Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search

 __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 * Pppery * it has begun... 17:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

The user has created a page in breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST to host a data base of their own comments quoted in the New York times. this is clearly using Wikipedia for web hosting purposes. For info, there's a related MfD for another user page of this user where they are using WP to host their full dissertation: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see any evidence of malfeasance. This is more of an OCD thing than it is self-promotion or web hosting.  Drbogdan should lower his footprint here and just link once to an external webhost instead of using Wikipedia to host it.  Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's an ANI thread about this user where this and the related user page hosting their dissertation came up. They've refused to move these pages to a more appropriate venue outside Wikipedia. See, for example this response at the ANI thread. I've made the assumption that it is for self-promotion. But even if it's not, or if there is no "malfeasance', that is irrelevant. It shouldn't be hosted at Wikipedia and they are refusing to move it. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is relevant that there is no malfeasance. I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations.  So for me, it is important to state that he has zero bad intentions.  He can be stubborn (like anyone else here) so he sometimes needs a push in the right direction.  I think moving his dissertation to Wikisource and moving his NYT comments offline are fine.  But there's no reason to speculate about his motives beyond that. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have no knowledge of him and have never encountered before. If you say this isn't about self-promotion then I withdraw it. However, whatever the motivation, hosting someone's whole 166kb of dissertation is clearly a breach of NOTWEBHOST and we shouldn't be doing it. I have no opinion on moving it to another Wiki. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly wish we did host more dissertations, as many of them are now falling behind paywalls, and if you aren't part of the university system, you can easily lose access to this kind of research. So I support hosting any and all dissertations on Wikisource. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd support that, too; ProQuest is a racket. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-promotional or not, this is over the WP:NOTWEBHOST line. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - As OA of this material, no problem whatsoever whatever the final WP:CONSENSUS of course - my published news comments, unique in nearly always noting a link (or more) to a relevant Wikipedia article (ie, NYT archive examples: Comments-1 and Comments-2) was made, in part, in a kind of Wikipedia outreach effort to help readers who may be entirely unaware of related (and relevant) Wikipedia articles - the published comments material is also presented to provide an additional basis of evaluating my professional background as a Wikipedia editor - as noted (in detail and in context) at a recent ANI discussion, the material is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors (and other Wikipedia readers) - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - as before, if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - The reasons why Drbogdan is hosting this material are irrelevant, because it is web hosting. We should make the good-faith assumption that he thinks that this is in the best interests of Wikipedia.  It should be the opinion of the community that he is honorably mistaken, and that this material is of no (positive or negative) value to the encyclopedia, and it should be deleted as web hosting.    Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - The opinion of a good-faith editor that their off-topic postings are of value to the encyclopedia is not dispositive.  The community decides.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. These aren't a listing of him being quoted as an expert in articles (which might be acceptable), they are a directory of his comments in the public comments section on their websit.  Many of the comments link back to his Wikipedia profile.  Too promotional / WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The link back to the WikiProfile is primarily intended to help readers evaluate the background of the comment author - and not otherwise - wish other comment authors did likewise - might help a lot imo - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as web hosting. wound theology  ◈  11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia to host this, and goes beyond the basic discretion we allow. Definitely a NOTWEBHOST issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh for gosh sakes. Leave the guy alone. I know that the Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons, but c'mon, get over yourselves. The man is a Grand High Togneme Vicarus. You're not. Talk about "no benefit to Wikipedia", how does harassing a  Grand High Togneme Vicarus for stupid stuff that has nothing to do with making content and isn't bothering any one who isn't sniffing around looking for things to be bothered about, how does that confer benefit on the project? Talk about "this is not a social site", if this guy had lots of friends or powerful friends, we probably wouldn't be bothering him... maybe he should have spent more time gossiping and making friends and less time creating content. Maybe you should advise him so. Talk about politics, this guy has been here way longer and done more work on, I don't know, creating content, than most all of you, and this is only being brought up now because people apparently have a different, unrelated beef with him.


 * We are not prosecuting attorneys whose job is to engineer a conviction someway somehow. Why aren't you going after people with "This user likes cats" userboxes and so on. Can't say, but there's the potential to for a Harassment charge for y'all if you can't give a satisfactory answer to "Why him? Why this? Why now?" and "Are you trying to harass this guy off the project cos you don't like him and can't make a strong enough case to do it properly?" (I'm not planning to do that and I don't think it'd fly, but somebody else could.)


 * Sure, if this was a new user, it'd be different. Sure, if this was a big problem generally that we are needing to play wack-a-mole with, it'd be different. It's not. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I take that as a WP:PA against me as I opened this MfD. How exactly is it harassment? I've never had any contact with this user before except posting 3 times at the current ANI thread and opening these 2 MfDs. I have had "no beef" with him. I know nothing about him except a cursory view of the ANI thread. I have no idea whether the other points made against him in the ANI thread have any basis or not.
 * I'll answer your 3 questions in reverse order. Why now? Because of the current ANI thread. I've never heard of him before that. Why this? Because in the ANI thread his blatant use of WP in breach of NOTWEBHOST was highlighted by another editor. When I challenged him on it his two replies were just baloney - self evidently disingenuous. I couldn't care a flying fuck who he is or how many edits he has or what he has or has not done in the past. I don't know any of that nor do I care. When I ask someone why they are in blatant breach of a WP policy and they gaslight me I tend to do something about it. Why him? Well, my two previously replies should tel you that. Is that clear enough for you? DeCausa (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Herostratus (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Yes". Is that all you have to say? I also asked you how exactly is it harassment? Are you going to answer that question too? I assume you continue to falsely accuse me of that. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly an abuse of Wikipedia: not in the least serving the purpose ow Wikipedia, just wasting its space. - Altenmann >talk 17:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. In the grand scheme of things, this really isn't a big issue and I will immediately forget this page exists at all regardless of how this discussion closes. That said, it's a pretty cut and dry violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted regardless of how well known the user in question is. 〜 Askarion   ✉  19:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, pretty unambiguous WP:NOTWEBHOST. Why was this put here versus just making a google doc? Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (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.