Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Martinphi/WEIGHT changes


 * 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 debate was Keep.  Syn  ergy 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Martinphi/WEIGHT changes
This is a userspace fork by Martinphi of a set of changes that have been rejected at WP:NPOV; Martinphi is under ArbCom sanction for using Wikipedia as a soapbox (Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist), and a good part of that soapboxing is his self-admitted aim to resist "debunkery", which is his term for the mainstream scientific POV in respect of pseudoscientific and fringe subjects such as parapsychology. Martinphi is keen to change WP:UNDUE because he keeps being knocked back for violating it, but I don't see that happening as it would undermine the entire concept of WP:UNDUE as outlined by Jimbo. This fork is a hopeless crusade and needs to go. The changes have already been debated and rejected, so there is no purpose to be served by keeping them here other than to allow Martinphi to continue to believe that one day if he continues his usual technique of relentless civil POV-pushing, it will make it into policy and finally allow him to write the mainstream POV out of the fringe and pseudoscience articles. I don't think that it's fair to Martin to give him that false hope and I don't think it's appropriate to give the small number of fellow-travellers a rallying point for their campaign to roll back WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. No thanks.  I want to keep this userspace page. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 12:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems unnecessarily intrusive. Where's the harm? Having bad thoughts contrary to the majority view? Oh, I see:  I don't think that it's fair to Martin to give him that false hope... JzG wants to save poor Martin from the disappointment of a hope he (apparently) also mean to dash. Very kind of you. Yet JzG's kindness for Martin's feelings doesn't seem to extend to other areas -- like this MfD, for example, which he has turned into a BfD for no good reason. Why didn't he take his kindness one step further, and leave this little sandbox alone. --nemonoman (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So is that a keep vote? (-; —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yes:--nemonoman (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The findings of fact do not appear relevant to this MfD.  This page appears to be a study of wikipedia policy.  I don't see what it is a fork of.  Even if everyone else thinks this study/ambition of policy is hopeless, it should be welcomed as a UserEssay as a matter of principle.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Clarify. Guy seems to be misinformed. NPOV is preparing for an RFC on changes that have been made and could be made to the policy article. This is obviously a comparison of edits on NPOV past and recent. Since I have been copy editing there I am familiar with the environment over there. I am not sure what Martin intends to do with this, whether a personal compilation for his personal use or to open it up to the NPOV editors. It is however valuable to a least one editor who will, I would imagine be involved in the RFC and may be useful to others as well. Seeing this as a user space fork seems far fetched. This shouldn't be touched. Please note changes at NPOV should be characterized as being under discussion rather than rejected, thus the RFC.(olive (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Keep Does not violate WP:USER, especially the line your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed. There may have been disruption at WP:NPOV lately (I have not checked), but this page is not itself disruptive. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as Martinphi is free to discuss changes in his user space. Now if he were doing this on talk page of an article/policy he was restricted on, that'd be a different issue. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a userspace page being used to work on drafts of policy. I'm not aware of any reason to delete it.  Consensus on policy does not mean sweeping minority viewpoints on policy under the rug. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If it needs to go, the proper avenue is to convince Martin that it needs to go, not put it through a process. Especially not a process it has no chance of succeeding. We need to talk, not process our way in and out of things.--Tznkai (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Does not violate WP:USER. He seems to be working out his thoughts in a logical, non disparaging way. It seems a hopeless crusade, but it is contained within the proper Wikipedia space and is related to the encyclopedia. Blocking one of Martinphi's last few creative outlets in Wikipedia may eventually amount to a defacto block of him, which may overlap blocking process and deletion process. Suntag (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per nemonoman, SmokeyJoe, olive, Eldereft, Rlevse, Coppertwig. Also, regarding the nominator's comment that "The changes have already been debated and rejected," - that is an inaccurate description of the discussion at WT:NPOV. The debate was and still is incomplete and inconclusive, other than the general agreement that to change the policy, or to re-confirm that it will not be changed, a wider community consensus is needed; and that one of the ways that could be determined is with a policy RFC.  Preparing for a major RFC is a complex process and user-space draft pages are completely appropriate for that use. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2008 (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.