Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alkivar


 * 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 debate was keep GRBerry 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Alkivar
Do rants belong in userspace? Is this a CSD G10? Or neither? --  Denelson83  03:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - thanks for posting, Denelson. Fairly blatant violation of WP:USER, specifically "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." This is precisely the sort of sour-grapes "I'm leaving and you guys suck!" kind of thing we've been seeing way too much of. Nobody cares what Alkivar has to say anymore. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 03:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. While Alkivar is no longer an active editor, he posted this on his talk page to provide his rationale for departing from the project. Maybe someone will see it someday and it'll make them think about things. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - personal rants are allowed on user pages, and they're often helpful and portray some very valid points. Alkivars userpage isn't that incivil and expresses his personal opinion about the state of the project. More to the point however is that we shouldn't kick editors whilst they're down - hopefully Alkivar will soon return with a different outlook on the project.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  04:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kick him when he's down??? Ryan, I seriously ask you to reconsider your last statement. I didn't take Alkivar's sysop bit and I barely know him from a hole in the ground; nobody here is advocating "kicking" anyone. I realize he's highly thought of by a lot of people, but posting a nasty piss-off message directed at a bunch of different people, including the ArbCom and uninvolved users who posted comments in good-faith on his RFAR, is simply not acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. It blatantly violates WP:USER...I don't know what else to say. I just think he should take out the nastiness directed at his fellow editors. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Alkivar is still in good standing as a Wikipedia editor despite his unfortunate choice to leave the project (and it's really a shame a dedicated admin was railroaded off like he was), and he still has the right to a userpage. His rant makes no personal attacks or inappropriate accusations, it's just a valid criticism of how he feels the project's went wrong.  krimpet ✽  04:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Krimpet, you and Alkivar are entitled to your opinion, but as I stated below, his comments DO directly attack a group of editors; those who spoke against him at his RFAR. The policy specifically prohibits this, for precisely this reason. I'm really truly not trying to stir up a pissing match here, but at the risk of allowing Wiki-reality to quietly slip into the memory hole, he wasn't "railroaded off"; he was desysopped by the ArbCom for no less than 7 major offenses including wheel warring, blocking to further a POV in a content dispute, gross incivility, and conspiring with a sitebanned Wikipedia Review vandal (burntsauce/JB196) to tag-team POV-push on several articles. It was obvious and egregious enough that ArbCom banned him from RfA-ing his bit back. Let's not argue over reality. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not read his comments as a direct attack, certainly not, and not as attack at all, in fact. Criticism, yes, and not targeted at any individual, but general. That's clearly allowed. Further, the remedy for personal attack isn't deletion of a user page, and MfD is not the place to obtain that remedy.--Abd (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Alkivar was a very helpful editor; he provided assistance in getting several on my articles to featured status. And if he wants to blow off a little bit of steam on his userpage in leaving, big deal. No one has to read it if they don't want to. Also, as mentioned above, there's no personal attacks or anything so it's fine. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when does a user's right to WP:OWN their userpage trump Wikipedia policy against divisive rants and personal attacks in userspace? Alkivar made friends here; I realize that. But that doesn't mean he should get a free pass on being nasty and bilious, especially as a form of retribution towards people who he considers whistle-blowers. "No one has to read it if they don't want to"??? That's quite possibly the most interesting rationalization for inappropriate content on user-space I think I've ever seen. I'd remind you that his user-space and mine and yours all belong to the community. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You've inadvertently revealed a great reason to vote to keep – if we all band together to prevent one another's pages from getting deleted, then we can all keep whatever we want in our userspace. Works for me. I think in this case, he's within policy and guidelines, but even if he weren't, I would say ignore all rules and keep it anyway. Strike another blow for freedom. Yeah! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- people are allowed to editorialize about Wikipedia in user space. Friday (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)\
 * Keep per Krimpet. Alkivar still edits occasionally, I note - is there any reason why the nominator failed to put a notice on Alkivar's talk page?  Risker (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The user page in question is still marked with "I will not be back to edit...No amount of begging and pleading (not that theres much chance of that) will bring me back." as well as a huge black bar that reads "RETIRED". Just a thought. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, he does have that "retired" banner on his page, which says he will not be back to edit. In that, he is very much like dozens of other editors.  And like many of those same editors, he hasn't left entirely or stopped editing entirely. Indeed, many people whose user pages declare they have left the project often return to full-fledged editing.  Risker (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think there was a guy named Absidy who did that not too long ago, IIRC. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because some seriously humorless admins have taken comments not much different from this to be sock puppetry, I'll note that Obuibo Mbstpo is Absidy, and he should be proud of it, one very bright and brave -- if a bit impulsive sometimes -- Wikipedian. Some think I'm a good writer. He's better, especially if we consider he's less than half my age.--Abd (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - Please pardon my effusiveness, but I am highly confused as to the raw nerve this nom seems to have touched.
 * WP:USER is a consensus-approved Wikipedia guideline document.
 * WP:USER states that "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." is specifically prohibited in user space. It's actually on the list called "What may I not have on my user page?"
 * I find User:Alkivar's comment "It is clear to me no one (outside of arbcom itself) involved in my RFAR seems to give a rats ass about WP:AGF..." to be an unfair and retaliatory personal attack on myself, since I (along with several other uninvolved editors) posted on his RFAR despite the very real risk we'd end up targeted by Burntsauce/JB196's gang of troll buddies at Wikipedia Review. I had no axe to grind with him then and I don't now, but the idea of asking him nicely to tone down his rhetoric, especially now that he has so little to lose, is laughable; I'd be lucky to get a response at all. Can't someone at least redact the parts where he attacks the people who spoke at his RFAR? Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the rant as a whole, remove the sentence that violates WP:UP (I'd do it myself, but I don't want a redux of Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John). Incidentally, it might not hurt to ask on his talk page--I seriously doubt he's never going to log in to Wikipedia ever again. -- jonny - m  t  10:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the whole thing. A general comment like "no one ... seems to give a rats ass about WP:AGF" is hyperbole, but it reflects, in fact, the analysis of many other editors, retired and otherwise, i.e., that AGF failure is endemic, a very serious problem, one which is driving users away from Wikipedia, including administrators of long standing. We very much need to hear this, and address it. I've read and reread the user page and don't read any of it as a "personal attack." If any comment there is a personal attack, then anyone, and particularly any admin, already has the power to remove the alleged attack, but I'd pretty strongly oppose that unless good cause were shown. In any case, MfD is not a forum to address WP:NPA problems. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you except for the fact that that statement is directed at small group of specific editors rather than being a simple statement about the status of Wikipedia as a whole. I have no idea what happened in the ArbCom case, I am sad to see the project lose such a long-established editor, and I don't think the statement qualifies as a blatant personal attack, but it's clearly being construed as such, which is enough for WP:UP. -- jonny - m  t  17:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement is mild enough that, routinely, it would probably not encounter any sanction at all if made in discussion, by an ordinary editor (sysops may be held to higher standards), and even if a series of editors were specifically named. It's "colorful" language, and it's hyperbole ("no one"), but it also uses "seems," i.e., Alkivar is describing how it seems to him, and I'm sure he was being honest. Perhaps the editor should read the Arbitration. Akivar screwed up, definitely, it looks to me like he was at the end of his rope. Note that the nominator and others are indeed claiming that this is a personal attack, and that's a major basis for this MfD. To me, it is clearly not a personal attack at all, much less "blatant," but is instead general criticism, not just of a specific list, but of the entire community. ("no one seems" is a comment on the whole community.) (He does state an exception, and passionate remarks like this will often gloss over the existence of exceptions, they are not to be taken literally -- unless we factor in the "seems." I'm sure the statement is literally true if we read it all.) As to WP:UP, I see nothing there that even allows the deletion of this page. That a few individuals take offense is not enough. Nothing on the user page caused me to think badly or to be tempted to think badly of any individual, and the only reason I looked deeper, at the Arbitration itself, was continued defense of deletion here. Squeaky wheels shouldn't be surprised to encounter some grease.--Abd (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Alkivar still edits Wikipedia occasionally, and prior to his desysopping, he had made countless contributions to the encyclopedia, and even since the RFAR, he has done some work here: he's allowed to have a userpage, and the content isn't that bad. For the most part, he has retired, and deleting his userpage won't achieve anything other than to further drive him away. Acalamari 18:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and use it all, he remains an editor in good standing. Despite the fact that I have a strong dislike to his point of view about wikipedia, he's as entitled to give is point of view as I am. By WP standards for user pages, its not abusive. if it's sharper than it really ought to be, it reflects only on its author. A rapid close and keep, to avoid the embarrassment of looking like picking on someone who's down.    DGG (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep User didn't use his right to vanish, even if retired. Retired users should be able to keep their "final statement" left alone on wikipedia once they retire.  Yahel  Guhan  07:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even convicted ax murderers, we customarily give a chance to say some last words for the record. How much more should we extend that privilege to Alkivar? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember Alkivar murdering anyone with an ax (or any other sharp object). If he had, we would have read about it in the Signpost, and we would have had to give him a last meal as well.  As it is, expressing dismay over Wikipedia policies and happenings is a far cry from being an ax murderer.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, who axed you to weigh in on this? :P Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Isn't it generally the practice to delete userpages of users who've declared their retirement and been inactive for a certain amount of time? Also I'm not so sure about his good standing, as someone mentioned earlier. He was de-opped per a unanimous ArbCom decision for misuse of the tools and whatnot.  Equazcion •✗/C • 08:27, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * As DGG noted, he's an editor in good standing. Requests for arbitration/Alkivar shows poor judgment in the use of admin tools, and the decision was to desysop. While some of the offenses involved WP:AGF failure and incivility, these are actually quite common transgressions, and they continue. And that is much of what Alkivar is calling attention to. He simply reacted improperly to the poor judgement of others. Equazcion, by the way, was a complainant in that Arbitration, having been blocked by Alikvar. The block may or may not have been legitimate; it was for inappropriate use of rollback, and the unblock notice said that the use was indeed inappropriate, but that it appeared to have been done in good faith. We have, shall we say, a situation on Wikipedia, and it's getting worse. Part of the solution, the first part, is to listen to the complaints and comments from people like Alkivar and many others who have retired. Like the status quo? Delete anything inconvenient or critical. But the status quo is killing Wikipedia, little by little. If there is a general practice of deleting userpages of retired editors, it should stop. Now. We properly delete copyvio or libel, and that doesn't involve deleting the user page, just the offensive material.--Abd (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All true, just want to point out a couple things: Although the unblocking admin did disagree with my use of rollback, the further discussion at ArbCom showed consensus that it was appropriate. Also, now that we have the non-admin rollback privilege, I feel it necessary to point out that this was not the rollback referred to, but Twinkle's version that I was using at the time. The block was also overturned within 15 minutes, if I remember correctly. Finally: If a person leaves Wikipedia just because they're de-opped, I don't consider them in good standing as editors. Such a person, in my opinion, was only interested in staying as long as they could be an admin, and has no interest in being "just an editor". It would be one thing if Alkivar has stayed on and kept editing, then left some time later, but under the circumstances, that, in my mind, doesn't put them in good editorial standing.
 * Also, the many things Alkivar did that were the reasons for his de-opping should also be considered. Misuse of the admin tools is just as much a reflection on a person as an editor as it is on them as an admin, and, part of the reason he was de-opped was also due to other reasons that didn't have anything to do with admin tools. For example, Alkivar blocked and protected pages and people during disputes that he himself was involved in, which shows a lack of objectivity, fairness, and overall judgment; he engaged in personal attacks and left abrasive edit summaries (at one point calling everyone who disagreed with him "idiots"), and edit-warred. These are all things that reflect on a person as an editor as well.  Equazcion •✗/C • 14:35, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, the only userpages that get deleted are the ones from editors that only edited their user space, with no meaningful encyclopedic contribution. -- lucasbfr  talk 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- per the nomination, the user has retired from wikipedia anyway. AndreNatas (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because someone says they have left it not a reason to delete their userpage. Userpages should be kept and leaving editors should be given a bit of slack when they leave. --Bduke (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, basically harmless. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove rant but keep the page history. Just replace it with . Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's usually more effective to give people a chance to chill out on their own and remove their own rant. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, nothing wrong with criticism of the project on your userpage. If we do not allow criticism internally, then it will simply be done externally. It'd be nice if we could pay heed to the concerns of people who are so frustrated with this project that they feel they have to leave. Especially users as productive and helpful as Alkivar was. -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we don't want him to go over to Wikitruth. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bet against him already being there.  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:24, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about "going over to the other side", it's about Wikipedia as a collaborative project becoming mature enough to face criticism head on and learn from it, instead of continually sticking its head in the sand and labelling critics as 'disruptive trolls' or worse. -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is basically the thesis of WP:WIKIDRAMA. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While I frowned at the 5th paragraph (which is the only one that may cause problems) I believe this does not cross the line. -- lucasbfr  talk 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep not severe enough to cross into NPA territory for mine, and stands as a document on personal views, and he pops back in from time to time anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Rather harmless.  MBisanz  talk 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and butt out of people's user pages. Geez. Zocky | picture popups 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per zocky's reasoning. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2008 (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.