Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DePiep/Essay


 * 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 no consensus, though it should be noted that references to individual users have been removed which significantly improves the essay's compliance with user space policies. &mdash;harej (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:DePiep/Essay
Violation of WP:UP, point 10. An attack page that calls out at least one wikipedia editor by name (calling him 'a transgressing user'), and another in a more obfuscated manner, alleging, through a link to an off-wiki website, that the user is "anti-Islamic editor". Another editor has alerted the owner of the page to the problematic nature of this page -, which resulted in a minor change (the 2nd editor's name was removed, but the link and allegation left, as-is), but no real fix to the problem. --LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete—clearly an attack page. I posted about it on DePiep's page 5 days ago, but got no response. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The response was within 8 hrs, after you wrote this. Your post was wide (broad, generic), later on someone else helped us out (more specific. See below). -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be speedied as an attack. BUT, and this is important, that would just fan the flames of whatever paranoid conspiracy theory is going on there. It would be far more useful in the long term to see a cross-section of editors say it should go (no, not via canvassing, just the usual MfD process). Alternatively, an admin to whom DePiep is sympathetic should explain why it has to go and then delete. → ROUX   ₪  01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * RE Roux: The post is paternalistic and directive, saying others how it should go. Also, it is not-Wikipedia-like e.g. presuming sympathies to an editor would be relevant. Roux names three possible procedures which should be run, all to his predicted outcome. All in all this is procedural, not talk, and so is to be ignored here. However, be it serious or ironic, the quote re collecting negative votes "no, not via canvassing" says this would be by exeption (so usually canvassing is included). This may touch what the essay is about, and may well be included as an example. -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All posts on MfDs say how each editor thinks the situation should go; that's how it works. And no, you will not include anything I say on that page as an example of anything, unless it is explicitly stated as an example of how you completely failed to understand a single thing I wrote. → ROUX   ₪  23:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No irony then. A pity, I liked it somehow. I'll strike it. The rest stays. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as an attack page Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * RE When you wrote this post, names were already removed in this version, half a day earlier. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, based on users cooperation in removing stuff that consitutes negative information about individuals, which he did at 05:52, 4 August 2009, . It is OK to express such opinions in userspace, if he doesn't focus on individuals.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as not now an attack page. Deletion, IPOF, would be quite problematic to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is IPOF? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Boy do I feel ancient.  In Point Of Fact. It was in common use in the 80s when we had 300 baud.   Now it appears rare indeed. Collect (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia userspace is not an appropriate forum in which to attack editors (even if collectively rather than individually identified) with thinly-veiled antisemitic propaganda. Erik9 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Antisemitism? Either prove it or strike it. Full deletion accepted too. -DePiep (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:DePiep/Essay provides adequate support for my claim. Accusing large numbers of Jewish people of orchestrating elaborate, devious conspiracies is quintessentially antisemitic, even if you happen to use the term "the organised agenda pro-Israel editors" as a placeholder for "Jews" in reference to the putative conspirators. Saying that your essay isn't antisemitic is like claiming that you don't have a problem with Jewish people, you just oppose the Zionist World Conspiracy. Obvious antisemitism is no more acceptable because you have carefully avoided explicit mentions of Jewish people. Erik9 (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you replace words and then start concluding, I cannot be held responsible. You accusation is not supported, and is a personal DePiep (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a number of constituencies that forward various non neutral points of view. Some editors doing so are surely acting in good faith. But experience has shown that in some cases some of the editors are not. There have been arbcom cases about it. (for example the ones relating to the Church of Scientology activities) and there has been discussion in the media (for example the stories about CAMERA and their activities here). This has been a longstanding problem, and editors are right to be concerned about it. However the page in question is not an effective way to do so. delete with an admonishment that if these concerns are to be raised by this editor, they need to rework the concerns into coherent and neutrally worded form. Or alternatively, let it be. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Too long to see a point. "they [sic] need to"? Sure. "neutrally worded"? no, we're Talking here. Also, Lar is an admin, but talks like a cloud. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the use of "they", it's an accepted usage when referring to someone of unknown or unspecified gender, and some consider it less awkward than "he/she".
 * Sorry if you had trouble comprehending what I said, it was somewhat nuanced. Let me try again using shorter words and shorter sentences:
 * There's a real problem with factions and groups and POV pushing. That's what this essay is talking about. But this essay is poorly written. Also, it attacks people directly, not their actions. Therefore it needs to be deleted. Therefore the author (that's you, DePiep) needs to be warned not to do that again. Therefore the author, if they try again, needs to word it differently. Or else.
 * Hopefully that's clearer. Apologies for any lack of comprehension on your part due to my writing style (or any other reason). Let me know if you still don't get my point. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding this, I'll re shortly. -DePiep(talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reread your introduction "There are .... concerned about it", and to me it is the same as is the topic of the essay. So here we agree, what if I copy it ;-)? But alas, my finishing part is more wiki, positive and constructive, I'd like to keep that.


 * In the italic text you introduce "attacking" and "personally". But names and personal pointings have been deleted some five days ago.(More people here keep saying so). I'd say point it or withdraw it. Further, A pity that the simplified text changes "admonishment" into "warning .... Or else [unfinished]". All in all, 'poor writing' and 'not an effective way' is not an argument for deleting. -DePiep (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's called "supporting your argument", DePiep. Sometimes it takes a lot of words to get a point across. Delete per Erik9. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:02 9 August, 2009 (UTC)
 * Erik9's argument is unacceptable, see above. Also, WP:VOTE states that '[o]n Wikipedia, we do not line up to cast ballots without discussion'. -DePiep (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Erik9's argument.  Horologium  (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Erik9's argument is unacceptable, see above. Also, WP:VOTE states that '[o]n Wikipedia, we do not line up to cast ballots without discussion'. -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Page is without worth or value of any kind. IronDuke  18:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a named WP:SPEEDY-criterium. Maybe even the opposite: non-notability is 'not by [itself] sufficient to justify speedy deletion'. -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should have been clearer. Poorly-written attack screed masquerading as an essay with no counter-balancing value of any kind: Strong and Speedy Delete. IronDuke  18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep It's not really that bad. If this were a similar complaint about, say, the poor quality of articles produced by the Tropical Cyclone project, it probably wouldn't bother anyone, but because it's about Israel, people get upset.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I don't think it's an attack page any longer. It's less polemical than User:GHcool/Opinions on Zionism or User:GHcool/Opinions on the 2006 Lebanon War. It's buried in userspace, not on the user's main page, and hence unlikely to be found by the casual reader. Finally, most of the editors here seem blind to the essay's point: assume good faith, despite all evidence to the contrary. — Malik Shabazz 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a WP:ESSAY, and in Userspace too. requirement for NPOV is different there. Names and namepointing has been removed days ago. Other input may have been used for improvement too. The page describes a Wikipedia-related view or experience, and tries to deal with it. Positive, constructive. Describing aspects of Wikipedia cannot be a forbidden topic.
 * Second, to any closing admin, I want to point out: three editors here have tried to introduce an accusation of anti-Semitism (two of them by parroting). Also I pointed to paternalism and I got a rant for an answer. Apart from reacting civil and leaving it, I cannot do that much. But these participants and their input are to be overlooked completely in reviewing this discussion, I expect. -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing about how this works is that you don't get to dictate what is and is not a worthwhile vote/comment, as you are slightly biased here. Whoever closes this will make that decision, not you. → ROUX   ₪  21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I do not dictate. I wrote something else. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as FUD. Nearly a year and a half ago there was an email at an offsite list which laid out a plan--a plan which basically went nowhere before it got uncovered and dealt with very sternly at arbitration.  It isn't appropriate to construct an ongoing conspiracy theory around that incident without informing the reader how it got resolved.  The CAMERA episode has been misused to implicitly taint editors who had nothing to do with it, for no apparent reason other than the editor's POV.  That runs counter to our shared responsibility as editors to build a collaborative atmosphere.  Yes, the underlying subject is a difficult and divisive one.  Let's not make it more difficult and divisive than it needs to be.  Durova 298 23:56, 10 August 2009 (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.