Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta m/Deletionaholics

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Beta m/Deletionaholics
Violates Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. RickK 10:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL, Actually i found it funny that this page was put for deletion so fast. First i'd like to point out that votes for deletion of user pages is suppose to be done "in excessive or stubborn cases" as is stated on Deletion policy, the comment on my user page was left after the VfD. I will try to work on the page, and probably remove the "list" of other users. It is sad that i wasn't given a chance to do so. Beta_M talk, |contrib ( &Euml;-Mail )
 * I have changed the page. RickK, if you could please answer what i've written to you on your talk page (and on mine as a responce to your post), it would be greatly appreciated. As the page is now i don't see how there can be any objections to it, i won't remove so if either you or somebody else would do that it would be appreciated. Thanx Beta_M talk, |contrib ( &Euml;-Mail )


 * Keep for the moment. This listing appears to be in violation of the current deletion policy in that the user was not contacted first. I agree that a previous version contained a personal attack. Andrewa 12:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you point to where you see something in that page that says that the user needs to be contacted? RickK 19:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * At deletion policy there are two tables, the first is headed Problems that don't require deletion and includes the line Problem with page: Inappropriate user page. Solution: Talk to the user; if that doesn't work, come back here. You seem to have jumped straight to the second table, Problems that may require deletion, but the instructions clearly say Read the following two tables to find out what to do with a problem page (my emphasis). I think the intention is clear. What do you think? Andrewa 00:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that policy is pretty obscurely-located. I never knew it existed, and when I read it when you first posted, I went right past it.  RickK 00:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - and not that it really matters but I only give no reason for deletion when it has already been stated by multiple users, or when the article really doesn't need a reason. Maybe I should just stick in a pun every time to keep you happy. Xezbeth  16:25, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Um voting without giving reasons is very stress-inducing because the vote and the voter are then unknown quantities. If someone wants to answer reason for deletion, maybe by providing evidence or improving the article, they don't know how or if there would be any point trying. Maybe the article doesn't need a reason, but they can't tell if the vote is about the article, or the topic. If a reason been given, it's not to hard to say "delete per (username) is it"? Kappa 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in present form. I don't see why this should have been listed on VfD in any case. Agree that it did violate the "no personal attacks" policy. But this could have been handled in other ways. For example the page itself could have been edited, with an edit comment and notes on its Talk page. Suggest in any case that the page be moved to "Deletionoholic" to conform better with the spelling of alcohol. Is Beta_M talk, |contrib ( &Euml;-Mail ) aware of ADW by the way? It's delightful, it's delovely, it's deletion
 * AID says "(There is currently no text in this page)", what is going on? Beta_M talk, |contrib ( &Euml;-Mail )
 * Typo for ADW, sorry. See also AIW, Association of Mergist Wikipedians, Association of Apathetic Wikipedians, Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist, etc. VfD: Where the Elite Meet to Delete


 * Keep. Whats wrong with listing who the deletionists are?  Can't this be managed without resulting to personal attacks?  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 20:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say it can't, as I don't consider myself a deletionist. I vote keep on "fancruft" all the time, for example. Xezbeth  20:14, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing's wrong with it, except it's already been done (voluntarily I might add) at []. Making your own "hit list" of people you think should be labeled thus is not only redundant, it's mean-spirited and generally unneighborly. Katefan0 20:29, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with listing people who identify themselves as deletionists. There's quite a bit wrong with applying such a label to someone else. For example, how would you react if I were to include "RaD Man" on a list of "shameless extroverts" or "notorious Thespians" or "People that were forced to leave college because of matriculation?" Dpbsmith (talk) 20:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey now, why all the harsh analogies? How about a list of "lovely people who enjoy ice cream?"  ;)  Katefan0 20:36, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) (I am Katefan0, and I'm a Deletionist.)
 * Comment: The original of this page was over the top and consituted a personal attack IMO, and would have been a possible RfC candidate if it hadn't been withdrawn. But it was withdrawn. All that was needed in this case was to point this relative newcomer to the relevant policies, which is exactly the procedure our current policy describes, see above. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My above comments aside..... I'm a little queasy about the idea of voting to delete someone's personal user page, short of ad hominem attacks or discriminatory or vulgar text. I happen to find the practice of making these sorts of "hit lists" personally distasteful but I'm not sure I'd vote to delete one of them on someone's user page.  So I have to say, while holding my nose, keep. Katefan0 20:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe Beta M should have been contacted first. Listing a user page in VfD without doing this may sound like an aggression itself. But I do think that list should be deleted. It's unpolite to categorize people this way, associating them with a Wikipedia "philosophy"; let they categorize themselves if they want. I ask Beta M to remove it. JoaoRicardo 04:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Come one people, this is just ridiculous, read the page before commenting on it, i've already removed the list, and i've commented about the removal here (read it above). Beta_M talk, |contrib ( &Euml;-Mail )
 * ???? This is not intended as an attack or a rhetorical question, but I don't see that you've "removed the list." What I see at User:Beta m/Deletionaholics, now a redirect to "deletionoholics," is a list that names Xezbeth, Uncle G, and RickK and gives reasons for listing them. I believe it is "legal" but inappropriate to have this in your user space and I think it would be wise for you to remove it. Note that I voted "keep" above (under the nom-de-plume It's delightful, it's delovely, it's deletion) Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Check the page history, or see below. It was restored by another user, not Beta m. Andrewa 21:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How unpleasant. Thank you for checking the page history, Andrewa, which I should have done myself. My apologies to Beta M for any confusion I may have created by my comment. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, teamwork. We only need it because we're all human. Andrewa 23:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I too see the list has returned, after being deleted. I think those on the list should feel free to remove their names, if they wish, and if added again then they can proceed with some sort of arbitration. I was actually thinking of adding my name. I've never actually been called a "deletionoholic" (just an old fashioned alcoholic, though that isn't true either), but if "frequently votes delete" (for shame, RickK, for shame!) is all it takes then I guess I fit the bill. I don't consider myself "deletionist", mostly because I think it's a stupid word. In fact, this whole thing is stupid, and I'm not going to cast any official vote, just my suggestion I mentioned. -R. fiend 14:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and can I create a page User:R. fiend/List of people who vote to keep the shittiest of articles, voting without comment, and, I suspect, without having read the article in question? Not that I have any intention of doing so. Just wondering. -R. fiend 14:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You certainly can, but you probably mayn't and definitely shouldn't. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. -R. fiend 18:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd recommend commenting on the talk page instead, we are creating a terrible precedent IMO if we all start updating user pages without the user's permission. If you do update another user's page (and that's what a Wiki is for), please be very careful not to impersonate them, even accidentally. As an example of this, if you check the history, you'll see that the list was actually restored by another user, and of more concern they also restored the personal attack at the same time. You'll also see that the page move by the user broke the links here, partly as a result of the person who listed this on VfD not following the instructions (please read them). I think I've fixed it all now. Andrewa 21:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Preliminary Keep under the general principle of giving users broad leeway and control over their user space. I agree that inflammatory personal attacks are not acceptable, but I don't think this qualifies. (Expressing POV about other users does not IMO equate to attacks.) Even if it did qualify, though, I agree under this principle that the user should be asked to change it first. - Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  22:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ironically, this attack if it was one was a lot milder than what several of Beta m's accusers regularly get away with, IMO. But two wrongs don't make a right. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I agree that at the time RickK made the nomination, this page was just personal attacks and deserving of deletion. Now it's just an example of illiteracy. BTW, I've voted Delete hundreds of times--why didn't I make 'the list' :/ . Niteowlneils 19:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no evidence of abuse on this page within user space, nor in its history log.  GRider\talk 18:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Spinboy 00:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.