Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. There is no consensus from the result of this MfD. While the user page has gone through several changes throughout the course of this discussion, the essence of what is being debated has not changed. The key disagreement appears to be over different interpretations of WP:POLEMIC, which will likely remain unresolved at this time. Alex Shih (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG/Politics


This page is a BLP violating POLEMIC that has no use to Wikipedia. G M G talk  00:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep considering the discussion here Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive993 this looks to be bad faith WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:FORUMSHOPPING especially in light of GMG's statement "My intention is to have policy violating content removed. There is much content that is not policy violating, and so the page does not require deletion". MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And the bit that is policy violating has now been separated from the bit that is not. So the bit that is a BLP violating POLEMIC needs to be deleted.  G M G  talk  00:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per MarnetteD. This is a waste of the community's time and it seems this MfD serves more to needle JzG than actually resolve the dispute. JzG addressed the concerns of the community by moving it to a subpage, even added references, yet the OP continues to keep on about this.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or Delete last line (per ) - WP:SOAP/WP:NOTADVOCACY per and, which explicitly applies to user pages.  - Not just affirmative information about JzG's own political interests, but as nom says BLP vio and POLEMIC. Political affiliation info in user space should not be phrased in a negative or polemical manner. First paragraph is totally acceptable for user page. Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). —DIYeditor (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC) 03:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC) struck 07:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC) adjusted 18:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As explained at the ANI thread this is and has been allowed. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER? I have seen some guideline-violating stuff kept here but that is no excuse to do it in this case. Either WP:POLEMIC should be re-worded or material like this (except first paragraph) should be removed. Tell us what you like, not what you hate. It's divisive and disruptive to be negative. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep revised version, totally fine as far as I can tell. Thanks JzG! —DIYeditor (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC).
 * I am going to hold off on this to see if any consensus develops about WP:NOTADVOCACY. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I explained at ANI, those views are the logical conclusions derived from a large number of verifiable facts, and not merely personal opinions. The fact that some editors find them objectionable is unfortunate, but it's their problem, not JzG's. The fact that some people think this reflects poorly upon an admin are downright delusional: there are admins on this site disclaiming any political views who nonetheless quite clearly hold fringe political views very close to their hearts, based on any reasonable look at their their editing. That the same editors aren't clamoring for those admins' bits just goes to show how their own biases influence their judgement. JzG wants people to understand exactly what he thinks about this topic. That is, if anything, admirable, in this environment where so many people lie about their political beliefs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I may have missed it, but I don't think even the author has dared to go so far as to call his 'Trump supporters are not competent to edit' conclusion as anything but a personal opinion that he merely believes to be true. If he has evidence or a logical argument to make to back it up, it seems not to have made the cut. People are pilloried for giving their honest opinions all the time if they are deemed wholly offensive, this essay is the author's attempt at doing just that. There is nothing admirable in being this arrogant, this confident you are right, even when you have made statements that even many Democrats would find objectionable, either because they are religious, or think opposition to gay marriage is homophobia. These are the sorts of thing the author has conveniently overlooked when drawing his conclusion, which is what happens when people are being influenced by their own biases. If he practised what he is so clearly wanting to preach, we might have been spared the agony of watching him defend the indefensible as if it is just a presentation of the facts. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC) — AttackTheMoonNow (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This directly targets other editors with abusive opinions on them (that they are not even qualified to edit) merely because of their support for a President. Apparently under the premise that this president is "objectively" bad. "Either you believe in [my political opinion] or you are an imbecile unfit to edit". This nasty business has no place on Wikipedia. What if I think that someone who believes in a Christian god is probably not fit to edit because objectively there is no evidence for him existing so objectively they are prone to wrong beliefs - why can't I put that on my page? I don't want to but this is one of the examples that was dismissed in the ANI thread. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Show me another editor who suggests that anyone who disagrees with them on a political issue is unfit to edit I will ask them to delete it. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that both of you have drastically misrepresented what this page says. If you can't be meticulously honest, you should be participating, because it's not JzG's biases that are being made clear by your edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious, you are accusing me of being a Trump supporter now? I think he is objectively an idiot and asshole and anyone who doesn't notice that is either very biased or also an idiot and asshole. We just don't need to hear about it on user pages. Also note that someone could fully realize Trump's negative qualities and think he is a good president because he advances their agenda. So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia = no, especially for an admin. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious, you are accusing me of being a Trump supporter now?Wow, you are really bound and determined to misinterpret as much as possible, aren't you? Now there are two editors who have made clear statements which you refuse to accept at face value.
 * Also note that someone could fully realize Trump's negative qualities and think he is a good president because he advances their agenda. I knew you wouldn't bother to read the ANI comments I mentioned. If you can read JzG's essay and come to the conclusion that the final judgement he expressed applies to those people you described, then you lack the necessary reading comprehension skills to understand the essay, and thus should not be commenting on it. This is a common problem I see: people try to read between the lines instead of just reading the lines. Well, there's nothing between the lines except #ffffff pixels, so whatever you happen to find there is a product entirely of your own construction. I have always known JzG to be one of those editors to be careful to write exactly what he means, so it only makes sense to read only what he wrote, and not try to read too much into that. But then, it also makes sense to read only what I wrote above, and not read anything further into it, and you completely failed to do that there, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just say what position you take, clarify what you meant by us showing our biases, and quote what you think I didn't see in the ANI thread or in the polemic essay, rather than wikibully? Here's a quote: Here's an objective truth: Donald Trump is justly considered the worst President in living memory, and quite possibly the worst ever. - that's stupid. The person who wrote that doesn't understand what "objective" means. Or how about:Religion is a philosophical question on which people may differ - religion is subjective and "philosophical" when it makes false claims, but opinions on whether a politician is "good" - direct quote of the essay - are facts! Indeed some people are showing their biases. The fact of the matter is, any reasonable person, hitherto unaware of Donald Trump, who is then exposed to all relevant facts about Trump and his actions during the campaign, as president, and prior, would rapidly conclude that Guy is absolutely right. - this is also pretty much objectively wrong. The person who wrote this (you) also does not understand relativism. Things being "good", "just", "worst" are never facts, they are value judgements. I knew you wouldn't bother to read the ANI comments I mentioned. Sorry what ANI comments did you mention that I was supposed to read? I saw you apparently make objectively false claims that endorsed (by defending the essay and saying political opinions can be facts) something being "good" as a fact. You are wrong if that is what you think. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to answer your questions and respond to your points, but that "wikibully" comment was just so over-the-top hysterical that I think there's no point, as you are clearly arguing from your heart and not your mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How is this close to my heart? I don't like any polemics in user space, especially targeting other editors. Otherwise I do not have any particular concern about the editors involved or the topic. If anything is at play here, it is that I agree that any reasonable person would see that Trump is malicious and incompetent. I just don't like how the page is phrased - it is definitely in the details of precisely what was written that this hinges. You shouldn't be able to ridicule other editors like that even if there is truth to it. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How is this close to my heart? I already answered that, but perhaps your own words can make it more clear. You shouldn't be able to ridicule other editors like that even if there is truth to it. (em. added) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that this creates an impression of bias in a Wikipedia authority figure and belittles, in several ways, a fair number of editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I already have these biases. I am biased in favour of empirically established reality, and therefore against creationism, to the point that I consider being a creationist a disqualifying factor from editing Wikipedia articles on evolution. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Biased in favor of empirically established reality? Then cites a bunch of opinion pieces and polls... Yeah... PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If this were so clear cut, then you should have no difficulty finding non opinion RSes to directly contradict JzG's claims. If you can't, well, then you don't have anything resembling a point to make. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will be honest, I do not really disagree with JzG. I just found it funny the way he put it but used crappy sources to support his absolute empirically established Truth™. This whole thing has become a joke. It is a case of sure you can do it, but is that the smart thing to do? But to the sources I will give him that he does cite a source for that in his essay, though like most of the others there not a very good one. PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and try to find non opinion sources that cover things like Trump's record of dishonesty. The single largest group of sources used in politics here is opinion sources; it's a sad fact that most media outlets take any work of journalism that focuses on politics and could possibly be interpreted as taking a side and relegates that to the opinion section. Furethermore, if you want any media analysis of a large number of stories on any topic, you must look to the opinion section. JzG could almost certainly source his commentary without recourse to opinion pieces (polls are fine when one is talking about numbers and percentages or backing up words like "most" or "few"), but that would go against every instinct a Wikipedian has: taking the facts from the news sources and performing an analysis on them himself, rather than showing quitre clearly that his analysis is neither unique nor uncommon, which is what the current sourcing does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure here are some non-opinion sources for Trump false statements. Heck I got those from the Trump article. What he did was a google search of something like "trump is the worst!" and clicked the top results. It was lazy and only added after people bitched to say "see it has sources and not a BLP vio!". Which it was not a BLP vio before anyhow. The only issue I saw policy wise was Polemic for the last sentence. Which my vote below reflects that. Again I do not disagree with it, anywhere. It's just not a smart idea. PackMecEng (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahhh. So what was your complaint about sourcing, then? Because you've just shown that good sourcing is certainly possible. If you have a problem with JzG using the sources he uses, the obvious solution is go insert yours, not to argue that it should be deleted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I argued getting rid of the polemic last line in my vote. Delete last line as Obsidi suggests sounds like the easiest fix. For the rest, being a fool is not against the rules. Again I brought up the sources because it was amusing to me. There are no sources to support the part I think should be removed. The rest can stay for all I care, as I noted I did not think it was a BLP vio or anything like that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See my question below. Then try to find an editor in good standing who would answer it in the affirmative. I'll wait. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not to be a butt here, but who cares? The first point of WP:POLEMIC is pretty clear on the subject. There is no pass for "but they are right" or the like, just straightforward policy. PackMecEng (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My point isn't that he's right (though that's one of my premises). My point is that THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T USUALLY EDITORS AND WHEN THEY DO CREATE ACCOUNTS THEY GET QUICKLY INDEFFED BECAUSE THEY'RE INCOMPETENT TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA. I hope I was explicit enough right there. I would hate for people to be as confused about what I'm saying as they seem to be about what JzG is saying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No I get your point and even agree with the principle. My point is that it DOES NOT MATTER policy is policy. This is against policy, REGARDLESS of the intention behind it. PackMecEng (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your last comment certainly did not evince you getting my point. But I'm happy to see that you understand it now. I disagree with you about the policy. This is not even close to a polemical tirade (there is a definition given there), merely an explication of JzG's agreement with a community norm. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment User:DIYeditor/Politics is what I consider an acceptable disclosure of politics on a user page. I was originally not going to put that up but I will leave it unlinked from my main user page just as an example. 01:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - per ANI discussion and WP:SPADE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Last comment on this MfD hopefully, but POLEMIC is an issue that interests me: What if I objectively call Christians a SPADE and label them deluded (and probably unfit) for believing in the resurrection, young earth creationism, the existence of their God, etc.? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2018‎
 * Comment User:DIYeditor - Not all Christians believe in young earth creationism. I consider young earth creationism to be a dangerous refusal to use the power of reason that the Christian God has given to us.  This has nothing to do with whether to delete this rant. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that someone might believe people with certain religious beliefs are "objectively" wrong and therefore incompetent in the manner JzG thinks uncritical Trump suppoters are, but saying so would clearly be divisive and rude. It is not my belief that Christians or even creationists are all unfit to edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See the current version. Belief in a religion is something on which reasonable people may differ. Belief in a guiding force behind life (e.g. theistic evolution) ditto - it addresses things that cannot be scientifically investigated, albeit that zero credible objective evidence exists to support such beliefs. Belief in young-earth creationism is simply wrong. Objectively wrong. Every single relevant piece of scientific data supports evolution as currently understood, and without it none of biology makes sense. Same with climate change denial. You can dispute whether governments should be fixing climate change, but you can't deny that it's real. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is nothing particularly irrational about believing in a guiding force, aside from there being no evidence that I know of (although I think this is debatable as far as what would be evidence). In fact there are many legitimate philosophical standpoints that might posit some kind of god/God. I also agree that young earth creationism is objectively wrong and that belief in it more or less disqualifies one from editing articles related to that. You are saying that someone who believes Trump is a good president is incompetent to edit Wikipedia at all. I could see some arguments that it makes someone unqualified to edit politics articles (which would still be rude and divisive I think), but all of Wikipedia? Disclosure of bias is a legitimate use of user space, but I think you go a bit too far in demeaning other editors. I think your new conclusion does clarify and soften the statement with "whether or not you support him" so now we understand more what you mean when you say "good president". In my opinion, the original last line should still be removed, at the least. It's a slap in the face to many users because of how it is worded. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, that is a variation on one of the examples from the ANI thread. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the rant-like negative stuff about Trump, it weakens wikipedia's credibility when editors post this kind of POLEMIC in userspace. And the last line about CIR problems for all editors who like Trump would be unacceptable even if JzG wasn't an admin, the fact that he is only makes this worse. The general stuff about being center-left can stay, that's not the problem, and saying you don't like trump is ok too, but attacks on other editors are just unacceptable. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "CIR problems for all editors who like Trump" is a gross misrepresentation of what the sentence actually says. I hope that this simply is careless reading in the heat of the moment, and not a deliberate attempt to mislead. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It says in no uncertain terms believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia. "believing that trump is a good president" is fairly close to "like trump" and "not competent to edit Wikipedia" sure sounds like a CIR, the only difference between the two statements is the word "probably" suggesting he isn't going to block people just because they say they like trump, but it sure sounds like an presumption against them. -Obsidi (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So then your argument is that he said something else, which is sort of like what he said, and one of his words suggests a certain thing which might be consistent with your interpretation. So he said what he didn't actually say. Got it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is that Tornado chaser accurately summarized what he said. -Obsidi (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only does he say believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia but he actually wikilinked the phrase "not competent to edit Wikipedia" to WP:CIR, how is he not implying CIR when he links to CIR? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While I agree with what you said below, I disagree with what you said here. We should be going by what was actually said, not saying Guy said something they didn't say. Guy never said "CIR problems for all editors who like Trump". Someone can think Trump is a good president even while they dislike him. Someone can like Trump but think he is a terrible president. Guy only said anyone who think he's a good president is "probably not competent to edit Wikipedia". It doesn't matter whether people like Trump or dislike him. As I said below, Guy also never said only those who think Trump "anointed by God" are incompetent to edit wikipedia. They are definitely, in Guy's opinion, not welcome here but people who think Trump is a good president are also "probably" incompetent to edit wikipedia. There's an automatic assumption that anyonme who think's Trump is a good president is probably incompetent. Precisely in which cases you're "competent" if you think Trump is a good president isn't really clear. According to a comment at ANI, Guy wanted to say "why I think that uncritical support for Trump is disqualifying for editing Wikipedia articles", and they now sort of say that, while still saying the thing about people who think he's a good president. As I said below, if they wish to say that, that's up to them unless we achieve consensus here they can't. But as long as the essay says certain things, you can fault people for saying it saying things it does, only for saying it says things it doesn't. (I.E. CIR problems for all editors who like Trump - no. Possible CIR problems if you think Trump is a good president, yes.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Claims People Not Competent to Edit Wikipedia Due To Political Beliefs Delete last line (due to edits on the page, what was the last line is no longer and additional statements have been added) You want to go on about trump, go right ahead. Rules of neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research don't apply in user space. I would strongly object if you were making specific unverified uncited factual claims about a living person, but I don't see that here.  I'm a lawyer and I don't see any libel here. But that last line is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).. In addition to that, it casts a very wide net. The most recent poll I know of Rasmussen Oct, 5 (yesterday), says 51% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as President. You may disagree and think they they are all wrong, that's fine. But this isn't even a WP:Fringe view that you are assailing like astrology. You are saying half the people in the United States should not be allowed to edit WP. WP:POLEMIC is a policy for a reason, we must all work together to build this encyclopedia, having statements of outright hostility directed at your fellow editors undermines the foundation upon which WP is built. There is a reason why civility is one of the core pillars of WP WP:5P4 Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. -Obsidi (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As the page has been edited since my comment, I was referring to this line: So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia - the kinds of people who believe he was anointed by God are, in my view, delusional and have no place here. -Obsidi (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with nearly everything that JzG has written about the incompetence and corruption of Mr. Trump, except that he hasn't expressed it as strongly as I would. However, the conclusion that an editor who supports Mr. Trump is not fit to edit Wikipedia is beyond the pale of what should be expressed in userspace, aside from giving me concerns about JzG's administrative judgment.  Wikipedia userspace isn't a soapbox, and this is a soapbox screed that we don't need.  Therefore, although I agree with almost everything except the conclusion:
 * Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep personal rant, walk away --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: we all have our biases, we all have our viewpoints. For most of you I do not know your viewpoint (I may be able to guess some of them).  Your !vote to keep or delete is reflects your viewpoint (and sometimes even your bias).  JzG clearly defines their bias, and they should be lauded for that.  Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I've made that same point already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What this should not be is a referendum on how many editors agree with the statements. You'd be hard pressed to find a diff of me defending the current administration or their policies, even as devil's advocate. But if an editor honestly believes that they cannot work with half the population of a major country, then they need to find another site to contribute to. This isn't the "Western European encyclopedia". It isn't the "Democratic Party encyclopedia". It isn't even the "encyclopedia that deals primarily with contemporary politics", and if anyone starts to think it is, then they need to find a nice quiet stub on someone that's been dead 100 years and make a GA out of it for a while.
 * You may have all the biases you want, and if you feel that they are important enough that the world needs to know them in detail, then you should start a blog. When you are here, you are expected to collaborate with your coworkers, which is why policy prohibits sweeping disparaging personal treatises on broad groups of editors.  G M G  talk  13:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We differ fundamentally on this point. I think it's useful to let others know where we're coming from, and in noticeboard discussions have defended some rather strident expressions of political views "on both sides," to use a phrase I remember hearing somewhere. Some of the most difficult situations we face are not from overtly biased editors, but from editors who insist they are neutral. I understand your point but respectfully (really!) disagree. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental difference in disclosing "I'm a libertarian," "I'm a social democrat," or "I support the Labour party," and saying "Editors who disagree with me aren't welcome." One of these is explicitly allowed by policy and one of them is explicitly prohibited.  G M G  talk  15:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that's not what the essay does. The essay defines a relatively small group who hold views that are directly contradicted by reality and then opines that they have no business editing. It doesn't say that everyone who disagrees with him belongs in that group; it doesn't even remotely hint at that. For the record, I've been in direct disagreement with JzG on at least three different pages in the past month. Do you think he's describing me on that page? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that somewhere around 150 million people disagree. That's not a fringe minority; that's half of a major nation. How many of those people do we want to edit Wikipedia, or upload images to Commons, or help us flesh out entries on Wikidata? All of them. Every. Single. One of them please. We're begging for help on all fronts. We're bleeding volunteer hours on every edge. We're trying to maintain one of the most visited sites in the world on nickles and dimes and if we don't keep our eye on that we will fail.
 * I don't care what your political views are; I want you to help me make more knowledge more free for more people, and if anyone is opposed to that for any reason then they are wrong in the only way that matters.  G M G  talk
 * I'm not sure there is a major difference between "are not welcome" and "have no business editing". Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 04:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're still misrepresenting what he is saying. If you think that essay is a diatribe against anyone who "disagrees" with him about Trump, then you're seriously misreading it. It identifies a very specific, fringe group. The problem with your argument (and that of everyone presenting an argument in favor of deletion) is that you're pretending that "likes Trump" is equivalent to what JzG describes. It's not. It's not even close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same words?  G M G  talk  16:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that I'm also reading everything before the last line, and that drastically changes the context of it. You're reading the last line literally, devoid of context. I'm reading it in context, while understanding the allegorical intent of "believing that Trump is a good President" to be referring back to the relatively tiny group that he spent much of that essay defining, and not to be taken entirely literally. This is basic English comp stuff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's apologetics.  G M G  talk  01:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what "apologetics" means. And no, it's not propaganda, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete last line as Obsidi suggests sounds like the easiest fix. For the rest, being a fool is not against the rules. PackMecEng (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep-Please find a better use of your time. &#x222F; WBG converse 04:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per MarnetteDi. Find some better use for your time instead of wasting everyone else's. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Crystal-clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. If you're going to keep it, you should RfC to change policy because this is a textbook example. --Pudeo (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, this is a statement of my personal views, which can be verified elsewhere, and is directly relevant to admin decisions I might take. That's why I wrote it, obviously. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pudeo. Clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. Remove the last line and it could possibly stay. Also, I suggest the keep voters actually speak on policy rather than annoyingly telling people to spend their time elsewhere. Nihlus  08:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mild versions of user points of view are generally tolerated in userspace, but this crosses the line into WP:POLEMIC territory. "Argon is an inert gas" is an empirically verified fact.  "Trump lies all the time" is essentially an opinion. Howsoever backed up by opinion pieces in reliable sources, this should be a not be in userspace. I know full well I'm not going to make any friends here. Tough luck for me.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Much of it is OK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strong but not outrageous Trump opinions, and clearly presented as personal, not represents it of Wikipedia.  Links to the page show no problems. The page is an acceptable statement of personal biases. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POLEMIC violation, and potentially harmful to Wikipedia's reputation. funplussmart (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP violations, WP:POLEMIC, may qualify as an attack page, and the statement at the end might bite newcomers who support Trump. I highly suspect that this user did not read the notice at the top of WP:CIR saying "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors." What makes the statement at the end even worse is that this is from an admin, who actually has the power to potentially enforce this. SemiHypercube ✎ 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I mentioned this discussion on WP:BLP/N as BLP concerns have been raised. I used a simple notification to avoid canvassing concerns [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=862933990&oldid=862847586]. I looked for other places to mention it but none of them seem to fit. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government could apply but they seem inactive. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States is more active but I wasn't sure whether it was major enough especially since I never do anything there. Others are welcome to leave a neutral notification at any wikiproject or anywhere this is relevant in a WP:Canvassing compliant manner. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The page in question was updated during the discussion. The "last line" mentioned above is "So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia - the kinds of people who believe he was anointed by God are, in my view, delusional and have no place here."
 * Comment - While I am sympathetic to the political line being advanced, I am also concerned about the politicization of WP and think that polemical efforts like this are unhelpful to the project as a whole. I'm not gonna jump on the "delete with fire" cart, but I do ask that the creator consider deleting or heavily editing this on his own. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

*Delete and remove this person as an Administrator. It is common knowledge that the only people who get banned from Wikipedia for what they believe in, as opposed to what they do here, are racists, pedophiles and similarly offensive societal outcasts. Anyone who would even think of expanding this to encompass Trump supporters, clearly lacks the competence required to be a Wikipedia Administrator. Or you would hope, anyway. In their desperation to be seen as right, they don't seem to have spotted their essay basically disqualifies anyone who believe in God, period. That they do not appreciate this, is equally proving their unfitness to be an Administrator. At the other end of the spectrum, his essay also appears to show he does not realise that, for a large number of people, probably more than there are Trump supporters, it is offensive in the extreme to dignify opponents of gay marriage as merely people who have different political views. They would see them as homophobes. They would expect such people to be banned from Wikipedia for their beliefs, rather than waiting for them to act on them. I suggest Wikipedia removes this person's ability to sit in judgement over anyone else immediately, as a matter of grave concern for its public image. It is bad enough that they are so opinionated, it is worse given their sheer lack of insight. It isn't as if they are new around here, either. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that this account has been created to post this comment is awfully suspicious, I have filed an SPI . Tornado chaser (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we would need to desysop him because he is not active in the area of American politics. Now if he actually did use his admin powers to enforce his beliefs, we can bring the possibility of desysoping to ArbCom. I am concerned that you seem to have created this account just to post this comment. funplussmart (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does it concern you that I would create an account to register my opinion of this person's fitness to serve? It concerns me that you don't seem to recognise that his essay covers way more areas than just American politics. If seems like if we wait long enough he will have listed every area of controversy in the known Universe. Someone this confident they know every other person's fitness to edit simply from their beliefs, should surely be the head of Wikipedia rather than a mere functionary, no? Do we dare shatter his world view by listing all the brilliant minds and respected world leaders who have at one time or another not shared his opinion on one issue or another? He does not read like someone who is even capable of imagining such a possibility. If he thinks he is so enlightened as to sit in judgement on us all, why is he willing to give the benefit of the doubt to homophobes? Does he speak for you in declaring homophobic speech to be merely political speech? Does he speak for Wikipedia? Should be be trusted in areas related to gay marriage outside the US? Has he ever blocked anyone for saying opposition to gay marriage is homophobia? As much as he seems to think all he is doing here is giving stupid people the facts, when you dig right down into this essay, it excludes way more people than just Trump supporters. If they don't see it yet, they will soon, perhaps when he blocks them for being incompetent. If I didn't already know Wikipedia doesn't have a President, I'd say this was an opening salvo in someone's campaign for that Office. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * — AttackTheMoonNow (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This brand-spanking-new editor has made NO edits whatsoever except for these two. Clearly a SPA, either an editor with an existing account who created a new one so as not to be held responsible for their views, or a blocked or banned editor editor in violation violation of their block.  Either way, I would recommend to the closer that this editor is highly suspect, and their views should therefore be completely discounted. A block for disruption wouldn't be such a bad idea either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Question to all Does anyone here belong to the group JzG describes? That is to say, who believes that President Trump is honest, intelligent, emotionally stable, honorable, and has no hint of corruption to him? I would like to see how many editors are willing to endorse a statement that is the polar opposite of JzG's, and thus include themselves in the group that I keep seeing dishonestly described as "anyone who disagrees with him". Note that this is quite literally the only way to identify yourself in that group. Let's hear the "ayes". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia" this is saying that anyone who thinks he is a good president is probably incompetent, not just those who think he's perfect, you can disagree with an interpretation of what someone said without being dishonest, the aspersions need to stop. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * you can disagree with an interpretation of what someone said without being dishonest Not once they've corrected you. Which JzG has done, multiple times. Dishonesty is worse than bias, by far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where have I been corrected? i'm not seeing it. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In the majority of comments JzG has made in this thread and at ANI. An example from Guy's third or fourth comment in the ANI thread: "I am talking here about the kinds of people who say that God anointed Trump." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then he should remove "believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent" there is a big difference between thinking someone is a good president and saying god anointed him. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you're prepared to change your !vote to "Require JzG to be more explicit in his conclusion"? Because your rationale for deletion hinges entirely upon your misreading of his conclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also based my vote on the rant about trumps ego, ect. This seems POLAMICal to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think ranting about Trump's ego in one's own userspace is a violation, then you have a very skewed reading of WP:POLEMIC. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think if we asked him right now, how many Trump supporters actually believe he is annointed by God, would he have the answer? And if that figure turns out to be extremely low, as I suspect, say maybe 5% of all who voted for him, do you suppose that might put him in a very awkward position? Because it seems to me he is not aiming this essay at such a small sub-group at all, why would anyone even bother? It was likely just a throwaway line with which to further denigrate those he holds in contempt. To know his true intent I'd prefer we heard from the man himself, but sadly he seems to want to say very little about this essay other than it is "a statement of my personal views, which can be verified elsewhere". Try as I might, I cannot verify his belief that supporting Trump disqualifies you from participating in Wikipedia. And he is in fact contradicting studies which show Wikipedia articles are better off when subjected to competing edits, such as left and right in politics. His statements are confused all round really. Is "the essay is to explain why I think that uncritical support for Trump is disqualifying for editing Wikipedia articles" really meant to imply that if you put some thought or reservation into your support of Trump, you're competent to edit? Because the essay certainly doesn't seem to be saying that at all. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not even reading your comments because I have absolutely no faith in your good intentions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, I am reading yours, and this response reflects poorly on your own competency. Your intentions were made abundantly clear when you gave two different accounts as to who this essay is supposedly aimed at, adjusted each time to benefit the case you were trying to make. Not being able to present a coherent argument to your peers, is also evidence of a lack of competence. If we assume no ill intent of course. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I read this and it made me laugh, so maybe I should have been reading your comments all along, just for entirely different reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * delete textbook case of polemic. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment (I already !voted earlier) And now he's gone and inserted more polemic. This is getting out of hand. Semi<b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 22:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All the stuff about people not being competent to edit if they disagree with JzG's opinion has to go, whether or not related to trump and regardless of where in his userspace his it is. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a statement of my personal views. What's the problem? Do you think people who believe the world is 6,000 years old are competent to edit articles on evolution? Really? Is there a problem with If you believe the government should do nothing to mitigate climate change, I will respectfully disagree? Guy (Help!) 22:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but it depends how they edit, the following, however, look like calling those who disagree with you on matters of opinion incompetent to edit:
 * "If you believe in abstinence-only sex education, you are objectively wrong and probably not competent to edit in that area"
 * "If you believe that the US constitution confers an absolute right for every person to own whatever guns they like, you are objectively wrong and probably not competent to edit in that area"
 * "If you believe that America is a Christian country and that Christianity is deserving of special privilege, you are objectively wrong and probably not competent to edit in that area"
 * "If you believe that Christianity is being oppressed in the United States then you are definitely not competent to edit in that area"
 * Tornado chaser (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's the basic lack of humility that gets me. On what basis do you claim to know how the Universe was created? Who are you to attribute mindless stupidity to those who think it was an act of whatever they perceive to be "God"? I guarantee you have no better answer. Expecting governments to do a better job of tackling climate change than literally anything else is the height of hubris, and betrays a total ignorance of just how poorly they have performed in that vital task so far. It goes without saying that all these statements carry the implicit bias that you are talking about about Western beliefs and systems of government. Oh to be so wise. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why did you create an account just to comment on this discussion? Also calling for him to be desysoped is going a little far. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I created an account because I find this essay offensive; I am calling for them to be removed as an Administrator because holders of that post are expected to to posses good judgement and not being Wikipedia into disrepute. There are basic flaws in his reasoning, which anyone with actual competency would have spotted. He has put Trump supporters on a par with racists and pedohpihiles, declaring they need to be blocked for what they believe, not what they do. To borrow an analogy with public service, he is entitled to hold that view as a private citizen, but not as an office holder. He cannot hope to command the trust and respect of anyone who does not wholeheartedly stand behind his personal manifesto of where the red lines are. And I don't think he cares that he could not, that is the whole point of this declaration of who his enemies are, who Wikipedia's enemies are. That is what makes him unfit. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I understand (and somewhat share) your concerns. But I feel you are not being entirely civil here, and you also appear to be a single-prupouse account. funplussmart (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as a statement of personal views which is not in the least in violation of POLEMIC. Those who believe that JzG should be desysopped are welcome to file a case request with Arbcom, but should be prepared for the derision such a request would rightfully receive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example or two of what would be POLEMIC violations? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you search MfD for "POLEMIC" you can find a large number of MfDs where someone has alleged a POLEMIC violation. I would say the majority are kept, that is, people are quick to overreach with POLEMIC allegation.  Polemical allegation of polemy.  Here is a SNOW deleted polemic.  Maybe we could have a quick temp undelete for study purposes?  Generally speaking, if the rant is related to the project, and does not malign or impinge individuals, it is OK.  JzG may be being a little harsh on Trump, but he is a special individual at this time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive) - it says "groups of editors" not only individuals. I'm not sure the MfD precedents follow the wording of the guideline. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedians who identify as Trump supporters are the individuals being maligned. As well as anyone else who this person has declared to be incompetent due to their beliefs. He cannot hide behind the excuse it is too time consuming for him to actually go out and draw up a register of the undesirables. They know who they are, and everybody else does too. And that I suppose is the entire poing of it all. Even a dog knows when it is being looked upon in disgust, so I'm sure the competency challenged people this targets will too. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with the precedents and history of WP:POLEMIC. This is definitely not a clear cut failure, but is arguably a partial violation with some parts being expressed with excessive force.
 * The "groups of editors" must be uniquely identifiable as a set to count. To violate POLEMIC, you may not necessarily name them, but if someone can objectively identify who you are talking about (eg "the top ten editors of the Donald Trump on social media article), then you have identified individuals.  Arguably, Donald Trump himself is or is not fair game.
 * "Wikipedians who identify as Trump supporters" would be borderline, but I do not read the userpage as personally critical of these people, for them I see lots of "respectfully disagree", which is good. Perhaps, AttackTheMoonNow, you could quote the some sentences you think violate POLEMIC?  "They know who they are, and everybody else does too" implies an acceptable level of identification of an opponent POV group, not sufficiently personal to violate POLEMIC, but if you think it is, please quote so that we can be specific.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not clear what your confusion is. It seems obvious how you would identify a Wikipedian who identified as a Trump supporters, or as someone who believes any of the other things he has taken aim at. You use their direct statements. Where is the difficulty? He obviously intends to malign many more than those who make their beliefs clear, and we will not be able to identify them. But there are identifiable targets here. Maybe less than before he declared them persona non grata, but that is rather the point of why doing so is considered bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, is it not? The rest of the world does not care if he clarifies he means Mike and Stu but not Joe, only whether Mike and Stu hold beliefs which mean they are worthy of banishment. It feels to me like you are trying to find a loophole. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC) — AttackTheMoonNow (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is definitely not a clear cut failure, but is arguably a partial violation with some parts being expressed with excessive force. So perhaps would consider softening the tone a little, then there would be nothing wrong with the page. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * AttackTheMoonNow & —DIYeditor. No loopholes, this is a feature of userspace: broad latitude is afforded to productive Wikipedians, and declarations of one's own COIs/POVs is exactly what belongs in pages like these, linked from the user's main userpage.  Is this declaration of POV a coverage for polemical advocation of strong views?  Yes.  Weigh the two against each other, and does it provide a reason for deletion?  I think "no".  Within limits, productive users are allowed userspace rants relating to their productive work for the project.  Would User:JzG soften the tone a little?  That would be a highly responsible thing to do.  I suggest someone should go to the page and highlight the more acutely offensive parts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Does this being Wikipedia into disrepute?' is the relevant test. Wikipedians may think differently, but to an outsider, this is way over the line, given they are an Administrator. Those who are not offended by it, either agree with it, or don't understand what is being conveyed. If he isn't capable of figuring out for himself what is wrong with it, he is not fit to sit in judgment over others, and absolutely cannot be trusted to keep his biases out of his decision making. He can hold whatever opinions he likes as a nobody. I think he is a homophobe for claiming opposition to gay marriage is a mere political opinion. He can disagree, but I refuse to be judged by someone who disagrees with something that is so easily shown to be true using his own essay, which purports to tell me I am not competent to edit Wikipedia for disagreeing with him. If he were responsible, he would have found his voice and defended himself against this charge, and the others I have laid. It seems to me he considers himself above having to do that, just as someone capable of writing an essay like this would be. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You claim to be an outsider? How did you find this discussion?  SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You really think something as offensive as this would not be the subject of discussion out there in the rest of the world? AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A user-sub-page linked only from the user's main userpage is a page that is only reasonably discoverable by Wikipedian editors. If there is a discussion in the outside world, it is because a Wikipedia has taken it there.  I think the level of offensiveness has been overstated, and do support asking JzG to tone some of it down.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is it hard to discover his user page? Isn't it linked from block logs, edit histories, talk pages, etc.? I think you are underestimating how often a editor's or admin's user page is going to be looked over by outsiders, many of whom will be curious about exactly this issue. This is definitely fodder for some conservatives to cry about bias. And does not seem to be responding to the invitation to soften the tone. I think in its current form the essay is just barely acceptable, if it is acceptable, and it would still, as you said, be responsible to soften it up a bit. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * —DIYeditor, it is easy for Wikipedians to find this usersubpage, but it is not easily found by readers from mainspace. I do estimate that non-editor readers almost never read edit histories or editor user subpages, is there evidence otherwise.  I like to read outside commentary on Wikipedia, and note that it is generally made by Wikipedia editors, not true outsiders. Agreed, JzG is not responding to individual !votes for him to soften the tone, but that is not required.  If enough of us participants here repeat the call for him to soften the tone, enough for the closer to repeat it in the close, then JzG will be required to respond to that.  If it is just you and me and the closer's closing statement ignores us, then JzG may ignore us too.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , your continued presence here is distracting from the goal of those who wish for this to be deleted. It is also undermining the argument that we have made. Please stop and move on to something else. Nihlus  20:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How am I undermining it? AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nihlus is advising the SPA DUCK to not answer questions? Why did User:Bbb23 delete the SPI? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A better question: why is everyone talking to ATMN? I suppose no one has heard of WP:DENY?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Another charming essay. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure exactly what you are implying. Nihlus  21:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am saying AttackTheMoonNow is a WP:DUCK, violating WP:SOCK by participating in this project space discussion. I challenge you on your advising him to not answer my question. I don’t approve of Bbb23 using CSD#G6 to delete the SPI page, and then telling me I should have somehow known to ignore the SOCK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm telling him to be quiet because he is distracting everyone from the goal of this MfD. I did not say for him to not answer your questions specifically, so do not lie and say that that is what I was doing. Thanks. Nihlus  21:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. JzG has written much truth in their userspace that's worth reading. Lots of food for thought, and many fringe editors would benefit from accepting its truths. Right now it's serving as a litmus test here, e.g. "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."
 * It's pretty obvious that those who see Trump as truthful, and see him in a positive light, are getting their opinions from unreliable sources. Editors who can't vet sources and know the difference between reliable and unreliable ones fail one of the most fundamental skills required of editors here. That is indeed a WP:CIR problem.
 * When an editor sees lies as truth, and unreliable sources are viewed favorably, then disruption is inevitable if they edit controversial and/or political subjects. Also their discussions on talk pages will often be disruptive. If they avoid controversial subjects, they can still do much good as wikignomes and subject experts. Otherwise, if they become controversial, topic bans may be necessary to spare the project from much wasted time and disruption. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you are arguing that someone who is incapable of a fundamental skill like vetting sources used in politics articles, is still capable of serving Wikipedia as a subject expert elsewhere? Explain this to me please, because I have advanced degrees in a subject Wikipedia handles poorly. But with an essay like this being endorsed, I am unlikely to feel my efforts would be appreciated if I made the mistake of revealing I do not agree with this author on some issue of another. So do you think his essay needs to be clarified, to perhaps add "in political articles"? Do you think it likely the author would agree to that change? If not, whose version of the truth are these supposed incompetents meant to believe, yours or his? Which of you feels more empowered to authorise me, someone who actually has a day job where ascertaining the truth is literally a matter of life and death, as a competent editor? I believe opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, the author does not. What makes him more competent than me? It would be one thing if he had restricted this essay to simply matters of faith versus science, or the pitfalls of populism, albeit it would still offend many. But he chose not to. It seems obvious why, and it is not because of any truth I am aware of. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m on the fence on this MfD. But, your 11 badgering edits, illogic, and misunderstanding of the function of an admin here are pushing me toward supporting this essay. We all know your opinion, no reason to tell us a 12th time. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to how one person's actions could influence your views of the acceptability of this essay, someone who is not the author that is. Are you sure this is what you meant to say? I feel I have to repeat myself since it appears nobody wants to address the substance of what I am saying, indeed many are actively saying I should be ignored. I am quite confident I understand what an Administrator does here, but if I have misunderstood, please clarify. Similarly, if my logic is flawed. I do not think everyone's problem with me is because I am wrong. Quite the reverse. The anger and embarrassment at being told what this essay really means from the perspective of an outsider, what it seems to say about Wikipedia's idea of good governance, seems real. I have been abused, smeared, ignored, laughed at and generally been treated like shit, all for daring to have an opinion that goes against this Administrator. Someone even had the cheek to suggest it is me who was being rude. So if it proves to be the case this essay gains acceptance by those who cast themselves as the gatekeepers of Wikipedia as a perfectly fine document, I will absolutely understand why. AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete this pathetic screed per WP:POLEMIC. - DoubleCross (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think JzG's point is being made pretty well in the above comments, particularly by the SPI that seems determined to de-sysop him (seriously)?--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the term of abuse is "SPA"? I don't know What SPI means, but there is a mighty big fuss about it going on up there. I assume the reason I can't understand this stuff is because I'm incompetent? AttackTheMoonNow (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're repeated bludgeoning of this discussion is not helpful. Stop it.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're a single purpose account (SPA), and your contributions here are working against your apparent goal. SPI means you are suspected of having other accounts. If you want to see JzG soften the phrasing of his essay I would strongly suggest not placing any more comments on this thread at all. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone who said this is JzG condemning "everyone who disagrees with him" needs to go back and re-read this essay in it's current state. I also strongly suggest the closer do so before weighing such !votes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I reread it just now and I stand by my vote, he is still calling anyone who "thinks trump is a good president" incompetent to edit, "thinks trump is a good president" is not the same thing as thinks trump is perfect or anointed by god. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're lying either about reading it or about what you read, because there is a clarification right there in the same sentence; "the kinds of people who believe he was anointed by God are, in my view, delusional and have no place here.". Either way, we're done. You have lost what faith I had in your judgement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I take this as meaning that anyone who thinks trump is a good president is probably incompetent to edit, and anyone who thinks trump was anointed by god is both delusional and incompetent to edit, if he means this differently JzG should word it differently. You are free to interpret JzG's statement differently, but I am acting in good faith, you can't just go calling everyone who sees this differently dishonest. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Have to say I more or less agree with Tornado chaser's interpretation. (I would say 'definitely incompetent' to emphasise the difference from 'probably incompetent' from the former.) When Guy added the additional comment it doesn't change the meaning of the original statement. The original statement is still there an unchanged and it says what it says which is that if you think Trump is a good president, you're "probably not competent to edit Wikipedia". The additional paragraph they've added also doesn't change the original statement. If they want to change the original statement, they can easily do so. If they don't want to change it, well unless consensus is achieved to remove it, that's up to them I guess but you can't blame people for interpreting a statement as it is written. BTW, I actually agree with nearly all of what is said there, although I'm far from convinced it's a good idea for us to allow it so this has nothing to do with any personal like of Trump, or many of his supporters. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a polemic essay (or screed as some prefer to term it), I have no doubt about that. However, it serves a useful function to know what position somebody holds. It tells me how a persons comments on a topic are coloured. From previous run-ins with Guy, I had already inferred their biases in politics1 and religion2 ironically, there's more that I agree with than disagree with in this essay. For example, if a Communist (I'm just avoiding the Nazi comparison here to avoid violating the rule) writes a long screed about how fantabulous Communism is, then I'll have something to point to when that person tries to erode away the principle of NPOV on articles about Communism. Same principle applies here. This is a giant "involved" declaration. If you want to read the essay, read it. If it offends you, be offended. It's mostly irrelevant. Finally, I appreciate that what is being attempted here is to uphold the rule against polemics, and not to arbitrarily censor somebody's opinion written in their space. The declarations of bad faith in response to that are bad faith themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge it violates policy against polemic essays, but don't care? Are you making a IAR argument? -Obsidi (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good grief. It is not (yet) illegal to say that Donald Trump is a bad president, nor is it a violation of WP:POLEMIC to have a declaration of one's politics on one's userpage. 28bytes (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't the core problem, the part about other editors not being competent to edit is far more important. -Obsidi (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Which text, specifically, do you believe he should not be allowed to say? 28bytes (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When this started it was just a single line (and was at the end): So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia But with the edits, I would add to that any of the parts that say people are not competent to edit due to their political beliefs are not appropriate. We ban people for WP:Competence_is_required, and as an admin he has the tools to do just that. No one on WP should be implying that people should get banned for their political beliefs, per WP:POLEMIC prohibits statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). -Obsidi (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You appear to be entirely missing the point. I go to great lengths that political beliefs are not disqualifying. What is disqualifying is placing politically motivated bullshit - climate change denial, for example - on a par with objective fact. You may feel the government should do nothing to mitigate climate change. That's a political belief, it's not disqualifying. But if you assert that climate change doesn't exist based on the political rhetoric of the denialist right, then you are indeed not competent to edit in that area, because you lack the ability to distinguish opinion from fact. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, if Trump is a "good President" or not is a political belief. I also think it is political belief to think abstinence-only sex education is appropriate, or that single-payer healthcare is "worse" than the US system, or that America is a Christian country, or the "fairness" of the U.S. justice system. I even agree with you on some of these political beliefs, but they are just that beliefs that no one should be attacked over on WP. -Obsidi (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "good President" definitely reads like an opinion. It is not phrased correctly because JzG doesn't establish explicitly that he is using "good President" to mean something other than what it normally means, which is that one approves of said president. Even the acknowledgement that Trump may have done some "good things" in the previous paragraph does not establish what to me is a non-standard use of "good President". Taking into account the new conclusion of that section I think this flaw is less of an issue because JzG makes it clear by his usage that one might support a bad President. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it is pretty cold out today. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * delete Much as I came here to say "keep" and as much as I agree with it, I really think it's a webhosty type of thing best suited to one's personal webs space. I do not agree that it meets POLEMIC or is a negative BLP. Just because some find something disagreeable or inconvenient or not an opinion they wanted to see does not make it negative BLP or POLEMIC. Sometimes it's spot on. -- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. JzG, many of those !voting "delete" are mostly objecting to the last sentence:
 * "If you can't admit he's dishonest, whether or not you support him, you are not competent to edit."
 * What's missing is the connecting step TWO which explains why such editors get from (1) abject and blind obeisance to Trump to (3) unfitness to edit political articles here. (NOTE: "political", not "all" articles.)
 * Step TWO is that to hold such views of Trump requires a lack of ability to vet sources for reliability and a constant intake of unreliable sources, especially Fox News (and for politics it is clearly partisan). Trump is waging a war on RS, and that does have an effect on how some editors view sources. That's undeniable.
 * It is THAT serious CIR problem which makes such editors unfit to edit our political articles. For those who create problems, I recommend a topic ban, not complete ban, at least at first. If they persist in disruption, then harsher measures come into play. We can't tolerate editors who constantly fight against RS and try to push unreliable information that's obviously coming from sources like Breitbart, InfoWars, Fox News, Daily Caller, Sputnik, RT, etc.
 * So, taking this step TWO into account, how about this version?:
 * "If you can't admit he's dishonest, you must be getting your information from unreliable sources and thus fail a fundamental skill required here, how to vet sources for reliability. That lack of competence, not just your political POV, makes you unfit to edit our political articles."
 * Would this version alleviate the objections of some? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) The line you are referring to was edited in after this discussion started, we were focusing on what was the last line So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia (2) People may not agree with WP as to what a reliable source is for their personal beliefs. And that should be OK as long as they recognize they shouldn't claim it is a RS for WP. (3) You think Fox News isn't a reliable source for WP? I would refer you to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. (4) Really your talking about bans already? I didn't think even JzG was saying he was going to ban people for who they support for President. -Obsidi (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The content of the essay is not nearly as troubling as the synopses that have been provided of it by some editors, doesn't really violate BLP, and provides a rationale for the position that JzG is going to adopt on a number of topics when he edits. I do concur a bit with (I think it was) Drmies, who opined that having such a page will likely cause JzG admin troubles in the future over accusations that he acts out of bias, but it seems to me it's more appropriate to deal with those if/when they arise, rather than fretting over them in the abstract. If such a page means JzG can't be neutral as an admin, then we'll see it, but right now it's all predicated on hypotheticals. Grandpallama (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you, like above, may be focusing on the current version which was introduced while this discussion was ongoing, rather than the original version that we were describing above and its "last line", which said if you believe he is a "good president" you are probably unfit to edit. That objectionable line is still present (last I looked) in its original phrasing. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ensuring clarity, but my comments were intended about the original version, though they apply equally to the introduced version (if not more so). Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough then. I think it's unfortunate, even if I agree with most of JzG's conclusions, that he is presenting some views as if his is the only possible logical conclusion when other people will definitely not see it that way. I think if he had similarly strong right-leaning opinions (that did not make any false claims) there would be more "delete" !votes here. Whether this page stays up is not important to me, only that there is a consistent application of these precedents. And before anyone says "false equivalency" I would like to offer "false dichotomy". Like let's say someone wants to rant about the fallacies and failures of the left and its leaders in a similarly strong way - if they are not making factually false claims it should be allowed just like this. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a legitimate concern, but I also want to see problems with JzG acting in an impartial manner, or editing in a way that violates policy, rather than simply freaking out that he has explicitly expressed his left-leaning bias. I do agree you'd see more "delete" votes if this was a right-wing stance, but my personal take would be much the same--if the page didn't violate BLP and explained how/why the editor approached things the way they did, I'd argue it should stay; in fact, to the chagrin of a few people I respect, I just made a similar argument about self-described men's rights activists at ANI. If JzG edits in a problematic way, this page will come back to haunt him, especially if he doesn't recuse himself as an admin from cases that could be seen to be affected by the views expressed on this page. I don't inherently see a problem with JzG having views that suggest his opinion "is the only possible logical conclusion" unless/until he edits tendentiously in a way that promotes that philosophy, and I'd rather we act on actual instances of him displaying an inability to edit without bias rather than trying to head off those theoreticals by requiring him to delete a page that won't affect his underlying beliefs, anyway. Grandpallama (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current revision of the page, I think it is totally fine. It invites people to accuse him of being biased but that is his concern. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * After seeing what Alanscottwalker and Mangoe had to say I realized I was ignorant of how WP:SOAP seems to apply here. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. it gives rise to reasonable suspicions that that JzG will edit in a partisan manner. A person may believe that T is a good president overall, and still be able to edit many topics. Political lack of judgment does not equal lack of judgment in everything.  DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (although, perhaps someone should have approached the author directly first to appeal for redaction/deletion). Whatever the intent, it violates the NOTSOAP prong of WP:UPNOT, and is either casting aspersions on Wikipedia editors, or is a WP:ATTACK on people who are not Wikipedia editors, and it also violates WP:POLEMIC. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker, see this thread since removed.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I still make personal appeal to the author that whatever the outcome, here, please blank it out of prudence (see, WP:ADMINCOND). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * BLOODY OBVIOUS DELETE per WP:NOTADVOCACY. Sure, Trump is loathsome and compromised and so forth. So publish your screed to this effect somewhere else. Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Violating WP:NOTWEBHOST was my impression at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Farcaster (a comparable example I think) but WP:NOTADVOCACY makes more sense here. I think we need a uniform rule on whether this type of page is allowable. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * we actually have an policy for this type of page, WP:POLEMIC for pages that have "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". User:JzG/Politics is very divisive and has not the remotest relation to Wikipedia editing. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 22:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - vio of WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and to some extent of NOTWEBHOST. If JzG dislikes Donald Trump, he can start a blog. Ironically, I read the content a couple weeks ago on his user page and thought of asking him to tone it down in his talk page but I constantly pushed it back because of the drama it would create. I can't see the remotest use of this page for anything on Wikipedia. One could even argue it violates BLP with statements like "As a matter of fact, he is a bad and uniquely divisive president" and "Trump has probably never checked a fact" (he obviously did, you can't build a skyscraper on New York if you can't) or just plain nonsense like "it's about Trump, but it's not about Trump". <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 18:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, per clear violation of WP:ATTACK which is policy, and thus quite likely violates WP:BLP too. Also, it violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:POLEMIC. Not only is it an overly emotional and rambling attack on Donald Trump - who is supported by up to 43 percent of the USA population and thus a substantial minority of Wikipedia editors - but the page clearly attacks Wikipedia editors beliefs about not only Trump but other minority and fringe viewpoints. Yes we have problems with fringe editors but the way is to point them to our policies and guidelines not to build attack pages to belittle them and assert the WP:TRUTH according to JzG. My take, as a UK editor observing from afar, is that many USA people (and thus many Wiki editors) think Trump can behave in ways that disappoint them but they, for example, agree with his approach to the USA economy and North Korea and thus support him, they don’t need their intellect insulted and made to feel unwelcome by JzG because they voted for him. This page serves to suggest JzG cannot approach political articles, and perhaps articles in general, with a neutral point of view and that JzG is antagonistic to people with a different political view than himself. In other words, it does JzG no favours, nor does it do any favours for Wikipedia. It appears that JzG feels a strong compulsion to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the election of Donald Trump and to use Wikipedia to do ‘his bit’ to turn voters against him and sway voters, which is not what Wikipedia is about. We are an Encyclopedia!-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  23:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've read the current version of the essay, and I'm finding it to fall short of WP:BLP or WP:POLEMIC violations. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim. Reduce this to content such as "I believe Trump is a massive problem for these reasons" and cut out the opinions about other editors.  You're free to put your own political opinions in userspace (especially if you're an established user, so we know you're not here primarily to advocate for them), especially in a subpage that won't be found if I just click the "Guy" link in your signature.  But when you start stating that so-and-so cannot properly edit a topic based on political opinions (whether you've specified individual editors or classes of editors), you're going too far.  Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.