Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfonzo Green

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 by clear consensus. The discussion at WT:BAN where this was cited as an example has run for a week, and the issue there is clear enough without this example. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Alfonzo Green
has been banned from articles related to Rupert Sheldrake under the terms of WP:ARB/PS. He also has a history of unproductive editing in other WP:FRINGE-related areas. This is his protest, in conteratvention of both his WP:TBAN and WP:STICK - an ill-written, incoherent rambling WP:TLDR anti-WP:CONSENSUS antiWP:FRINGE, anti-WP:MAINSTREAM, anti-Wikipedia rant which also contains various untrue allegations about editors. WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alfonzo Green

This is a case of WP:Wikihounding. Not satisfied with censoring me from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake, Barney is now trying to prevent me from expressing my views on my own user page. He is clearly tracking my edits and seems to want to remove me from Wikipedia altogether. My statement on my user page accurately describes my experience of being topic banned. Apparently he doesn't want the facts revealed.

I have a history of productive editing in science-related areas, including articles on genetic determinism, creodes, Ilya Prigogine and Mae-Wan Ho. My recent attention was devoted exclusively to Sheldrake, a well known scientist, in response to blatant efforts by Barney and other editors to negatively bias his biography page. Topic bans involve pages related to the topic and do not extend to the user's own page unless explicitly stated in the ruling. As to WP:STICK, I've made no effort to revive the debate. My sole objective in posting this material is to explain the events leading up to my topic ban, which I believe was not based on actual Wikipedia policy. I have the right to tell my side of the story. It's his right not to read it, as evidenced by WP:TLDR, but he doesn't have the right to prevent other editors from learning from my statement. In no way is it "incoherent rambling" or in opposition to any Wikipedia policies. In fact I make it clear that WP:CONSENSUS was ignored in the editing process and that Barney has consistently misused the WP:FRINGE charge against neutral editors. He still doesn't seem to understand that explaining Sheldrake's ideas on his biography page does not violate WP:FRINGE or WP:MAINSTREAM. That my statement is critical of Wikipedia in no way makes it an anti-Wikipedia rant. If Barney believes I've made false allegations against other editors, he should provide examples, though this will be difficult since everything in my statement is backed up with evidence. As to the last two charges, my intention is to bring the facts together into a single statement so as to educate Wikipedians about the potential for abuse of the editing process. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Barney should know better than to continue casting aspersions after receiving this | warning on his talk page. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Davey2010, it's absolutely about me, specifically my experience as a Wikipedia editor. Rather than face the fact that Wikipedia doesn't always get it right, you brush off my statement as "whining and moaning about who you hate." You call it a rant, though it's clearly a well-reasoned, evidence-based argument. Please set aside your emotions and look at the facts. The question you need to ask yourself is whether my statement violates a specific Wikipedia policy on user pages. As my statement demonstrates, I was censored without having violated policy. Now I'm to lose my user page even though, again, I've violated no policy? Alfonzo Green (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

76.107.171.90, like Barney, is involved in the Sheldrake dispute and apparently doesn't wish to see the facts of that dispute told on Wikipedia.

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia policy on user pages makes no provision for deletion in this circumstance. Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * if you think so, you apparently didnt read this -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

... not in the normal sense of "pity", however. Alfonso, I think you raise some very valid points regarding dysfunction in our processes, which are designed to deal expediently with the onslaught of editors who come here to promote their own agenda, rather than to carefully consider a nuanced position. Our somewhat knee-jerk response to anyone who seems like a psuedo-science advocate did not develop overnight, and isn't a conspiracy. It was the end product of constant battles with various pseudo-science proponents.
 * Strong Delete - Userpages should be about you etc .... Not a page to start moaning & whining about who you hate, Also it's not very welcoming to a new user is it.... All in all take your rant elsewhere. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  02:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply - It would help if you actually replied below than above .... My emotions play no part in this whatsoever, No one gives a toss whether you were censored or not .... Your page is simply ranting about everyone and thus should be deleted, If you're unhappy with someone - Discuss it / Go to AN/I, If not then shut up whining and find something useful to do.. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  02:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Activism at its most extreme is indistinguishable from trolling.  76.107.171.90 (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete as per WP:POLEMIC it does not appear to be supporting Wikipedia's growth and aspirations to develop a community generated encyclopedia, rather simply a rant opposing current policies and a collection of links and aspersions against other editors. (I will note that my views may be biased as I am one of the people being ranted against for such things as making "spurious" claims that contentious content come from a consensus on the talk page rather than being edit warred into the article, and filing a "blatantly frivolous" AE case which was so "blatantly frivolous" that 4 admins reviewing the case unanimously found problematic enough to support the ban requested.)--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry to pile on but that user page is an extremely clear violation of WP:UP. How would Wikipedia work if every unhappy editor posted their personal thoughts about other editors? Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A sympathy vote

This MfD will surely only reinforce your views. The problem, as I see it, is that while you seem to have developed a pretty solid first-hand experience with Wikipedia processes, some involuntarily, you have refused to follow some of the social niceties that we insist on. If you had framed your essay in general terms, without naming names, it would likely be an acceptable essay on the workings of Wikipedia. I guess I write this to say, you are capable of affecting change here, but as long as you make this a personal battle, you will be at best ignored as a "troll", and at worst, have your material summarily deleted and your ban expanded. To continue down the path that you have to know will inevitably lead to your suppression, and then cry victim about it is also not something the community can tolerate. Gigs (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Given current !votes and the fact that User:Alfonzo Green has been indef blocked for violating their topic ban with the content that they have posted on the page under discussion here which was described by the admin as a "screed" perhaps a SPEEDY is in order?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, at least for now, regardless of good reasons for deleting. The page in question is used as an illustration for a discussion about topic bans HERE. -Lou Sander (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid "keep" reason. There is nothing so special about this User page that it needs to be kept for that discussion.  Also, that discussion is about adding an illustrative example to an existing policy page, it has nothing to do with this User page in particular.   14:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - I do not think it is necessary to have an example of a WP:POLEMIC for illustrative purposes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @ - The need over there is for an example that shows why WP:TBAN should be more specific about user space. There are probably examples that don't include polemics, but I don't know of them. Lou Sander (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @, well if you do, maybe you could mock up an WP:EXAMPLEUSER page that contains WP:TLDR text that says things like "ugh, life's not fair", "I hate everyone", "all Wikipedia policy is wrong", "my topic ban was only upheld by 5 administrators", and other comments on how butthurt he is feeling, without the unnecessary and nasty specificity that has introduced. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I am normally very sympathetic to non-standard uses of user space, but this rant serves no purpose.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.