Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment


 * 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 In the interests of keeping drama to a minimum, I am deleting this page. Other rationales include: This user page resembles a soapbox and is a page that is best reserved for a personal web-site or forum as it bears no positive relation to Wikipedia. It goes without saying that Wikipedia is not a blog for personal opinions, and all of these principles are outlined at WP:UP. I will make this page available per request to any interested parties for reference or for storage off-Wikipedia. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment
per several points of WP:UP, plus WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and aspects of What_Wikipedia_is_not. Verbal  chat  13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also detecting elements of huh, what? in there. Delete. --fvw *  13:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This whole thing in inappropriate and my reasons are stated on this page when he made this announcement. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would add WP:ENC, the opposite of WP:NOT - wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a subject pool for experiments; contributing with an intent other than to improve the encyclopedia could also be considered vandalism or disruptive editing, and in my opinion it's a significant perversion of the intent of the project. And don't even get me started on how deliberately trying to "test" the policies will bias your sample.  This is a pointless and unnecessary source of drama and more attention is making things worse; I suggest it be denied.    WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep it is an editor's user page, nothing more than an essay. Strong suggestion to Guido den Broeder: Simply move this essay to your user page, User:Guido den Broeder and it will become no more different than the average user's talk page.  Add to the acronym alphabet soup, WP:PAPER. Wikipedia is not paper. There is no limit to what can be added. The nominator of deletion's acronyms may seem impressive, but he/she is citing only one page, the same page that WP:PAPER is on. And those "NOT" acronyms are being selectively applied here. vandalism or disruptive editing  have absolutely no bearing here.  Vandalism absolutely does not apply. Where is WP:Good faith? I suggest that the group creating drama is not the person who created this user page, but the person who deletes other editors good faith contributions.travb (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I must confess that I am selectively applying the policies - I am selecting the relevant part of each policy noted and applying it. This is normal practice - if I nominated with simply "it's against policy" without selecting the relevant ones or parts then I think it would be speedy closed! WP is not a webhost alone is enough to have this "experiment" deleted. If you look at the experiment set up, disruption of the project was one of its methodologies. Good faith has been shown to this editor. Verbal   chat  20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely designed to arrive at proposals for the benefit of WP, thus entirely properly related to WP discussion. We delete material not related to WP, ought we also then delete material actually related to WP and suggestions about WP?  Collect (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No.. he disrupted WP for ages in order to arrive at this alleged research. // roux   17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, per other comments, per WP:DISRUPT, per.. god, just get rid of it. // roux   17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the essay? Aren't we? If there is an issue about the creator of this article, you should address that issue with the editor. WP:DISRUPT is often losley thrown around by those who don't agree with the views of others. Despite allegations with no foundation, there is no evidence of disruption in the article itself. The first sentence of WP:DISRUPT states: Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia. How has this article, NOT the editor, "disrupt[ed] progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia?" Which article does this essay disrupt by existing? How does this essay stop you from personally building an encyclopedia? Is it like a butterfly effect? Where paragraph two, sentence three of this essay somehow deletes or jumbles the words in the article Potatoes? Does this essay stop User:Jane from editing the article Staples? It is vitally important to point out that often editors prolific use of acronyms and quoting Kafkaesque bureaucracy appears convincing on its face, until someone actually looks up those acronyms. travb (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the background? This user, along with at least three others, has spent over a year purposely disrupting WP in order to achieve this result. I see no reason why we should indulge him. Please look at the intent behind the various policies/guidelines quoted, and not the strict letter. // roux   17:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

 * Keep. The article of course is complete bollocks, but it is in user space, so the arguments above are meaningless. We are, for example, not been asked to indulge him. We can simply ignore this as I have done for ages. It might even get some people to think. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UP and WP:NOTWEBHOST certainly do apply to user pages, to name just two of the compelling delete reasons. Verbal   chat  07:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposition: Why don't we agree to move this user page to his main user page as a hidden table, and then you can elect to close this AfD? For those who are not familiar with the wikipedia alphabet acronyms Verbal is quoting, "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site" is WP:NOTWEBHOST, which relevant section states: "As Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." UP is "What may I not have on my user page?" I quote: "What may I not have on my user page...2. Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia...The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." I think the important point to make is how tolerant most wikipedians are about what is on wikipedian's user pages, and how many of these users who are demanding "delete" have material on their user pages which has nothing to do with Wikipedia either. For example:


 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!align=left|Why this page is no different than editor's pages here
 * User:William M. Connolley/Whinging
 * User:William M. Connolley/Whinging

User:William_M._Connolley/My_POV_on_climate_change Opinion page on climate change, how is this "relevant to working on the encyclopedia"

User:William M. Connolley/Whats-wrong-with-wikipedia Opinion page

User:William M. Connolley/Experts and wiki opinion page

User:William M. Connolley/For me opinion page

User:William M. Connolley/Compliments and endorsements

User talk:William M. Connolley/The science is settled

User:William M. Connolley/RC explaining users affiliation.

User:William M. Connolley/Stern Could be considered user's own webpage on wikipedia. User:William M. Connolley/3RR essay

User talk:William M. Connolley/The archives study of archives of pages.

User:William M. Connolley/Misc refs personal article.

User talk:William M. Connolley/Fictitious force

User:William M. Connolley/motion in a rotating system personal article.

User talk:William M. Connolley/Coriolis effect personal article.

User:William_M._Connolley/Dynamics_of_atmospheric_circulation personal article

User:William M. Connolley has a 440 word quote from the bookLeviathan on his user page, how is this "relevant to working on the encyclopedia"

User:WLU/Five stages of Wikipedia opinion page A summary of my experience with wikipedia's policies; it's humorous, and instructive of how the initially bizarre policies of wikipedia come to make sense - WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex

User:WLU/personal interest Topics that interest me and easy links to a variety of sandboxes that I for different tasks - WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex

User:WLU/Generic sandbox personal essay No, it's a general introduction to wikipedia in a way that tries to distill a complex community into a more understandable gestalt to help out and speed up the learning of newcomers. I've linked new users to it many times, as have a variety of other editors who found merit to it (including guido himself at one point) - WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex
 * }
 * Obviously I disagree with this analysis of my sub-pages and have annotated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Selective enforcement of wikipedia rules hurts moral on wikipedia, and that is exactly what this AfD is: selective enforcement of wikipolicy by users whose own user pages would fail the same scrutiny. travb (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: The report seems to be part of an attempt at improving Wikipedia; when considering the relatively benign nature (being in userspace), perhaps this effort is more important than issues people have with Guido himself as an editor. He should at least be allowed to have a URL to it. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 07:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no evidence this user was disruptive during their time on Wikipedia - no blocks or bans. And the page appears to be the result of a study which could potentially be useful. At the very least it's part of helping to build an encyclopedia. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (No idea why the blocklog failed on me. It's quite obvious the user is disruptive, not sure the page itself is related to the disruption. - Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked many times (edit warring, legal threats, etc.) The "experiment" explicitly tested wikipedia policies and was disruptive to the project. Verbal   chat  10:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The users behavior should not be on trial here, the page's relevance and merit should, whether Guido den Broeder is not disruptive or is disruptive, there are mechanisms to address his behavior elsewhere. I look at his block log and find more questions than answers. travb (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The user is not quite a separate issue from the page; the actions that led to the creation of this report (if there is any truth to it and not merely an elaborate Socratic dialogue) were disruptive, deliberately so, and over the course of months. Ongoing discussion of this continues to take time away from other tasks. Deleting the page would remove that temptation, unless it were reinstated as part of an actual userpage. There are far larger issues at hand here than deletion of this page, but for the page specifically it becomes a judgement call of editors whether there is any merit to the project to keep it. The "experiment" only has one real piece of evidence - Guido's report. Guido, let us not forget, has been extremely disruptive in the past. This report could be a) a report of an actual experiment undertaken by Guido and 6 other "experts" (in which case it is grossly flawed as he is only legitimately an expert in one field, economics, which he rarely edits, and he deliberately interpreted policies in a way which he knew to be false; further, his conclusions are incorrect because despite his deliberate flawed interpretation of policy, he has been blocked through a series of escalating lengths, but at no point was he permablocked out of keeping with wikipedia's community and consistently received numerous further chances despite an obvious penchant for disruption) or b) a post-hoc rational of disruptive actions in a further attempt to make the point that he is the victim here since he was just doing an experiment. Either way, I think the report does not serve to improve wikipedia, but in fact, detracts from it by wasting time (just like I wasted time typing this out; either this is my own fault, or an example of why in this case with this user the page can't be compared naively to similar enterprises by other, more productive users - MFD is much more of an opinion call than AFD) and painting the community in an unfair (and dishonest) light. In any case, either the initial experiment, or the posting of an imaginary report, were disruptive actions that harm, rather than help, wikipedia. One can not deliberately attempt to subvert this encyclopedia by testing the limits of its rules, when in fact we have no rules but only mores and agreement, then claim any legitimacy to the result. This "report" was either the result of continued, ongoing disruption, or is itself disruption. You can't read this report in view Guido's long, horrible contribution history and claim any merit to it. It can not be claimed as a deliberate effort to improve wikipedia; it can not be compared to the essays and pages linked to above; it is a pointless WP:POINT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally Inclusionist/travb, if you think you can work with Guido to make him a more productive contributor, I invite you to do so - many have tried, and I think to date all have walked away in despair or disgust. Perhaps we are all wrong though, and he can come to be a fruitful, non-disruptive contributor.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an editor with a very disruptive past, I sympathize more than condemn Guido den Broeder. Too many time someone has a disagreement with me, and brings up my rich block history, which I must forever wear like a Scarlet A. When I see Guido den Broeder's blocks, I see an editor who didn't know wikipolicy, or more importantly, who didn't know how to manipulate wikipolicy to get what he wants.  There are a million ways, two which I mentioned above, where Guido den Broeder can circumvent wikirule A (use page violations), and use wikirule B, and he would be fine. William's essays are a great example of this (above), if Guido den Broeder would never have entitled his work a study, and would never have drawn attention to it, we wouldn't be here. Your "attack page" on Guido den Broeder (as it is commonly called by detractors), is another example of how to harness wikipolicy. I notice that you didn't use any names, trying to down play who you are compiling evidence against.  A veteran editor knows this,  Guido den Broeder wouldn't. Legal threats are stupid--every veteran editor knows it, yet a lot of newer editors get blocked for it all the time. Anyway, I am sure there is merit in your crusade against Guido den Broeder, but I am positive that there is no merits to deleting this user page essay.  It is harmless. I liked the counter picture BTW.
 * Are you one of those editors who tried to help Guido den Broeder and walked away in disgust? I am not volunteering. My goal now is to save articles by changing policy, I think this will save more editors in the long run. This MfD is a pointless distraction. Pointless because I personally really care less what the end result is. travb (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He actually came to me for advice. I wouldn't call it an attack page, it's as the title implies - I'm assembling evidence that supports the assertion that he is a disruptive editor (though it won't be a RFC as there already was one and it didn't have the desired result of reduced disruption).  When/if I move it into AN, I'll alert Guido of this, as well as other editors who are interested, to its existence for comment.  Right now it's there in case I need it.  Travb, you may be an other-described disruptive editor (I say this based on comments you've made, I don't really have an opinion), but at least you work towards the purpose of wikipedia - assembling an on-line encyclopedia within the policies.  This essay, if factual, indicates that that was, and is not Guido's purpose here.  That's blockable in my books - a deliberate, concealed attempt to subvert the project.  If it's not factual, then it's simply a waste of time, and unrelated to any part of the project and should be deleted according to WP:NOTWEBHOST.  No matter what, wikipedia is simply not here for either of these purposes.  Delete it as a technical violation of WP:NOT, or a strongly objectionable subversion of the project, either way it's not appropriate in my opinion.  I have to wear my blocklog too (three of 'em), I wear it with pride, but more importantly I am proud of the fact that I have not received any since July of 2007.  I've learned.
 * Yes, there's more than a bit of manipulation of policy to getting what you want or think is appropriate on wikipedia, but part of getting what you want is making sure you know and interpret the policy in such a way that it is accepted by the community sufficient to get support. This is not the case for Guido, there's a consistent failure to garner community support and a consistent failure to adjust to a more community-friendly approach or even accept input from the community (WP:CONSENSUS is something that has come up a lot as a problem).  Whether this is deliberate as part of an experiment or simply a personal inability to grasp the true thrust of the policies is a question I'm not able to answer, but I will say that it is grossly disruptive and to portray it as something meritorious as part of a noble experiment is absurd, insulting and most importantly, a gross distraction from the actual purpose here.
 * I thought the picture was good too, but I couldn't think of a cool law to invoke; the closest I could come up with was Murphy's. The butterfly effect EATS Murphy's law for breakfast.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep First, selective targeting. Second, this MfD has become hopelessly muddled with confusing the page with the behavior of the person who posted it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Guido seems to be doing a rather childish form of end zone dance over all the disruption he caused or claims to have caused. I obviously can't verify whether the "experiment" he claims to have run actually ever happened. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question for Guido: This subpage contains the following text: "Den Broeder G (2008), "Wikipedia, the Social Experiment", report to the United Nations, DOSADI 2(6) Dec". Is this a truthful claim? Has any such report ever existed? Or are you running another, well, experiment? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Social Experiment, first two replies by Guido to Verbal. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Response
I really don't have time for this right now, so I'll keep it short. What I see is the following: I will therefore keep the page. If this procedure is continued to be used as a coatrack, I will start a MFD to delete this MFD. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Verbal claiming that the page is in conflict with some guidelines, with no attempt to explain why;
 * Supporters for delete that use this procedure as a WP:COATRACK;
 * Supporters for keep that provide to-the-point arguments.
 * And my point is validated. I consider Verbal's points to be self-evident in the page itself, and I've added a couple more.  WP:COAT is a policy about wikipedia pages (i.e. articles), and does not apply to user space (why it's a MFD and not an AFD).  Brevity isn't necessarily a virtue if it obscures the necessary context and arguments that it serves the purpose of improving wikipedia are ilegitimate if it in fact provides an inaccurate and misleading description of wikipedia itself and the purported experiment.  Its existence and the failure to be deleted does, however, encourage others to see wikipedia as something it is not, and as a tacit endorsement of ignoring the rules in a fashion that is exactly the opposite of WP:IAR - in this case, it would be stating that ignoring the rules is appropriate if it worsens wikipedia but lets people play games with the system.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread at AN/I here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:44, 17 December 2008 (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.