Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grue/ethics


 * 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. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 01:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Grue/ethics
This page was originally created over two years ago, and was then deleted as an attack page. Last month, however, the original author of this page, who is also an administrator, restored it. This page appears to be an attempt to compile "dirt" against particular individuals, so IMO it is not constructive, per WP:ATP. TML (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Hall of Fames are a good idea, editors be praised. Hall of Shames shouldn't exist, mistakes are temporary. GrooveDog (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not clear cut. Allegedly breaching WP:UP/10?  The information can be read as wikipedia-political, and not simply negative with respect to a few prominent wikipedians.  Would like to hear from the subjects referred to before judging this too offensive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it's clear cut to me. I don't see that we need to do an "offensiveness test"...  If these comments were in the context of the actual deletion debates, etc, then I think they would be fine.  But as a standalone page calling people out, well that seems like exactly the sort of thing we clearly want to delete.  Gigs (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm deeply disturbed by what I've read. I am an objective party and have nothing to do with what you people are doing. Yet, I learn about a hidden agenda on Wikipedia from this guy's links, something I've been experiencing myself in the past few days as well. According to this, nothing any of us says has any true meaning because Admins interested in keeping this guy down will delete his efforts anyway. In other words, this is a lame spectacle or WP:Game we take part in. Those people also deleted an article about Allison Stokke (deletion discussion), which is truely ridiculous. Obviously I vote for keep as in my opinion, the guy tries to defend himself and show unethical practices of other users. As if my vote would change anything... LOL OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  07:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can assume there's some vast secret conspiracy involving multiple long-time editors, or you can assume good faith. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive.  I don't like wikipedia's bias against Internet phenomena either, but that doesn't make this page any more appropriate.  Gigs (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My arguments are not based on assumptions but observation. OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  20:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with that - Tony, Scott and I have worked on the OTRS system and have been heavily involved in dealing with the concerns and complaints that articles can cause, especially biographies of both living and deceased persons. I don't profess to speak for all of us involved, but second guessing our motives when you can't know half of what we've done to deal with upset family members, friends and to mitigate potential legal action seems rather amiss. Nick (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: This page arose in the context of a series of internal Wikipedia disputes that were taking place at that time, concerning the appropriateness of certain types of articles and references. (More links in addition to those mentioned above, on request.) That is over two years ago, some of the editors mentioned on this page aren't even active right now, and I'd like to know from Grue why he has revived this page now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just notified User:Grue. The nominator should have done this on listing.  I have modified the MFD instructions to say so more clearly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have posted notes on User talk:Scott MacDonald, User talk:Nick & User talk:Tony Sidaway, who would be the individuals that the page possibly attacks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What did you do that for? So we have a huge sockpuppet fight? Awesome dude, just awesome. It's too quiet here... go spread the news, so we have more fire power. OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  03:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not exactly the sort of users who turn up at MfD with a number of sockpuppets, so I rather resent the implication that informing three fairly old hands is going to result in us socking this MfD. A quick apology will suffice however. Nick (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, you win. I'm sorry. I have no idea who you are and my point was that this discussion was fairly small and quiet compared to the one I posted a link to. In addition, I'm not accusing anyone of anything because in fact, I have a very limited set of information and I am a relatively new user here. What I do know, however, is that some articles I'd like to read do not exist - like Alison Stokke - and that my edits are often reverted because for example, some guy wrote an article and he doesn't like to see people editing it. Unfortunately for me, his expert knowledge of the dirty Wikipedia techniques is vastly superior to mine. For now that is. OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  11:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * delete attack page, divisive, unrelated to project building, unnecessary, out of context. Viridae Talk 02:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep I'm not seeing it as an attack page although I disagree a fair bit with the content. If someone can give a detailed explanation of how this constitutes an attack page I might change my mind, but right now I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No particular opinion, just a comment on context, since my name (Tony Sidaway) is mentioned on the page. There was an argument about the implementation of the "Biographies of living persons" policy, but I didn't understand what point Grue was trying to make in that argument.  Whatever it was, he makes it in a reasonable and non-inflammatory fashion and I think this page--as it relates to me--could fairly be described as "fair comment".  I have not examined, nor can I comment on, any part of the page that relates to other Wikipedians, nor is this an expression of opinion on whether or not this page should be deleted. However I would suggest to Grue that the content is out of date.  --TS 03:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the only thing that is offensive about this page is the behavior of people mentioned in it. And the fact that we still don't have an article about Alison Stokke.  Grue   07:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Since I'm one of the people being "attacked" here, can I just say I've no problem with people attacking me by calling me "one of the most ethical member [sic] of Wikipedia community". I really can't understand why anyone took the trouble to afd this, or indeed why Grue is defending it either. It is simply a silly page. There is no reason to keep this, but no reason to care to delete it either (unless we want to establish a principle to disallow all incoherent rants in userspace.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 07:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Doc, really. I'm not really certain why three editors are being named and 'shamed' for trying to uphold the mantra of "Do no harm" and I'm not at all certain where the hypocrisy comes in, as far as I can tell, I've never created an article on someone who has been recently murdered, unless someone is mistaking a deletion and recreation of an article that I've carried out through my work answering OTRS tickets, for an article I've created myself. Nick (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you missed the point I was trying to make. You can't be the one who decides what's harmful or not, when you casually make a "kill" joke in the deletion discussion of the article about a murdered little girl.  Grue   10:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording was not intended to be a joke, it was simply an unfortunate turn of phrase (possibly subconsciously influenced by the preceding comment), if you care to search through my contributions you'll see that whilst I'm perhaps prone to making the occasional comment containing an unfortunate turn of phrase, I do not make jokes like that. It's quite unfortunate that you never asked about this at the time, as I would have been and remain happy to redact the comment and replace it with a more appropriate comment.Nick (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We don't delete a userspace page just because it is confused, mistaken or incoherent.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 31 July 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.