Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom/Wikipedia:Politeness Police

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Politeness Police




 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom/Wikipedia:Politeness Police
Userfied version of a deleted "brainstorming page" which was really just a thinkly-veiled attack on the admin corps. Author indef blocked. This isn't going anywhere productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:AGF. This is intended as part of a Requests for arbitration, which an editor is permitted to pursue regardless whether they are blocked or not. I am not aware that this process, or page, is "not going anywhere", nor do I see indication that this is so. I do note, however, that the userfying admin, me, was not contacted regarding this MfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Delete As HA's talkpage editing privileges have been removed there is no reason to keep this visible. Upon request an admin can mail the content to HA, and ArbCom can review the deleted content should a RfAR be sent to them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether an essay or part of a potential ArbCom filing does not really matter.  It has been modified by more than one person, and, while apparently crude, does not appear to be so crude as to be deletable on that basis.  Blocking of an author is not, in itself, a reason for deletion.  Looking at his Solar System edits does not show any imminent problem with his content edits at the time of his block.  And "productive" is not a specific requiremnet in userspace.  Lacking solid reason to delete, the default is always to Keep. Collect (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't find anything in WP:BLOCK that says that an editor's pages should be deleted if they are blocked (even if it is an indef). As this is not an attack on specific editors or admins, I feel that there is no reason for deletion. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC) - Struck !vote: see below --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- it was recently undeleted and userfied for the purposes of an Arbcom case, as LHvU mentioned above. If it become apparent that it is being used otherwise, and that the Arbcom case is not going forward, we can revisit this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Seriously, how can this be part of a potential Arbcom filing? What am I missing here? Sure, AGF and all that, but this shows up as the 3rd entry on Google if she search for Wikipedia and politeness. I'm not convinced that most readers would see the difference between this and a real Wikipedia article. As for being modified by more than one person, I'm not clear what that has to do with the issue. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question seconded. This defense strains AGF. I don't see diffs, or much along the lines of issues for arbitration&mdash;at most, it could be assumed a list of ways to work the word cunt into a potential arbitration, which is hardly worth keeping notes on. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question thirded. I'm confused as well about how this pertains to an arbcom filing. Equazcion   (talk)  15:38, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Question IVed. I am also confused as the above as to how can this possibly pertain to an Arbcom case, especially since this page was proposed as a policy or guideline for Wikipedia, thus the prefix "Wikipedia:". I am also confused as to the reasons why the prefix "Wikipedia:" still remains as part of the title. Is there any hope that this will become part of the project namespace any time soon? Dr.K.πraxisλogos 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't have an answer for that. Bear in mind that I did previously speedy this as an attack page, so as soon as it's not needed for an Arb case, it's gone, as far as I'm concerned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sarek. I am aware of your previous deletion and your rationale. I also think this page should be deleted, but sooner rather than later since it is illogical to assume that female anatomy-based comparisons can (dis)grace the pages of the Arbcom filings. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sarekofvulcan, I guess. You can probably tell I'm really not thrilled with the page, right? We should definitely retain the option of reconsidering deletion, or at least bowdlerization, again upon the final decision of the ArbCom on this matter. Having this page appear so high on a Google search is a cause of some concern. And, while AGFing LessHeard here, whose integrity I have never had cause to question, I'm curious as to how this is relevant to anything too. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThanks to CoM and Phantom Steve. It isn't quite as bad now. Just a point - at the moment there is no ArbCom case, and no evidence there will be one so far as I know. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been bold and added to the page so that it will not appear on Google Searches after they have reindexed. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Until someone can provide an adequate answer to the above question, I don't see any reason to keep this around. This page was deleted from project space. It was restored to userspace on the proviso that it would somehow be used for a future ArbCom filing. Having AGF'd at the time, thinking I might see some sort of change that would possibly make this seem reasonable, I see now that the page has not really changed since having been deleted. Its placement under the ArbCom filing doesn't seem relevant at all. Equazcion   (talk)  16:00, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Equazcion above and per I cannot fathom how a deleted policy/essay/guideline focusing on how to call people terms based on the human anatomy can possibly be part of a viable and serious Arbcom case. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the policies and guidelines for essay creation in userspace? I am leaning towards weak delete, but I suppose if there are parts that are objectionable those should just be removed. It would seem a pitty if editors weren't allowed to brainstorm and develop their ideas, but this one does seem a bit antagonistic. On the other hand it has some parts that are interseting, provocative and worth consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this redacted per a request on my talkpage and in the interests of decency of a page. It's nothing more than a bad-faith troll by a now blocked user. Crafty (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: looks like an attack page to me. --Carnildo (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just a ranting attack on admins with no merit as criticism or even as satire. Offers nothing to improve the site, even if its claims about admins are true. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, users are allowed to collect evidence for an ArbCom case in their userspace, even after being blocked. This is not a collection of evidence for an ArbCom case. It's a long, profane rant aimed at a group of Wikipedia editors. Even assuming good faith it's hard to see how this is an acceptable use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Following further thought, and the points raised here (particularly by Equazcion, Fences and windows and A Stop at Willoughby), I am persuaded that this should in fact be deleted. Going by the title (Wikipedia:Politeness Police) it is evidently a draft (AGFing here) for an essay - I'm assuming HarryAlffa put it under "ArbCom" either by mistake, or in the hopes that it would confuse editors into thinking it was part of a potential ArbCom filing. Although blocked users are entitled to file ArbCom requests, I can see no evidence that the user is intending to do so. If they do, they can explain in their request why this page is necessary to that filing - in which case it can be undeleted for that purpose. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Users should have the ability to write opinionated essays in their userspace, but only if they can be used constructively to build a better encyclopedia. This, on the other hand, is a pointy rant which is an attack on several editors.  Them  From  Space  02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey, I finally checked my email!! Hurray for me!! Anyway, one of them is from Harry. He indicates, among other things, that this page was intended as satire, and there is a fairly clear trend within satire to include material which is, well, maybe scatological or otherwise offensive. In all honesty, as a satire page, I can, maybe, see it, although the "cunstable" and variations would probably have to be changed, and Harry said in the email that he did welcome changes as required to the page from the beginning, so they would still be acceptable now. "Master debater" is the only "acceptable obscenity" I personally know, but with a little work the page could be restructured to be more implicitly than explicitly obsence, I guess it could serve a purpose of some kind. I'd be willing to give it a try, anyway, should the page survive deletion. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also received a long email from Harry. I read it carefully, but there was nothing in it that persuaded me that my current !vote (to delete) is incorrect. I have not replied to Harry, as I don't tend to reply through Wikipedia, and I didn't think it was worth replying on his talk page. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Cabalistic behavior is a legitimate concern. Aggressively deleting userpages can only exacerbate the problem.  Drolz 09  02:14, 12 December 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.