Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WndJo/sandbox

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. RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:WndJo/sandbox

WndJo is using his sandbox to make personal attacks on eswiki users. He previously persisted in doing the same on his main page, but stopped. Bradford (Talk) 18:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Not obviously, but maybe. It’s a biggish page with vague references. Can you give some more explanation. You would be alleging that this violates WP:POLEMIC? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left my comment on my discussion page. You may just look at what's my discussion page in eswiki: they were persistently vandalizing it and deleting any my word there (see that they were just erasing my words: no one of my question was answered, just deleted), even after I left editing the page they wanted to keep intact by no means. I felt I was under a gang attack, then they came to carry on their chase here: they blocked me there completely, so I left a backup here (by then it was mainly the rules of eswiki) — this made them furious again. I don't know why they cannot just leave me alone: I'm not touching their pages anymore: it's pain in the neck: too much aggression in turn. They do prefer mass-media/press sources to the original sources and it's up to them, I don't care anymore. If you think my experience is still useless — no problem I can keep the page on the other projects discussing wikipedia's ambiance. WndJo (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

after this when I asked to not just eliminate my questions but to reply on them, it was a complete block, so then I made the backup, all I did: I reverted only two times my edition on the page they were protecting (some their local PhD/staff scientist: they were asserting she was working on antibiotics but she was participating in the projects to reduce antibiotic usage (I don't know why they were eliminating such my references on the article discussion page): I made that correction, they became furious that I was eliminating the references (to their central newspaper) and have started that chase — ok, ok, I don't mind anymore) — MiniCell, MycoSynVac — these are just different grants/acronyms for the same research WndJo (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion here — it was completely eliminated — you see their tactics and behaviour… I think folks should be alarmed if they'd decide to spend their energy and time in eswiki community: their tactics are quite… well… — please use your own definition here WndJo (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My last corrections there — they bring mostly mass-media links to promote her as a key person, including mass-media links about her boss and project where she participates — after this I suggested to not use the official pages about the project when her name is not even mentioned and key persons are different, as it was inconsistent with the text: I put it in the discussion (including references to their rules about vanity pages), they declined that and erased the discussion. For instance, see how they bring this links: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/335672 — but this states another person to be related as a key person to the project. Etc… including their references to the Europarlament event. To my view all that looked odd… She might play some role there, but it looks distorted (antibiotics…) and exaggerated WndJo (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC) (sorry to be a bit too expressive)[reply]

I first noticed the page because it was created by the same account who made a promotion page for their Pia Cosma which is quite known in PubPeer for image manipulations — this page looks much more modest, although formally her achievements and position are higher WndJo (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also they refer on the page as if she (i.e. this Maria Lluch Senar, see her page, be aware of their tactics to purge!) has some awards (try to google these awards… ) there is no data on the page — don't even try to make them know this or, never, never remove such references in their promotion pages: they'd put against you accusation of vandalism :) WndJo (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As they only clean any evidence of the discussions and editions they don't like, I could only find it in the google cache — here I brought the references (please search the page by my name): after that I was just blocked with no explanation, I reckon it's : quite consistent with this.

Delete - I am not sure what this is meant to be, but it doesn't have an apparent positive purpose, and it looks like some sort of rant. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- It is definitely some sort of a rant. Being a rant, per se, doesn't mean it has to go. Project related rants in userspace are OK, even encouraged, if project related, and if they do not disparage individual others, ....

This edit ...

17:00, 12 December 2019 diff hist +6,780‎ N User:WndJo/sandbox ‎ Back up of an experience with the Spanish Wikipedia community)

succinctly establishes that this is all about stuff within es.wikipedia.org

While en.wikipedia.org should welcome interlingual users, and its userspace is good for a common userspace between multiple language Wikipedia sites, this crosses a line, WndJo (talk · contribs) is not doing this for the benefit of this, or that, or any Wikipedia. I think we, en.Wikipedians, should respect the processes and decisions of the es.Wikipedians, when they delete WndJo's es.wikipedia.org edits. This page amounts to a NOTWEBHOST violation. If he has issues with es.wikipedia, he should take them up at es.wikipedia.

This is impossible. How can I do it if they persistently delete ANY my word ANYWHERE in eswiki and eliminate ANY discussion, when I mention that the references they bring are not consistent with the text they make: they say their Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons has awards, and for the evidence they give a reference on the page which's empty and btw on the site which publish application with self-descriptions? If you dare mention anything about their references — how they use them — they literally start to chase you, even here — to eliminate you completely. All right, but then don't please advertise wiki as free encyclopedia. It's not free. It's for a caste. With all due respect, but in free places groups of people don't chase individuals and don't shut them up for the rant to follow the rules… showing examples when the rules are definitely disrespected.

Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that if in some wikis discussions are completely eliminated, users are blocked and vilified, references which do not correspond to the information in a wiki are kept (I just gave an example above) to make that information look as it doesn't look — it's generally ok and by no means should not be shared within wiki? I generally do not mind to share it in other spaces. It's up to you. I just don't believe this would make wiki better. Especially keeping in mind the trends mentioned in Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Level_of_debate,_edit_wars_and_harassment. I watched many times wiki users being threatened and harassed in their pages by old caste. To me it's all right to have yet another example of that: in my own experience WndJo (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t found anything of substance. You rant. You seem like you are not here for improving encyclopediae. You have issues at es.wikipedia.org. Take it up there, or nowhere, don’t make safe copies here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon above; there is no positive purpose from this and looks a violation of NOTWEBHOST (or worse). Britishfinance (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2019 (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.