Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Nishidani

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 keep Skier Dude (talk 02:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Nishidani[edit]

The user is topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict area. The talk page will never be used in an article and borders on WP:UP#POLEMIC. Since this material will never be used on this project and is controversial, there is no reason to have it hosted on a talk page for his benifit. It can be copy and pasted into MSWord. Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy read:User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.

I am an established user. The matter was related to a Wikipedia Arbcom dispute. It is therefore at least obligatory to demonstrate why my user page ought to suffer 'unusual' treatment. Assertion or prophecy are not arguments.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani left the material in question on his talk page at the specific request of another editor after the West Bank / Judea and Samaria case ended. In common with that editor, I find it a well-written, well-reasoned and useful summary of issues involved in the case and would like it to remain. My sense of what is polemical is obviously very different to Cptnono's. In the case of Nishidani's user and talk pages, perhaps, rather than seeking to have something that is distasteful in his opinion deleted, he should just stay away from them. ← ZScarpia 14:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are called talk pages because they are supposed to be used for discussion. This content has nothing to do with discussion whatsoever. The content should preferably be removed from Wikipedia, or at the very least, be cut and pasted to the user's sandbox or to a user sub-page. It's easy enough to do. In any case it does not belong here.--Kudpung (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was part of the Arbcom discussion, which, since comments were restricted to a few hundred words, I thought necessary to elaborate in that form on my page. It simply was not archived. Had it been archived, would you still object to it being in an archive, rather than on a subpage? Is there any rule that says one is obliged to archive one's thoughts once the immediate context has passed? If there is a very large number of user pages must be deleted. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be quite clear about this: we're talking about a talk page, not about a user page, a user sandbox, or a user subpage; people going to a user's talk page to leave a message don't expect trhe page to be full of opinion pieces. The talk page archives also appear to demonstrate a similar pattern. --Kudpung (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page where I explained what, due to Arbcom restrictions on the relevant discussion pages, I could not explain the reason behind the series of critical judgements underlying my 8 revert edits over 50 days. This is quite clearly described at the outset of the essay, a form I adopted in order to clarify in detail what the Arbcom format disallowed, as it adheres strictly to WP:TLDR, for obvious reasons. I was addressing Arbcom because my integrity as a responsible editor was challenged, and it was quite appropriate, given the formal restrictions, that I gave my understanding of the issue on the only page where such talk was allowed. Why this intensive fuss? You don't know me from a bar of soap, we have never interacted, and you have all of a sudden (a) called for me to be topic-banned from editing Shakespeare, with absolutely no evidence adduced to ground the suspicion I have acted inappropriately there and (b) asked for a deletion of my talk page within 24 hours (c) now admitted to havng begun to read through my extensive archives where you find a pattern of opinion you now decry as an abuse? My page is monitored by many administrators, as is my work on Shakespeare, and no one has jumped at me with any such alacrity to challenge my utility to the encyclopedia in this regard?Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shakespeare issue is not part of this MfD discussion.--Kudpung (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, what are the formal objections to my putting it on my user page?Nishidani (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material more logically belongs on a user subpage. Is there any objection to copying it to a user subpage, and removing the text from the talk page?--SPhilbrick T 23:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that would be appropriate. He is topic banned from the area so the information will never be used to improve an article. WP:UP#POLEMIC also applies to subpages.Cptnono (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained to you that the material is there because at least two other editors want it there. Nishidani may not use it while his block remains in place (which may not be permanent as you're assuming), but others might. Since when did usefulness for improving articles become a criteria for deletion from userpages anyway? It may seem polemical to you and you're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think that you would get a consensus in your favour on that one (my opinion of course). To me, opposing alternatives such as moving the material to Nishidani's user page or a sub-page looks a little over-zealous. You may like to read the West Bank naming convention; it would possibly make it apparent that what counts as "controversial" among the relatively very small number of right-wing Israelis doesn't count as such elsewhere. ← ZScarpia 19:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, Wikipedia in another dysfunctional mode. What possible harm can result from Nishidani having this on his own talk page? What is the matter with you people? Relax and find something useful to do. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, the real reasons for raising this might not actually be about the deletion of the material per se. ← ZScarpia 11:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Epipelagic. If this were a court case, the judge would throw it out, in a tone of exasperation, with the comment "frivolous and vexatious". Or in wiki-speak, speedy keep. --NSH001 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this is an absurd nomination. There is nothing on the page that is "polemical", and the assertion that it does demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word or of the content on the page. There is nothing on the page that violates any one of the requirements for talk page content. nableezy - 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipeida has set up a format set up for a reason, and a good reason. Under this format all editors know where to find certain information and where to communicate with other editors. The format provides talk pages and user pages. Nishidani's content belongs on a user page, not a talk page. I don't understand why we have to have all this yelling and screaming for this simple request. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed the nominator has also said they do not want the material moved to a user page but only deleted on the absurd grounds that it is "polemical". nableezy - 14:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your opinion? From what you've said above, it looks as though you yourself would be satisfied if the content was moved from the talk page to a user page. Have I read correctly? ← ZScarpia 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep reasons for proposed deletion do not seem to me to meet the relevant criteria. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's not grounds for a speedy keep. see Wikipedia:Speedy keep.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think items 2.1 and/or 2.5 are both potentially applicable here, and I cite them as the basis for my speedy keep opinion. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at the calls for speedy keep and the like. Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays or soapboxing. It has sources but it is still written in a way that looks like he is trying to prove a point. He should be happy to save it on his computer if he isn't trying to make a point, right? And WP:UP#POLEMIC does come into play since he makes a case against User:Ynhockey. Although it is worded nicely: "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." It does not matter if others have asked him to keep it up. They can click on the link in the history to see it if it is somehow assisting their work on this project. Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have either not read what you are nominating for deletion or you are purposely misrepresenting its contents. There is no "case against Ynhockey". Ynhockey made a suggestion during an arbitration case on Wikipedia, the part you speak of is a response to that suggestion. There is no "soapboxing", there is no "negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs ...". None of those things can be found in this material. And even if there were those things, you could ignore them. This is an "established user" who has put in a great deal of work on this project. There is no need to pester him with such inanity. nableezy - 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, have you understood that it was written as part of an arbitration case? Rather than force others to search through a page history, why don't you just avert your eyes? Nobody is forcing you to read it. ← ZScarpia 14:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the first one to mention it. If another editor had not brought it up I would have probably ignored it but two editors see it as a problem.I could avert my eyes. Or he could remove the questionable material. We have guidelines for a reason. Sucks if he feels pestered. It wouldn't be an issue if he would remove it.

And there is a whole section so I don't understand why Nableezy is saying it isn't there. Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section analyzing a suggestion made by Ynhockey about using certain terms in certain situations. There is not however "a case against Ynhockey" or any of the things that you quote from such as "negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs ..." nableezy - 21:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No actual violation of WP:TALKNO, it was a response to an ArbCom case left in place for posterity. It is a shame that Cptnono chose not to echo a simple request for removal/relocation as Kupdong did, but rather chose the route of directives ("You will not be adding it to an article...") and thinly-veiled insinuations of punishment ("Any slip ups will look extra bad...") for non-compliance with his demand. Cptnono needs to learn his place, which isn't going around and trying to bully others into removing things that he disagrees with. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that people are actually defending this and making me out to be some sort of jerk for a simple MfD. I did something wrong by pointing out that he has been violating his topic ban (for a third time?) on another user's talk page? You also didn't read the sentence before it "I'm also not sure if you can even respond to this with your topic ban so you might want to ask for clarification over at AE." That makes no sense and has nothing to do with if this should be deleted or not. Fine. Let him keep his page. It is obvious that editors can violate the standards whenever they want. I am sick of trying to stay within some sort of boundaries (I slip up myself of course) while others have no regard for them. I'll be more like the later from now on.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let it be. He's a good editor, and entitled to his views. What he is saying is not abusive. Personally, I'd move it from user talk to a user essay subpage, but I think it does no harm where it is. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, user talk pages of active contributors are not deleted in their entirety. Deleting the page will remove the diffs of every comment ever left on it. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. Since the editor keeps on deleting anything new but keeping that essay in it means that it isn't going anywhere. It is obvious that no one cares so close this out already. I need to go be WP:POINTy.Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a consensus that the content constituted an actual violation of Wikipedia:User pages, then Nishidani would be warned by an administrator, and blocked, with talk page access disabled, if continued to restore the material. However, the discussion above suggests that this course of action is likewise inadvisable. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that consensus is not votes since it should be based on guidelines and policies. Realistically, enough of his buddies and a couple that are not affiliated chimed in that it isn;t being removed. I'm over it and will just keep in mind that we can do anything we want in the topic area. No worries on my end.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - let's move on from this childishness. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"childishness"? It is obvious that there is a concern. May not be the biggest problem in the world but what is with all of the shit talk? Nonstop in this request. I'm being a child for attempting action on something two people see a problem with? The editor has friends here so it is a speedy keep? I have no problem with it being kept if people want but why the fuck a I being attacked over it? Cptnono (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Nishidani should move it to a user subpage after this discussion as a gesture of good will, and to lessen future issues, if it is kept. Gigs (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if Nishidani was asked politely, he might well consent to do that. ← ZScarpia 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never hunted people, tracked their pages, gone for people, picked them up for the numerous words of abuse or insinuation they've thrown my way, and only, after 4 years, last week, found myself, exhausted, finally compelled to open an AN/I file because an editor, who is almost invariably impeccably courteous, wouldn't allow me to edit a page he thought he owned: a complaint not against him, note, but rather on behalf of a simple right to edit, and not be pestered or reverted endlessly. If I had to live by that norm of eye for eye, endless minute scrutiny of an ostensible 'adversary', I'd've never joined this project. I can be 'smart-alecky' with a remonstrative term of hyperbole at times, but nothing more.

I've worked, I think, with a reasonable profile for decency in some tough areas where edit-warring, flaming, obnoxiousness, tagteaming, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, scalp-taking over trivial slips that only pettifogging wiki wonks would note, abounds that I really don't feel I need to make a gesture of good will, particularly since I offered the private labour of months of study as a gift (myself talking to myself about the metaprinciples guiding one's editorial choices) to this wikipedia which often speaks about itself as a 'community' yet behaves, as Marshall McLuhan predicted, like a tribal society with all the bad blood of clannish enmities, and even a gift, as the Germanic sense implies, can be taken as 'poisoning the well'. It suggests, in the nuanced world of exact usage, that I've some penitance to pay. I accepted my ostracism from the I/P area, and have built many articles elsewhere. Because I retain a good deal of respect for one editor who works there, and humour him, the sock-killer, it seems my own past record must be raked through to make even my afterlife as an editor 'problematical' in the eyes of administration. Cui bono?

I was laughed at once for appealing to another editor's sense of honour. I work by an honour code. I know it's out-dated, and I even feel silly mentioning it here, and using it to defend myself. I prefer to act properly without feeling that what I do is done under constraint. If I have done anything wrong here, by all means pass the appropriate sanction. I probably won't notice. I prefer to edit to articles rather than get caught up in this endless bureaucratic insanity of nitpicking over conjectured infringements of whatever. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Insufficient grounds for deletion have been presented. Zero^talk 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just now saw this. So far I see 8 keeps, 2 of them speedy, to zero, excepting the nominator. This is the kind of useless merry-go-rounding that diverts attention and energy away from making good articles and causes Wikipedia to lose talented editors. If there were any harmful behaviour here I could see the point, but IMO this would dismissed as a frivolous action anywhere save Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:34, 16 October 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.