Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Isonomia




 * 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 - no non-delete !votes (non-admin closure). --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Isonomia
Appears to violate WP:UP by making bad faith accusations toward fellow Wikipedians by suggesting that editors and admins engage in wikilawyering and blocking to ensure climate-related articles maintain a certain point of view this editor apparently disagrees with. I asked the editor to consider changing the soapboxing comments, but in vain. Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - current version of user page (at time of nomination). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd be happy to support a snowball keep if the text is altered so that fellow editors are not disparaged. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting such pages reinforces outside beliefs that the person has a valid issue. Not beyond reasonable limits as determined in the past.  This is likely one of the worst userpages to delete unless one is afraid he is right.  As an aside, having the nom be active in the disputes related in the userpage does not really impress me at this time.    Better far to have someone who is fully uninvolved do the MfD. Collect (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to make clear that I am in no way questioning the good faith of the nom, but do think it may be a "no win" situation in this case. Apologies if anyone mistook my position. Collect (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't find the comments to be excessive or over-the-top. Also agree with Collect that it will reinforce ill beliefs on the project particularly while the article that he questioning is under edit protect. J04n(talk page) 14:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Collect and J04n. No individual is so much as mentioend in on the page as it now stands. When an editor believes that there is a systemic problem or bias on wkipedai (and these do happen from time to time, and are thought to happen even more often) a userpage or essay of this sort is one of the few options available. I don't see this as an attack page, nor a violation of WP:UP. DES (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - many editors have similar claims on their userpages of being unjustly treated, that Wikipedia is biased against them, and so on. I think it's silly - and yes, I suppose it is soapboxing - but traditionally precedent has allowed it, as users are given a great deal of leeway over their own userspace. As long as no specific users are mentioned by name, I think we should permit it - it's not doing much harm. Robofish (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Collect and others. (Full disclosure - I've edited some of the same articles as Isonomia )-- SPhilbrick  T  16:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean you have edited the same articles that he also edited, right? There are two ways to read your statement.  I thought you were declaring an alternate account until I read it twice. Gigs (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The page isn't that extreme, and isn't singling anyone out in particular. The user's just expressing his/her disillusionment with the project in general, and why s/he left. Deleting it would probably be the worst action to take, as Collect mentioned above, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am Czar of all Russias!)  21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep an essay or rant regarding perceived biases on Wikipedia is allowed, if it does not attack anyone in particular. Disclaimer as well, I've participated on the Climategate talk page, but never directly interacted with this user that I recall. Gigs (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The essay is certainly not a rant, and as complaints go it is thoughtful, mild, and articulate.  (I don't think I've edited any climate articles in my three years here).    — Athaenara  ✉  22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am surprised at the responses here. Isonomia is essentially accusing fellow editors and administrators of:
 * "[Using] wikilaw to prevent NPOV insertions" - a bad faith assumption.
 * "Ban editors who might cause trouble" - assumes admins are banning/blocking editors who aren't skeptical of prevailing scientific consensus on climate change.
 * "Run every single climate article as a propoganda[sic] tool" - bad faith assumption.
 * "I'll give these professional lobbyists just enough technical ammunition to hang me with and I'll get banned as happened to all the other editors I saw trying to stop the POV push." - again, accusing other editors of being lobbyists who try to get people banned if they take an opposing view.
 * I've already said that I'd support a snowball keep if this editor would revise the rant to remove all the bad faith assumptions, but evidently he/she has given up on the project and left this piece as a "parting shot". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Userspace essays are given wide latitude to express Wikipedia-related criticism and opinions, even unpopular ones. As has been pointed out, we nearly always keep these unless they name names and violate WP:NPA. WP:AGF is not a blunt tool to silence criticism of real, perceived, or even imaginary systemic problems. Gigs (talk) 02:32, 22 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.