state that userspace isn't to be used "to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines say a lot of things. They are not prescriptive, they are descriptive - nor are guidelines binding. It is perfectly routine for borderline articles to be undeleted and move to userspace - I have done it for others, and had it done for myself, multiple times. That's what this is.
    What's 'indefinitely'? I have User:Gwern/Nix Package Manager, which could be easily characterized by an outsider as being even worse than this Bash.org userspace material, which I haven't touched for more than a year. Does that count as indefinite? If it does not, then why does this few-month old userspace material so count? If not, can I expect a MfD on it as soon as you get done with this one? If the guideline applies so well and so forcefully, then the MfD should be a matter of a minute or two, so you can't plead lack of time - as well as the MfDs for User:Gwern/Haskore, User:Gwern/Crossbow, User:Gwern/RETAKE, User:Gwern/Stumpwm. And what the hell do User:Gwern/.stumpwmrc or User:Gwern/Redirect-bot.hs or User:Gwern/.bashrc or User:Gwern/.emacs or User:Gwern/Permutations.hs have to do with Wikipedia? Clear 'not webhost' violations, every one of them! I'm ashamed of myself; as a user since 2004 with ~100k edits, I really ought to know better than that. --Gwern (contribs) 19:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - so gwern's keep argument is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is considered an argument not to use, vs the delete argument of WP:FAKEARTICLE. fakearticle seems like a stronger argument to me. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And which guideline specifically says that it is valid sometimes and invalid sometimes. Oughtn't you demonstrate that this is an invalid use? I have mentioned the old principle that guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive, and demonstrated the practice of multiple userspace materials of mine dating back years which fail the extreme interpretations of the fakearticle clause; how much of userspace, one wonders, contradicts whatever editor put that clause in there? --Gwern (contribs) 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How many of those examples you cited are actually recreations of articles that were AFD'd and deleted? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At least 3; Torture in China would've made 4 if I had ever bothered to ask an admin to undelete it. --Gwern (contribs) 03:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What value does the page have? I haven't seen a single argument that asserted there was some value to keeping the page around despite the AfD. Every keep argument seems to either say (1) we don't have to delete it; therefore we should keep it, or (2) people are editing the page. It seems to me that the rationale of the nomination here, as well as the votes for deletion, respond to (1), and (2) would apply to a great many articles that were deleted through the AfD process. So what's the affirmative reason to keep this page? How is Wikipedia better for it? Croctotheface (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless MfD and userspace customs have changed, the burden of proof is not, like in AfD, on those who wish to maintain the status quo, but those who wish to abandon AGF and meddle in another user's userspace. (I see the User page guideline hasn't completely abandoned this old custom: 'As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. ') --Gwern (contribs) 03:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that the "delete" side presented several arguments in favor of deletion. They've said "here's why we should delete despite the notion that people can generally do what they like with their user space." In my view, if you can't refute those arguments, then they are persuasive. Put another way, my viewpoint is not firm here; I could be convinced to switch sides. However, even if the "keep" side doesn't have a burden to show why keeping helps Wikipedia, the "delete" side has put forth several reasons why, in their view, the page could hurt Wikipedia. In my mind, that puts "delete" way out in front. Since "keep" declined to make an affirmative case, they at least have to show why the "delete" arguments should not be persuasive. Of course, that's what I'd personally be looking for in terms of making the decision. I'd think it would be a good way to go for the closing admin as well, but that's obviously not my call. Croctotheface (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments to delete aren't much of an argument. We're supposed to delete because Tothwolf has messed with categories a few times? Because Blaxthos hypothesizes that there may be something embarrassing in the article history? I can't argue against things that aren't real reasons. Because Blaxthos thinks that it will never be notable? 99% of userspace will never be notable (I would be surprised if my subpage of barnstars or my various configuration subpages ever become notable), and it's hard to prove such an assertion: how does Blaxthos know it was never covered in any book or MSM article? The article survived for a long time, showing that it was definitely a marginal case: that is, not much would be necessary to bump it past the border. (And of course, website notability is still an uncertain area of guideline in general.) Not too many years ago, I would have said 2chan and 4chan would never be notable (much less blogs like Kotaku), or that Twitter was likely not going to show up; I would obviously have been quite wrong, and ever since, I have been wary of pronouncing on the future of a website.
    You seem swayed particularly by the arguments of harm. I'm not, because I see no evidence of harm. --Gwern (contribs) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument would apply to archiving any deleted article, or perhaps any deleted article that existed for a while, in userspace. Perhaps you think that people should be able to preserve any deleted content that way, but I don't. Articles are deleted because their topics are not notable all the time; that they may someday become notable enough to receive independent articles doesn't mean we should preserve everything in userspace until then. If so, why not have part of the AfD procedure be archiving the article in the userspace of anybody who expresses a "keep" opinion? I'm honestly not sure if you'd be fine with that, but it seems pretty silly to delete articles at all if we can just preserve them this way.
    That Tothwolf messed with the categories, along with the rest of his behavior, suggests pretty strongly that his goal was to preserve the content not because it might be useful in the future, or useful if merged into other articles, but because he wanted WP readers to find it in his user space and read it there. Your effort to compare this content to standard userspace stuff like barnstars misses the point. There's a reason to have barnstars, there's a reason to have sandboxes: all that stuff helps Wikipedia. I see no evidence that preserving the deleted Bash.org article helps Wikipedia, and I see several arguments and suggestions as for why it hurts Wikipedia. Several of those arguments are based on policy, by the way. I'm surprised you find those arguments unpersuasive, and that probably means that you and I will never see eye to eye about matters like this. However, I'm sure you'll understand that I"m not likely to be persuaded by "this is so ridiculous that I can't even respond to it."
    Finally, it's still striking to me that nobody has presented an affirmative case for keeping this content, regardless of whether such a case is necessary. It seems to me that deletion basically comes down to whether WP is better for having the content or better off without it. There are arguments for "worse off" from the delete side, and basically silence from the "keep" side. Croctotheface (talk) 21:44, 8 February 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tothwolf/Bash.org&oldid=1078595147"