Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair

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 - WP:CSD#G10 specifically uses the word disparage. And the author makes it clear below that that is the intent. Calling it humour doesn't change that. And that simply has more weight than WP:NOHARM. The suggested intent to engage in substantial recreations, regardless of the page title, would seem to suggest initial salting, per WP:CSD#G4, and whatever other sanctions, as appropriate. I'll hope that the suggestion was merely kidding. - jc37 08:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair[edit]

I tagged this page under G10 for speedy deletion because it is a attack page. A administrator deleted it, but then restored it when a editor demanded that it be restored. This article does nothing but attack Rlevse. It's bad enough Rlevse left the project because he felt like he was troubling the project. There do not need to be attack pages like this one. Alpha Quadrant talk 01:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Giano's page is still there, and my page makes as much sense as his. I have not attempted to get his page removed. I would ask for an explanation and justification of a speedy deletion, except that process has been gone through already. I intend no disrespect to Giano or Rlevse, and I will be happy to arrange the removal of my user page under appropriate circumstances. (This might happen very quickly.) Removing the page just because some people don't like it, only seems likely to exacerbate paranoia and conspiracy theories. Let's discuss this reasonably, shall we?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demiurge1000 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 15 November 2010
  • Delete speedy or not, this kind of dig at another editor isn't productive. I don't think it's an attack page per se, but it's not appropriate and should be deleted. Gigs (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Precisely what Gigs wrote, inappropriate and it needs to go.—Sandahl (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's not an attack page, there is no reason to keep it (and if it were a blatant attack it would be speedied). Wikipedia is not a place to derive amusement with a fake enquiry mentioning other editors, and this page is not helpful for a collaborative atmosphere. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It serves to remind everyone of my paranoia and how very clever the Arbs are. I strongly advise keeping this page. Or is it, that certain Arbs want their stupid, ignorant and very objectionable posts deleted - surely not?  Giacomo  09:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm keep and you seem to have missed the point. This page is an obvious homage, shall we say, of Giano's page as has been pointed out above; there is no justification for deleting this as an "attack page" of all things while the other page remains. Intolerance of political satire is a sign of bad health for a society, here as well as in the offline world. Perhaps more importantly, the talkpage of the nominated page contains, as Giano has noted, substantive discussions involving arbitrators on a significant affair in the project's history. There is no excuse for covering it up from non-administrators. Skomorokh 10:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is understandable that one person's humour is not always apparent to others. Mark it up with Template:Humor and keep. --RexxS (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Giano says, the page serves a purpose. It's not in the least a dig at Rlevse or any kind of attack page. The important content is a couple of Arbs taking pot shots at Giano, in, as he puts it, very objectionable posts. (Compare my protest and warning on Coren's page.) Do arbitrators need to be protected from seeing such posts on the wiki? No, they don't; the power is theirs. But Giano may need to be able to quote and refer to it, to defend himself with. I think it's objectionable, too, that if the page is deleted many people can still read it, being admins — me and Coren and Shell for instance — but Giano and other regular editors can't. Bishonen | talk 13:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - Per What may I have in my user pages?, (1) Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki. (2) Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters. On the other hand, per What may I not have in my user pages? (1) Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws, (2) Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not "Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matter" since it about a person, not Wikipedia matters. However, the user subpage relates to Demiurge1000's perspective notes on the views maintained by Giano/Giacomo and publically presented by Giano in discussions elsewhere on the wiki related to a public event. It is information related to Giano maintained by Demiurge1000. Giano's views might be considered negative, but Demiurge1000's perspective notes don't necessarily appear negative. Giano seems cool with it (per the above), not that Giano's approval is needed. I don't see how it could be viewed as negative information related to Rlevse (an no one above has actually specified how the notes are "negative information related to Rlevse" - please feel free to post and change my mind). In sum, the user subpage relates to Demiurge1000's expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which she may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki that does not rise to "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete the user subpage and keep the use talk page- It may not be negative or an attack, but it is non-article space contentious material about living persons (Giano and/or Rlevse) that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. It should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate per WP:BLPTALK. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as we've already got a combined enquiry of Demiurge & Giacomo's, thus making this one obsolete. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains important diffs of Arbs attacking me. If it is deleted then Wikipedia truly does have a great problem with curruption and protecting its chosen few. At the moment we have arbs behaving like complete scum, is that to be swept under the carpet too?  Giacomo  15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer it over to the combined enquiry. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the diffs we need. We don't want them able to be only read by Arbs and Admins. otherwsise we are going to have othet despicable Arbs attacking ordinary editors time and time again and then just deleting their slurs - won't we?  Giacomo  15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see any diffs on the User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair page or understand what diffs to which you are referring. If there are diffs of Arbs referencing you, that would be an important factor. Please list them in this discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the posts on the talk page for which Giano wanted to keep diffs . Presumably, if the page is deleted, then the talk page will also be deleted and the diffs would no longer work. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, RexxS. Here's an example of such a post, Uzma Gamal, where Coren says Giano suffers from paranoid delusions and needs to go and discuss things with a health professional. When I warned Coren about this IMO very nasty personal attack, he claimed his post came out of genuine worry about Giano's health, which I think makes him (Coren) either fool or knave. You can read our further discussion here. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
User talk pages rarely are deleted. And, obviously, evidence of conduct unbecoming an Arbitration Committee member should never be deleted. However, it is not reasonable to tie a WP:BLPTALK page that should be delete to its highly keepable talk page. I think if the outcome of this MfD is keep, the User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair page should be relisted so that it is clear that User talk:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair is not subject to the outcome of the MfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I almost put a {{citation needed}} tag on the first sentence. Rlevse's talk page was summarily deleted before he exercised RTV, and the resulting fallout is actually the background to this page. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policies on what is permitted in user space are quite clear, and those policies are quite specifically against using it for long term storage of diffs about editor behaviour that are not intended for imminent use. It doesn't become a "highly keepable talk page" solely on the grounds of someone wanting to keep track of diffs for which they have made no indication of an imminent use. So, not wishing to be unduly awkward, but in my view the humourous essay (such as it is) provides essential context for what's on the talk page, and the talk page provides context for (or at least, discussion of) the essay. If one is deleted, then I shall probably make arrangements to get rid of the other as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a suggestion that it needs to be kept so that the diffs on its talk page are preserved. This sounds bizarre to me. Having said that, I did vote keep below for a simple reason that this is a nice essay puttings things into perspective and it will do no harm. - BorisG (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, I could have sworn I read "User talk pages rarely are deleted" somewhere. However, I might have been embelishing from WP:DELTALK which says "it is unlikely that your ... user talk page will actually be deleted". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's not gonna do any harm. The presumed innocent have nothing to fear & the presumed guilty can never be caught. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the condition it's marked with Template:Humor. Some people may not get it. Otherwise, delete it; hasn't Rlevse had enough thrown at him already? Airplaneman ✈ 23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood this. The essay is not directed at Rlevse, but at those who harangued him out of the project. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but mark with Template:Humor. Some people take themselves and fellow editors just a bit too seriously. - BorisG (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the Humor template as requested by a number of people in this discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just falling off my chair and out of my straighjacket laughing that Coren and Kinny can get away with such attacks. Any other insulting bastards like Coren and Kinney would be blocked! Wouldn't they? Very funny indeed!  Giacomo  20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool it with the attacks, kid... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And I'll spare everyone the rest of what I had planned on saying here. Sven Manguard Talk 04:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tsg humour if it is needed. Listing any page like this at MfD only serves to make it far more widely known, by the way. Collect (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so long as it it marked as humourous. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:47, 21 November 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:Demiurge1000/Second_enquiry_into_the_Rlevse_affair&oldid=1138549082"