Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors

 __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. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice/Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors


A highly opinionated piece that is entirely negative about Wikipedia; will this actually ever be utilized anywhere, perhaps as an essay, or is this just in place to opine negatively against the encyclopedia ad infinitum? 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark clearly as essay As such, as long as it does not harm Wikipedia or attack anyone, it is allowed in userspace. No worse that Wikipedia Review was, I suppose. Collect (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The ultimate in failing WP:NPOV and a great example for WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTWEBHOST.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  16:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify how you think the piece runs afoul of either of those policies? Does this essay look anything like a personal webpage, self-promotion, advertising, propaganda, or scandal-mongering? "Soapboxing" usually refers to using Wikipedia to inappropriately publish your views about subjects in the real world, not criticizing a WP policy or set of policies. Also, I was under the impression that WP:NPOV is explicitly applicable only to mainspace.  I don't see how any userspace opinion essay could ever exist, if the opinion had to first be published by a reliable source (and if it were published by an RS, couldn't it go into the mainspace anyway?) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's marked as an essay; the author is still an active editor; this isn't an egregious misuse of userspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, as of this post, it's marked as a . The template is not currently present on the page, and the Wikipedia essays category is not present there. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Now tagged and categorised appropriately. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete WP:NOTSOAPBOX explains ‘‘“Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.”’‘ What we have to decide here is whether this page is "non-disruptive". I think that would be a hard call, hence my 'delete'. -- Klein zach  08:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not for nothing, but if Wikipedia's article space abided by the same policy that "in case there are serious doubts about an article and a tiebreaker is needed, delete it", I wouldn't have felt the urge to write the essay in the first place. I'm not sure it's wise to take an inclusionist stance towards contentious or poorly sourced article-space material, while taking a deletionist stance towards userspace essays complaining of the mischief that results. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am the author and I was appropriately notified of this discussion. I was under the impression that musings about Wikipedia were appropriate in userspace, even if intensely critical, and even if they took an unabashedly hostile view of large numbers of editors as a group.  If I failed to tag it appropriately or take some other affirmative step that was called for, I apologize — I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that anything appearing in userspace is assumed to be unofficial and to reflect only the views of the author.  Let me also add that it gave me no pleasure to speak of other editors in such a sharply negative tone.  I offer no other defense, other than to say that, IMO, the essay accurately characterizes Wikipedia's most serious flaw (and one which may be made inevitable by the very design and structure of Wikipedia), and makes modest use of hyperbole.  Obviously, since the essay itself has already expressed my views, it would be a bit absurd for me to !vote here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, relevant to the project, user space can be used to complain about Wikipedians, and we shouldn't censor opinions like this. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep opinionated negative pieces on the subject of Wikipedia are perfectly acceptable in userspace. The guidelines on what is unacceptable only refer to material that isn't related to Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 00:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's his userspace, he can centenary write his opinion of WP in it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this nomination, since the piece is now clearly tagged as an essay and it appears to not run afoul of User pages content guidelines. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Raises interesting questions -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:55, 4 March 2013 (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.