Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Husond/Straw Poll


 * 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 Page deleted by Husond. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond/Straw Poll
Because it has served as a drama generator. See WP:ANI##OUTING by User:Husond at Talk:Greece--Caspian blue 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This whole subpage is a violation of WP:UP. I'd was about to MFD this page but you beat me too. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious ethnic profiling page. Very close to an attack page. Directed to point toward an ethnic group. Dr.K. logos 00:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm leaning towards supporting a deletion, as the straw poll seems to have served its purpose and users are offended by it. I'd prefer for Husond to delete it himself, but if he feels that this is going to be a useful tool for future editing, I see no reason for it to be deleted against his wishes. AniMate  talk  00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Switching to a reluctant delete per Dragons flight and Enric Naval, though I really wish he'd just delete it himself. Much of this outrage seems overblown and slightly manufactured, but the page has served its purpose and Husond can easily keep a copy off-wiki. AniMate  talk  10:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly objected to this straw poll approach from the beginning. Look at my vote on the talk page of Greece. Read my rationale. First I objected to the straw poll because I found it divisive, and I quoted WP:VOTINGISEVIL. Also look at my record. I rarely take part in any FYROM related debates and at times I act as a peacemaker and edit-warring preventer. Yet I am lumped as an ethnically motivated voter, just because I did not choose to hide my Greek origins. This is offensive on many levels. First this makes a mockery of WP:AGF. Second because it betrays an anti-intellectualism and an assumption of bad faith just because I am Greek. According to this attack page I am not deemed to be capable of independent thought due to my ethnic background. This ethnic blame game approach represents an absurd oversimplification of a very complex and contested issue. Also why have a straw poll if you deem only one answer to be acceptable and if you are going to accuse your opponents of ethnically-induced voting? I mean I go into a poll and If I don't tow the line I am clobbered with my ethnicity used against me as a weapon. I am also an eponymous user. As a Wikipedian I deserve no ethnic stigma attached to my name in mainspace or userspace or anyspace. As an administrator, the author of this drivel should have done the right thing and erased it a a gesture of goodwill. If this is what Wikipedia has come to, then this is not the project I signed up for and happily served for more than three years. This whole experience reads like a nightmare with ethnic overtones, (I hate to use the word "racial"), not like the dream of building an encyclopedia. Dr.K. logos 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have read the ANI page, the nominated page, WP:Outing and Talk:Greece -- it is obvious this is a very passionate issue with both sides - I personally do not have an opinion at this point due simply to lack of knowledge. That being said, I think Husond's page is perfectly acceptable compellation of information that is publicly available and/or reasonably inferred from publicly available information.  Raising the specter of WP:OUTING is nothing but a straw man.  In my reasoning, this nominated page is creating a visual aid to understanding Husond's argument not a personal attack against anyone or a group.  As far as I can see there is nothing unfactual or problematic; anyone viewing it can make their own informed opinion of the page's usefulness. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am in agreement with the nominator and Dr. K -- it provokes unnecessary drama and ethnic profiling. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Against the spirit of Wikipedia. That some of the individuals were   qualified as "probably" makes it worse. To do this on the basic of openly declared ethnicity at WP is bad enough and divisive enough. To do it on the basis of what one can infer from a user page is truly wrong. And wasn't the author aware that people sometimes adopt a persona that can be deliberately other than in the RW? I am aware of the AN/I: considering it, the only good solution is for the editor  to voluntarily withdraw the page. DGG (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inflammatory and unnecessary. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Husond is compiling publicly available information on a specific pool of users (notably, those who voted in a straw poll). I don't see any reason to not allow him to do this in his userspace.  Prodego  talk  03:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment let's see, if we allow this silly drama page filled with "assumptions" under an "admin's user page", I can draw very similar images in other situations. Some can excuse for distinguishing (actually discriminating) opponent editors who edit Obama page into WASP, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Indonesian-American, Kenyan-American or Republicans, Democratics, or Illinois, Hawaiian or Alaska locals etc as referring to this racial profiling. Others can also excuse themselves when to make a racial profiling if conflicts between users are intensified on Israel-Palestine related articles. However, I doubt if non-admin editors who creates such sub-pages could be free of high risks from immediately getting blocked. --Caspian blue 04:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep compendium of user page statements. Husond has been quite cautious in assigning nationality; at least one editor who uses we and our of Greece is marked as of uncertain nationality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The point has been made.  There are currently two factions that don't get along and don't agree.  If the alignment of those factions was not obvious before, it is now.  That said, this sort of analysis is not going to foster civil discourse.  It only reinforces the us vs. them mentality and will make collaboration that much harder in the future.  The point about the nationalistic nature of the disagreement was a fair one to make, but now that the point is made, I think the continued existence of that page is detrimental to our encyclopedic mission.  Time to move on.  Dragons flight (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since it's no longer useful. As Dragon indicates above, this page has already showed the problem with the poll, and it has been already analyzed enough for errors. Keeping after this would only serve to generate pointless drama. "outliving its intended purpose" and stuff.
 * Additionally, there are no outing problems, Husond used publicy-available info and was very careful on making assumptions.
 * This is a problem of people of a nationality being annoyed because someone has pointed out that they think in a certain manner because of being from that nationality. Well... honestly... what can I say... this situation reminds me a lot of the catalan users in the Spanish wikipedia :P ... or the Pakistan users saying their territory was never in India... or people from certain non-Pashtun tribe trying to change their article to say that they are Pashtun... or homeopaths insisting that Homeopathy is biased.... or the owner/writer of a software program trying to remove negative stuff from its article... seriously, this sort of problem exists and it's necessary to point it out when it happens, in order to understand the situation better. We can't just pretend that all those POVs don't exist and are not affecting polls and causing pile-ons. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Enric Naval and Dragons flight. The point has been made and is legitimate, but we didn't need this page for it. Trout-slap for the nonsensical "outing" allegations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: it's funny, indeed. Here, people are wetting their pants because we had the impudence of describing the obvious fact that they were voting as Greeks. And on my page, I just this minute got a message where one of precisely those Greeks tells me: "that most of us who want [...], do it because we don't want history monopolization and appropriation (not from our side or anyone's side)." (my emphasis). So, here's his own confirmation, black and white, that their identification with their side is what drives them. Of course, we all knew that, it was plain obvious from the start, so why the fuss? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a matter of priciple rdunn  PLIB  14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tries to make the point that a particular viewpoint is less valid if the person holding it is Greek. Although Greeks may have a different perspective of the political issues, their arguments should be based on merit, not on nationality. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody denies that there are arguments that should be evaluated based on merit. The point is: if there is one set of arguments that for some mysterious reasons only editors of a single nationality find convincing, and another set of arguments that everybody else finds convincing, what does that tell us about the validity of those arguments? (Especially if those arguments, by some freak of coincidence, happen to be those that lead to an outcome more favourable to the political preferences typical of that nation.) And what consequences does it have for the Wikipedia model of decision-making, when this isolated faction then thinks it can push its isolated view through by sheer force of numbers and tenacity? We have a situation where the consensus-based model of governance reaches its limits, and risks being perverted into a mob rule, that's the issue here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The most likely reason is that editors in Greece get there information from predominantly Greek sources, those in other countries get their international news from CNN, BBC or similar international outlets. Each of the sources may well display biases, and these may well affect the viewpoints of all the editors. This is not an implication that anyone has behaved badly (everyone is affected by biases of the sources they use, including myself, although we try our hardest not to) and there is no really good solution to reconcile such differences. I reject the notion that the Greek sources are less (or more) valid, and thus reject a page which tries to make a point of which nation the editor in question is from. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference here is not about information and its sources. It's purely about preferences. And the Greek editors know perfectly well that they are alone in this. The question is not about what we or they believe to be true, it's purely about what they politically want. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With "sources" I mean that all the media they are reading refers to Macedonia as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and therefore that is how most Greeks refer to the country (and that this is a matter of fact, not opinion). I feel that the FYROM name is rather contorted, but I cannot dismiss one side of this as invalid, especially when the article in question is Greece. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia, Greeks may not be alone.--Caspian blue 11:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion seems more suited for the article talk page. Let's just focus on the straw poll. AniMate  talk  11:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dragons flight, but I recommend that Husond should keep a copy of it off-wiki - it will be useful evidence if this ever needs to go to arbitration. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Have you thought that it can be a good counter evidence? How does the mere guessing of voters' nationality and ethnicity from their name could be "accurate" information? Ironically, he admits he was mistaken as Icelandic because of his screen name according to the accessible information. Of course, off-wiki saving is not our concern though.--Caspian blue 10:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both the recommendation, and its rationale are really unbelievable. As Jack Forbes correctly states below, if you go to ARBCOM with such "arguments" and such "proofs" (?!!!), then the fun would indeed begin then!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would an off-wiki copy be of any use to admins, such as both Husond and ChrisO are, who can read deleted pages? But, of course, how else would we be able to see the threatening and intimidating word "arbitration" in the comment? NikoSilver 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for a while (as per Stifle below) I'm not involved in the Greece page but read all the debates for fun (pleased for once its not raging on a Basque page). I cannot see how this straw poll violates anything. None of the info given was info that wasn't publicly available anyway. If you edit wiki and give out your IP and/or state your ethnicity/nationality, you place it in the public domain. Therefore you cannot moan if someone else goes and collects that info. Secondly, the ethnicity of people in an off-wiki debate or an on-wiki debate/edit war is of relevance if it shows a pattern. Anyone who has ever been involved in an article that touches "nationalistic" nerves knows that and while that of course does not preclude the member of ethnicity X bein perfectly capable of being rational, cool calm and collected, if a large number of them start behaving similarly, there's normally something afoot. I think this is actually a very good page, even if it ruffles some feathers - perhaps people might think twice now before making grand statements thinking themselves 100% anonymous. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for a reasonable length of time as it is relevant to an ongoing discussion. However, I would expect Husond to delete it when it no longer serves a purpose. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is a clear violation of wp:out rdunn  PLIB  10:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Chris0's comment that Husond should keep a copy of it to use in evidence if it goes to arbitration is mindblowing. Does he think the arbs will dismiss them because they are Greek? If so, that will be some precedent that is set throughout wikipedia. The fun would really begin then! Jack forbes (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Where a person has self-identified as of a nationality, is is clearly allowable to note it. The only issue I see is the parenthetical statements appended in a couple of cases, which clearly should be removed. Collect (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. These "parenthetical statements" are a disgrace for Wikipedia, Nothing more to add.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't be the one to cast the first stone, because I've fallen in the same sin in the very distant past. But at least I was linking primarily the arguments that should be avoided, not people! Anyway, my reasons are: First, I refuse to accept the value of ethnic profiling in any form. Second, I refuse to accept the connection of the two, and its value as an argument of any sort. Third, and actually what makes this page most disgusting, there are people listed in it that have not declared their nationality themselves, and Husond uses languages they speak or any other arguments of the sort to "classify" them! How appalling. NikoSilver 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Merely noting that the page is definitely not racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("outing"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question -not to be discussed here- is how should Wikipedia handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - Ev (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Some users are trying to exaggerate baseless points in order to throw off the discussion, and bringing arguments back after being pointed out how silly they are. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral The list met its purpose from its very beginning, deleting it will change nothing. Besides, the straw poll will be closed even before this MfD, so Caspian blue couldn't really have thought of a better way for wasting people's time with yet another discussion that will have no practical effect. Last but not least, deleting the list will not delete the compiled record. Let me remind that the list was first published on Talk:Greece and can be easily accessed by opening e.g. this version. Plus, should anyone ever need this list as evidence for arbitration, they can easily recreate it themselves (the poll will be archived, like the names of the participants, and all the info from their userpages - all so easily retrieved and assembled). Sorry but this MfD was just pointless and petty. Hús  ö  nd  18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as much as your page. Many say your poll is your POV Pushing for the start (even though those are in disagreement with you), and then you make editors angry at the racial filing. The next drama is currently occurring on the ANI thread. All are what you've created. So this MfD is a "due course" to finish it. I understand that you can't come up with a better way of exhausting everyone's time and energy over the less useful image. What good would you get with it? However, I wish you stop prolonging the drama as volunteerly delete it.--Caspian blue 18:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I don't see the problem with it, as it pulls from freely available sources, but on the other hand, it has served its purpose, and it's now just creating drama.  --Kbdank71 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. With his ethnic profiling Husond basically predetermined my vote in this and in future polls, so why bother?--Avg (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Husond, you are an admin. Why don't you act like a responsible one and delete it now. It has already caused enough trouble as it is. Jack forbes (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete given the objections, and hurtful ambience of this list and the appalling implications of a List see (Fascism) why is this still here? Speedy delete this...Modernist (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Husond's page is similar to this graph of the way different groups of people voted in the 2004 and 2008 US presidential elections. It's not profiling to say that almost all blacks voted for the Democrat candidate, it is simply true. And in our case, it is simply true that all Greeks who participated in the poll voted in opposition and make up the vast majority of those who voted that way. It is causing quite a stir, however, so perhaps deleting it wouldn't be such a bad idea, even though there is nothing wrong with it. Besides, we still know which types of users voted in which way without this subpage. Local hero (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The analogy is not exact Hero. I would never object to such statistical analysis. The sample shown in your graph is anonymous. The problem here is that the names of users, some eponymous, were used with flags attached to them, along with comments pertaining to speculation about their origins. This is what I objected to. This is akin to branding. Dr.K. logos 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In most cases, one could click on the link to the user's userpage and find out what nationality they were there, or look at which articles they typically contribute to, or simply look at the user's username, or find other ways to figure out nationality. Husond's page just made it easier to know this. All users that frequently edit Macedonia-related articles already know one another's ethnicity anyway. As for the speculation, I think he was pretty much on target. Local hero (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the point Local Hero. You think he was pretty much on target. Perhaps you could take a good guess at all wikipedian's nationality and we could all have our little flags next to our signature. You know, like little flags sewn on to our coats. Jack forbes (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? No one is saying you need to sew anything to your coat or to allude to Nazis. The analysis of voters' nationality in this case is relevant information that could still have been found without this subpage. Husond just made already available information easier to find. It is not by chance that nearly all Greeks support one solution while nearly everyone else supports another. Local hero (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What am I talking about? I'm talking about a list being made up to point out that Greek editors agree with each other (shocker!) on a subject. A list that is being made up in an attempt to prove they are all POV warriors pushing their views and references onto those other editors who of course are all neutral in this. People like you, a Macedonian who I'm sure would never let his political opinion get in the way of a good article. Lets get it clear, once a nationality is told that their refs and cites are no good on their own country pages because they will obviously be biased there will be no point writing any country article. One more thing. If someone decided to vote in the straw poll along with the Greek majority will you ask them if they are Greek? Will that be one of the rules laid down? In saying that, there is no need, you will just make a guess anyway won't you. Those Greek editors who work on the article again, what do you think will happen if someone thinks it's a little controversial? Yep, they will think, ah, he's on the list and obviously biased. In my opinion it will hamstring those good Greek editors who want to improve the article. Jack forbes (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're totally astray from the problem. Nobody cares if a Greek decides to vote along with the Greek majority. The problem is when a Greek majority attempts to overrun the rest of the community/world all by itself. Hús  ö  nd  22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I won't ask them if they are Greek. But, I could find out if they are Greek the same way you found out I was Macedonian. I would be curious just as anyone else. Local hero (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those Greeks are part of the community like all of us, they are not outside it. Tell me, if they hadn't self identified as Greek and you had no way of knowing would you have shrugged your shoulders when losing the straw poll. I guess you would have. To make myself clear, I have absolutely no opinion on the content of the Greek page, I do however feel you are going the wrong way about this. Jack forbes (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're asking "if"s. We don't need any "if"s here - we already got the facts, so why bother going into the hypothesis field? Hús  ö  nd  22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is, every wikipedian should be treated the same no matter what nationality they are or what article they are working on. It's all about good references and cites and nothing else. Listing those who oppose your refs and cites will only make the article a battlefield for a long time to come. Anyway, I'll bow out now and wish you all the best. Jack forbes (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, we're getting off-topic again. This a deletion discussion, questions belong on AN/I. Just choose delete, keep, or neutral. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I fully subscribe to Jack forbes' comment and line of reasoning. As for the posssible deletion of Húsönd's user subpage, if it were originally created as such i.e. out of the Wikipedia mainspace then it would have been up to him I believe. As it was, that text appeared in an article's talk page that even now has a link to its present location.  The whole episode is regrettably fueling confrontation at the expense of constructive work. Apcbg (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete that everyone should observe WP:NPOV is cannon; that not everyone does is true; that people's POV may have some roots in their nationality/ethnicity is something that WP certainly endorses - that's the bedrock argument on why we categorize everyone by race/ethnicity - does it belong here, no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What PoV is being supported by this list? It may be obvious to you, but do explain to the rest of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is informative data.  And I do not believe that that identifying the nationality of an editor is not "outing", harassment, or anything else negative; it is simply a fact, as, for example, are things such as how many edits and editor has, how long an editor has been at Wikipedia, whether an editor has ever been blocked, etc.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why this list has to impart this information in such a way as to parade names with flags attached to them? Could he not have simply counted how many Greeks or "suspected" Greeks voted and put the numerical result in a table, instead of this parade of names and flags? Is this how statistics are supposed to be presented? On the backs of people and their reputations and by branding them, despite their objections? If that's your idea of what GFDL stands for I would never have signed up on Wikipedia. Parading names like that has a chilling effect on people. I now have problems participating in votes because I have been made to feel like a pariah. From the tone of your reply I know you couldn't care less. I don't care either for this kind of attitude but I just wanted to put this on the record. Dr.K. logos 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is User:Tasoskessaris, whose userpage (by his edits alone) places him in, and contains userboxes asserting Greek ancestry and his native command of Greek. If anybody has racially profiled him, he's done it to hisself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it PMAnderson. But I will try to explain this one more time. That I am Greek is no problem. In fact I am very proud of it. That someone will take my name AND put the Greek flag beside it AND call me a nationalist AND tell me I vote as a block with other nationalists is unethical and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. I am sick and tired making the same point so many times as if it were rocket science. Dr.K. logos 21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The page we are discussing does not use the word "nationalist"; nor, as best I can see, equivalent language. If you feel that asserting that you !voted for using FYROM is equivalent to the charge of nationalism, that's another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He didn't say it in so many words but from the preamble:

"I couldn't help but notice that on the straw poll above, users from a specific ethnic group seem to be voting en masse. I think that the following record could prove in an interesting and colorful way how the outcome of a proposal on Wikipedia can be ethnic-induced, instead of community-wide, as it should always be:"
 * He uses loaded terms like "ethnic induced" "ethnic group" etc. This grouping by ethnicity and presenting this ethnicity acting as a pack toward accomplishing the larger goal. This is demonizing. Dr.K. logos 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So your grievance is that Husond referred to the Hellenes as an ethnos? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking PM? Dr.K. logos 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I think you are - or at least writing absurdities because your position is incoherent: you wish to censor Husond's saying that the !votes on one side of this poll were overwhelmingly cast by Greeks when they were. Unless you assert (as is possible) that the Hellenes are not an ethnic group, how is ethnic group loaded language? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would join a recommendation that Husond should say (as he has above) that there may well be exceptions: an individual Greek !voting with (or against) a Greek majority without ethnic impulsion, or a non-Hellene joining the majority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. The censorship card. Thanks but no thanks. It's so funny. I consider your points to be absurd. What exactly is incoherent or absurd from the statements I made above? I am just going to copy and paste my points from one of the replies above, I will just change "nationalist" to "ethnic":

"That someone will take my name AND put the Greek flag beside it AND call me an ethnically induced voter (nationalist) AND tell me I vote as a block with others from my ethnic group (nationalists) is unethical and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia."


 * If he did not use my name and the other peoples' names with a flag attached to it, he could have made the same arguments with just a final report without branding, parading and showing-off names on a list as if they were caught doing something illegal. It's the list and the way it was presented that is offensive. If you do not understand this then please do me a favour and end this painful conversation. Dr.K. logos 22:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I voluntarily deleted the page, as suggested. The list met its purpose, and all the info contained therein can be easily retrieved by anyone. I request another admin to formally close this discussion. Hús ö  nd  22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You did the honourable thing. Dr.K. logos 22:42, 2 April 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.