Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Plato/red faction

On 29 July 2004, User:Plato/red faction was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 consensus to keep. Rossami 00:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know that personal subpages are usually considered fair game, but this page overtly and maliciously advocates trolling and vandalism. 172 12:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and sanciton. - UtherSRG 13:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is what VFD is for. This needs to go elsewhere, to the troll dealing page, wherever it is... Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 13:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no "troll deleting page," so I think this is going to have to suffice. 172 13:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Requests for Arbitration, which mentions a certain User:172 as being difficult. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 14:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever having dealt with Plato extensively myself. I have had the displeasure of dealing with his fellow red faction comrade User:Lir, though. 172 15:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Recall the wikisex deletion discussion? That was on VFD, as have certain user pages (I think one of them in particular was the user page of a user who wanted to get the Wikimedia foundation in trouble for supposedly improper registation as a charitable institution- that one failed and the page was mildly clobbered with a notice from Jimbo, IIRC). It's not the normal fare of VFD, but it's certainly within its scope. Have an IRC channel quote. - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 17:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 13:04 < maximus_rex> sterlingda, information-ecologist, and wanli all had user subpages deleted against their wishes via vfd
 * Keep. It's a user page, users should have a very wide latitude in what they put on their own user pages. Furthermore, suppressing dissent only leads to the suppressed feeling more marginalized, and taking up their dissent in different and perhaps more anti-social ways. If you disagree with Plato's page, write a page refuting it. -- orthogonal 13:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Users should have control over what goes on their user pages, unless they are banned. If you think this is worthy of a ban, then take it up with the Arbitration Committee. I personally have great distaste for the idea of VfD being used as a battleground over users who may or may not be "trolls". This isn't a matter for VfD, and even if it were, orthogonal's points are well taken. Don't rise to their bait. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:53, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which of the parts of the rules regarding user subpages do you think this violates? Snowspinner 14:20, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dissent is not a bad thing, and it's certainly not grounds for deleting a User page. If a User actually does something bad, then deal with that. But I really don't see the vandalism aspect. It's antiauthoritarian, and it claims that trolls help Wikipedia. - Eisnel 14:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless there's some specific established guideline that this violates. This page helps us keep track of these people. Bryan 15:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I concur with Orthogonal's statements below. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Note: I argued to keep on principle, without reading the page in question. Having read it, it in no way advocates vandalism, and as far as trolling, it just acknowledges that that label has been applied and so embraces the label as a rallying cry -- much like gays have embraced the epithet "queer". Given that the page itself is so innocuous, I can't help but see this as simply an attempt to harass an "enemy". Wkipedia doesn't need to be wasting time on such juvenilia, and I call upon 172 to either justify his listing it on VfD or himself vote against its removal. -- orthogonal 16:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if the word "vandalism" is not used, 'trolling' is a form of vandalism. In addition, I'm hardly alone in using these two terms as one-and-the-same. 172 16:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Plato would be well advised to ask for deletion of this page now, while it's timely. If that is the case, delete posthaste. Otherwise... I really can't say. - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 17:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think the PAGE advocates it, but the faction certainly does. This page provides support for the faction. Is that good enough reason to delete it? - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 17:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Since someone is making a Big Fat Deal about the grandparent of this comment on IRC, allow me to Clarify. I think that Plato should ask for it to be deleted. He's apparently toyed with the idea before, and this is the perfect opportunity to make it happen. It would help his cause- his recent (failed) RFA had several objections about "Cut out the Red Faction nonsense if you want support". The portion about "I really can't say" was not intended as a threat, but rather indecision on my part about whether or not I think the page should be deleted. I have thought it over, and now feel we should KEEP unless Plato agrees to deletion. - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 23:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Not a vote really - why are we making such a big deal about this? It should be ignored, if anything should be done to it at all. Does anyone seriously believe that this group has any power or influence? Of course not. Plato is pretty clueless, and deleting the page would not stop any of the actual trolls listed there. Basically, it doesn't matter, it's not a threat, so why bother doing anything? Adam Bishop 17:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arevich 19:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain very loudly. In the case of previous personal pages that made it to VfD, I recall that the reasoning was that they were using Wikipedia to essentially be a free web host or they advocated illegal behaviors.  I try with all my might to stay away from administrative positions and positions on content that is antisocial or twitting.  I.e. this seems to be a matter for admins to hash out, not VfD.  Geogre 18:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Why should admins get any more say than other users over whether this sort of thing is deleted? It's a community issue; adminship should carry "no special decision-making power or authority". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:58, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be polite too much, I guess. I was trying to say that I thought the nomination and much of the debate had more to do with a history that was private, conducted on meta and IRC, that was inaccessible to those who only write articles than to the merits of the pages.  In other words, I thought that the whole community was getting asked to step into a contentious matter and that this was an issue for other forums than VfD.  Otherwise, it's really clear that the pages should be kept.  They're user pages, not ads, not hijacking of the project.  They're a user's thoughts on Wikipedia matters, and it's not even a VfD matter.  I just didn't want to get into all that animosity.  I just like deleting stuff.  Geogre 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and go look at some articles instead. Zocky 19:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's just a personal page, and is more discussable on RFC than VFD.  I'm very much a fan of the "do not feed the trolls" policy, and deleting this page would be like supersizing their happy meal. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:13, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote, but I imagine that deleting this would create some major issues that would subsequently have to be addressed. The page in question seems to me much less offensive than the material found at User:Mr-Natural-Health, so we would then have to have referenda on that and similar items as well. "If it is weak, kill it or ignore it; anything else honors it." You can't "kill" open objection, so ignoring it seems to me to be a better option. Jeeves 22:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How about just redirecting it to User:Plato as suggested at User page? Angela. 01:13, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is User page suggestions, guidelines, a proposal, or a policy? The page itself looks like a policy, but parts seems to imply it's a proposal or perhaps just a series of guidelines. Also, are you suggesting that User:Plato, the page "owner", may #REDIRECT the page, or that User:172, the user requesting its deletion, can or should #REDIRECT the page? -- orthogonal 15:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying 172 can or should do anything. It was just a suggestion. It may be best for him to discuss it with Plato and ask Plato to remove it. If Plato fails to do so, gaining community support for the redirect at WP:RFC might be the next step. However, since this is now at VfD, perhaps this page could be used to see if there is sufficient support for redirecting the page. If Plato refuses to have it redirected against the will of the community, it could go to arbitration. There again, it could just be ignored. And Plato does not "own" the page any more than you own an article you write. Angela. 19:19, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I meant "own" in the sense that Plato created the page and it's a sub-page of his user page, and as I understood the general consensus (policy?) is to let people do whatever is within reason on their user pages. Besides, wouldn't redirecting be, effectively the same as deleting it? The consensus on this page seems to be that 1) the page is mostly innocuous and 2) that if Plato wants keep it, the only harm it does is to Plato's reputation. And I may be being unintentionally unfair to you, Angela; it's sometimes hard for me to tell when you are speaking for yourself in your private capacity as a wiki user and when you are speaking for wikipedia in your public capacity as a wiki officer. -- orthogonal 19:38, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a consensus that people can do what they like with their sub pages within reason. What this VfD listing is suggesting is that Plato has gone beyond what is reasonable. I'm not proposing anyone do anything against consensus. I don't advocate vigilante attempts to have the page removed, which is why my reply above mentions, more than once, the idea of finding out whether there is community support for such an action. Without that, the page should obviously stay. My suggestion of redirecting was page was dependent on there being community support for that action. Regarding whether or not I am speaking on behalf of myself or the foundation, please assume I am always talking on behalf of myself, as a normal user of Wikipedia, unless I explicitly state otherwise. Angela. (disclaimers) 21:52, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * If Plato had any sense, he would have requested speedy deletion of this page long ago. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that this isn't a delete vote. It isn't a keep vote either. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 14:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 17:38, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and request sanction against User:172 and is minion UtherSomething for: 1) trying to turn wikipedia into a fascist dictatorship; 2) abusing the use of VfD; 2) loosing their own time in provoking discussion; 3) harassing users; 4) being nosy. Why do they read the page in the first place, instead of editing zionism and the likes? Muriel G 13:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I am a Jewish social democrat whose grandparents died in fascist concentration camps, and I find your comment grossly offensive. I don't make any apologies for helping to curb the damage caused by Plato's "red faction" of vandals either. 172 13:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * So? You should know better than me, whose grandfather also died for similar reasons than yours, the price of repressing fundamental liberties. What should you care about what Plato writes there? He is not even insulting anyone, for heavens sake. Why dont you do something useful instead of preocupating yourself with nonsense like the red faction? Muriel G 14:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do something useful instead of preocupating yourself with something that I have already done? 172 15:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry 172, but hasn't Muriel (or any of us) the right to question your nominations to VfD? I find her opposition very useful; "Fascist" may be over the top, but I notice that while you've taken offense at her tone and added fuel to the rhetorical fire by invoking your grandparents' murders (murders which it should go without saying we all decry), you have answered none of her arguments.
 * That was not a response to her "arguments." She implied that I was a fascist, so I stated otherwise. 172 15:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * To restate her arguments: why are you abusing VfD to harass users you have personal differences with? Why do you even care about a user page that merely states a particular belief about how wikipedia should work, and how is it that mere user opinion in user namespace -- opinion that you need not even read -- constitutes a "troll"? You seem to be alleging that advocating certain opinion, alone and without any action or even call to action, is in itself disruptive. Do you really think wikipedia is so weak that a user page will bring it down? Have you so little confidence in what we collectively have built here that you must seek out and delete any dissenting opinion, no matter how innocuous? -- orthogonal 19:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I can see that you mastered the skill of begging the question. While I'll accredit you with that, my conversation with both you and User:Muriel Gottrop is concluded. 172 19:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence aganist them.--Neutrality 19:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page has plenty of attitude but no real call to action. It does not come remotely close to some pages I've seen (ie, User:Wikipolice) which represented genuine challenges to our community. Plato, at least to my knowledge, has not attempted to do any more than make faces on his user page, and if he were to do so within namespace, then it would be fair to bring out the VfD machines. I really think that at this point, this is undue harrassment, and his userpage is no threat to anyone. Denni &#9775; 19:13, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
 * Keep. I regard both the Red Faction, and the hysterical reaction to it, as a load of nonsense, but within reason, I believe that what users have in their own user space is their own business.  I say "within reason," because the line has to be drawn somewhere.  I find it ironic that people tolerated the far more offensive stuff that Wik used to have on his user page, for a much longer period of time, than this.  Wik clearly crossed that line - and nothing was done for long enough.  Plato has not, in my opinion, crossed the line - even though I find him somewhat annoying.  We can all choose to ignore him.  Yes, I once voted for disciplinary action against him, but that was on a separate issue - his nomination for sysop status by what I thought was a sockpuppet. I'm not so sure of that now.  As for his list of Red Faction members, yes, there are some on the list that I would call trolls or even vandals, but there is also at least one name (Muriel's) that I have A LOT of respect for.  That, at least, should be taken into account.David Cannon 21:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Users should be able to place whatever they want on their own user pages as long as (a) it is not illegal, (b) it is not offensive (foul language, sexually explicit etc.), (c) it is not used as a vehicle to attack anyone in any way shape or form. If a user or group of users are partaking in an activity that cotravenes Wiki's code of practice or similar then by all means remove the user entirely, however simply suppressing their user pages will only lead to a backlash that is simply not worth the effort.  Keep until they have done enough to be banned, besides it could then be used as evidence if necessary. -- Hackerjack 15:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is obviously a personal matter.  The page in question does not advocate harmfull behavior IMO, and as such should be under User:Plato's discretion.
 * Keep, looks like more of a fun parody page than anything to be taken seriously. Perhaps it could use a border of smiley faces to clue the humor-challenged. Stan 17:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)