Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LTSally




 * 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. @harej 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:LTSally
This was to request that the LTSally page be deleted from the Wikipedia website. I had posted notice about a week ago, that I might request that the page be deleted. I hope that I am following the correct procedure here. LTSally deleted the notices from his talk page twice. If anyone didn't see it, that is why. I had asked him kindly to please take off the quasi-hate speech, in my thoughts, actual hate speech, from his page. I feel that the LTSally page violates a number of Wikipedia guidelines. I will post the specific violations shortly:

1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (to air personal grievances). 2. It is not a place of recruitment (or anti-recruitment propaganda). 3. It is not a place to air one's "pet point of view". 4. Writing should not attack the reputation of living persons (LTSally's Jehovah's Witness congregation where his "publisher record card" is located, or to call the persons in his congregation names, which damage their reputation, even though they are not specifically named. It is also not a place to hurl accusations against Jehovah's Witnesses. He is editing an article on Jehovah's Witnesses, it is incongruent to have strong adjectives such as "But such is the power — an intrusive, insidious, malevolent power — of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." and many similar comments. This damages the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses, is untrue and might be construed as slanderous.

So for those reasons, I feel that the majority of this page falls under the 4 points mentioned above, and is not in harmony with Wikipedia's policy or purposes, and needs to be removed. If LTSally wants to have his own blog or website and air those type of views, it is still borderline slander against the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, in my opinion, perhaps not in the legal definition of the word, but in the dictionary definition, but that is his perogative. --Natural (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rewrite I agree that the userpage sounds Soapboxish, it also encourages conflict of interest squabbles as currently happening between these users. I do have a quasi_pro stance myself, hoever in the interest of peace and policy I would urge a rewrite with far less attacking detail. Short of that it is technically a userpage that should be deleted. I believe that this is a type of situation where a userpage change may not solve all the issues either. You have 2 conflicting views, similar to Catholicism and Protestantism. I would urge great care on both editors behalf to accommodate both opinions as long as it is within policy as both clearly have COI's in this area. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: LT has taken out osme of the more inflammatory statements on his userpage. It now reads as a fairly presented dispute of opinions. As such I will change my opinion on this issue to keep. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Keep, cautiously - Presenting your reasons for editing at Wikipedia is fine, but some statements on the page just don't belong. For example, "I'm no expert on mind control techniques, but it sounds like the Witnesses employ a whole system of them. Close off access to outside criticism. Quash curiosity. Punish internal criticism. Establish an emotional dependence...." I understand that the intent is to help other editors understand LTSally's motives for editing, but as it stands it will only cause feelings of antagonism in pro-JW editors. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment is very valid. The editing page needs a certain amount of trust and cohesion, rather than these type of statements which can undermine that. --Natural (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote to keep cautiously, per the ideas stated below about the userpage as an essay on editing Wikipedia, which, after scanning the page again, I have to agree with. Still, if I were LTSally, I would be more cautious of how much personal opinion and statements against the Jehovah's Witnesses included on my userpage. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 05:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite. As previously indicated here, parts of the page are soapboxish, but the import of the page is valid.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The guidelines at WP:UP allows users to provide "information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes". The information there is also "a way of helping other editors to understand those with whom they are working." I have used my user page to explain the reasons why I am striving to ensure that pages related to Jehovah's Witnesses contain accurate information that the religion's own publications withhold. Wikipedia is a valuable resource for sharing accurate, reliable information and on my user page I have highlighted the contrasts between the two organizations. The page contains no personal attacks on any individuals. WP:UP suggests a user page not contain polemic vilifying groups, but this policy refers to statements "unrelated to Wikipedia". My statements of opinion about the religion are directly related to Wikipedia. In short, my comments about the religion are entirely related to explaining my motivation for editing JW articles and plainly state my point of view so no one is left to speculate on my stand. The complaint that it is incongruent to express my opinions is therefore invalid. The guidelines expressly allow me to explain why I think the way I do. LTSally (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we are reading the same policy. If you read the complete policy....You can find # Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was quoting this, among the list of items of "unrelated content" you may not have on WP talk pages: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive." My point is that my comments about Jehovah's Witnesses on the user page are related to Wikipedia. LTSally (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also WP:COATRACK. Like I told you the other day, I understand a great deal of what you are saying as I've been in the lifestyle. However most people only know rumors, I think it detracts from your ocntributions there. I also think it hurts Natural too though. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: WP:COATRACK applies to WP articles. This discussion is about content on my user page that explains why I am here. And I don't see that "It hurts Natural" is a valid reason for deleting the content. The page is not an attack on him. If I chose to add some strongly worded comments that I disbelieved global warming, would I then need to remove them for fear of upsetting people who do believe it? LTSally (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are using the userpage as a soapbox to air your grievances, in this way you are violating coatrack. In my reference to Natural, his arguements are reduced because of his staunchly pro-JW stance.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition you seem to make Wikipedia your own private mission. I've reviewed your contribes and you never edit any other articles except Jehovah Witness articles. What else would it be but coatrack? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like LTSally would do well to broaden his interests. Some of WP:COI might offer helpful advice.  I suspect that the userpage tells us more about LTSally than it hurts anybody, and so should be kept.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's an SPA actually, but do you want to mark your comment as a "keep" vote? LTSally (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As an SPA, you should strive to keep well clear of the boundaries. I think your essay is OK, and yes keep but you would do well to be careful to not seem to soapbox.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As this is MfD, arguments relating to essays (not even policies nor guidelines) which apply at most to mainspace are not to be considered. What is left is two questions - does the page harm WP or attack people against WP policies and guidelines?   To the first, I see no harm to the project by such a page.  As to the second, I do not feel it amounts to an "attack page" as reasonably foreseen by editors.  I do not see the edits by the editor as being noteworthy as any sort of "attack" so I rather fear this is an extension of a content dispute which should not be furthered in MfD in any event.  Where there is a content dispute, it is better to discuss at the articles involved instead of trying to delete userspace material, as a rule. Collect (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and don't rewrite anything unless you want to. It's an essay about editing wikipedia, and the editor's potential biases in their area of interest.  Gigs (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you saw the previous edition of his userpage. He has rewritten since this thread was started. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell in a bucket is correct. Since this thread began I have removed some material that clearly offended some people. LTSally (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks LT. I really do appreciate you meeting us in the middle! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not suggesting to revert to the old more inflammatory version (which I hadn't noticed). The current version is what I was commenting on. Gigs (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yeah, it's soapboxing but soapboxing on Wikipedia-related topics. As Wikipedia-related essay it is allowable in user-space. I have waded through the current version (I did not check the previous versions that, according to the above discussion contained more inflammatory language) and, while confrontational, the essay seems to be within bounds of acceptability. Nsk92 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (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.