Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cassandrathesceptic

 __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:  Keep, move and tag as essay. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Cassandrathesceptic


WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

An interesting new attack.

And one which I must strongly object to.

The content of my Wiki page is factual and very well researched and referenced. But clearly someone doesn't like it.

Ever since I began an investigation of this subject (the history of the Scots language) four years ago I have been constantly harassed,cyber-bullied and maliciously edited by Wiki page editor Mutt Lunker, whom I must presume is either directly behind this latest attack or has provoked someone else to do so.

Mutt has a long history of being a nuisance, though I doubt anyone has suffered from being Lunkered more than me. He has for example repeatedly claimed I'm a sock puppet even though I've pointed out to him many times that my IP address, like thousands of others, changes repeatedly.

Mutt's big problem however is that as a self appointed guardian of Scotland's romantic history he cannot and will not tolerate historical information on Wikipedia which contradicts his own favoured presentation of the past or of which he disapproves. Hence I have been driven to post this highly pertinent and factually accurate information on my own pages.

I have many times thought of making formal representations to have Mutt's account suspended for his outrageous and thoroughly un-Wikipedian behaviour.

In any event, to whom it may concern, I simply invite you to read the contents of personal Wikipage and then read the exchanges between myself and Mutt Lunker on the comments page.

You will I am sure draw the obvious conclusion.

Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep subject to caveats. It is at the moment uneasy with WP:POLEMIC.  However, on a subpage, with a better introduction, with a better main userpage created, it could be read as an appropriate explanation of the user's POV, especially noting his past and ongoing interest in related articles.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This WP:ANI discussion is also pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm with SmokeyJoe- although the page is a polemic it's probably not a WP:POLEMIC. It certainly doesn't meet the description "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". And aren't WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTSOAPBOX really directed at articles? Any disruption looks to be elsewhere and not caused by this particular page. Thincat (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP doesn't make such a distinction: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox... This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages", my emphasis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not so much nominating it because of WP:POLEMIC or because it's "very divisive or offensive", I'm nominating it because it's a personal essay soapboxing for the user's personal viewpoint on a particular issue unrelated to Wikipedia, which isn't allowed even if it is in userspace. Think of it as POV pushing in userspace. I included WP:NOTESSAY in a sort of WP:NOTWEBHOST-y sort of way, here. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 23:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ks0stm, the difficulty with that is I do see strong overlap between views expressed and the 's editing and ongoing editing interests. I have skimmed Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and can see that there are problems.  I also know that MfD plays a small part in WP:DR, and is being asked to do so in this case.  I think the way forward is to:
 * Go with "conditional keep", requiring Cassandrathesceptic to do some work in response to community concerns... specifically...
 * Move the lengthy material to a subpage, under an appropriate title.
 * Rework the page to be presented as the editor's bias and POV, expertise and experience, relating to specific articles that the editor is interested in.
 * Convert his main userpage to a standard userpage that introduces himself, the Wikipedia editor, broadly.
 * If participants here agree, the closer may find there is a consensus for this course of action. If Cassandrathesceptic does not agree, or does not follow through, then the page may be deleted as "not supportive of productive collegiate editing for the improvement of the project".  I think this is a small and gentle thing to ask of Cassandrathesceptic, and his compliance should be welcomed as an act of goodwill.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, when you outline it like that, I'm completely fine with that. I would have no objections to this. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 00:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss to see how moving the material to a subpage makes any difference re WP:SOAP, particularly with this user's modus operandi. They have been persistent in advertising this piece on article talk pages and elsewhere so to allow it to remain in existence, wherever it is situated, gives them an easy shortcut to continue the pushing of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in forum posts. Would this plan of action include an embargo on touting the piece around article talk pages? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have traditionally allowed pretty wide leeway for what people can put on their own user pages. I predict nearly everyone who sees this wall of text will immediately think TL;DR (as I did) which makes any "disruption" minimal. Jonathunder (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've got no problem allowing the user to keep this information on the user page. However, I do think it is poor form to, in talk page discussions, insist that the answers to specific questions are buried in this essay. Cassandra should realize that other users may not wish to read this lengthy piece, and doing so is simply not a prerequisite to participating in any discussion. I should add that if the user gets topic-banned from this topic, then it should go. agt x  18:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I still have strong reservations about this material's presence contravening SOAP. However I am willing to put this aside if there is a firm undertaking by the user to completely cease the promotion of it on article talk pages, with the consequence that if they continue to do so it be deleted. Likewise I agree that if they are topic-banned, the material should go. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2016 (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.