Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PeterMarkSmith


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 per withdraw from nominator and unanimous keeps. This is a non-admin close. Greeves (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:PeterMarkSmith
Violates WP:USERPAGE (namely the prohibition against polemical statements and soapboxing). Is clearly an example of disruptive editing. -- Merope 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC) ::Addendum: after a request for specific issues, I am copying and pasting what I added to the user's talk page.) ::My specific complaints are thus: 1) Userpages are not to be used for polemical statements--that includes making personal attacks (and there are those who would construe your characterization of administrators to be a personal attack, though you do not name names on that page)--and "using your userpage to campaign for or against anything" is also verboten. 2) Your very posting this here demonstrates a lack of civility. Your editing the userpages of editors who disagree with you to call them "wikinazis" shows that you are willing to act upon your beliefs stated, which demonstrates your committment to disruptive editing. While you may have made positive contributions in the past (I don't know; I haven't checked your full contribution history), it's clear that you want to stir up trouble by posting this. And that is what I object to. -- Merope 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I withdraw the nomination--the editor has since changed the content and it no longer violates WP:USERPAGE. -- Merope 13:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a user page (mine) with some thoughts on Wikipedia... lighten up! --PeterMarkSmith 03:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed references I think may be upsetting editors and admins. Unfortunately no specific issues were listed in the MFD. --PeterMarkSmith 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it's just a few opinions on Wikipedia. There is no problem with the page now. Koweja 04:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it's perfectly appropriate and extremely common to comment on wikipedia on your userpage. Derex 08:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (referring to this revision, since it seems to be in a state of flux) moderate criticism of Wikipedia is par for the course. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep current version is fine. - Denny 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, current version isn't that bad, the old version was not entirely out of line either. I suggest that the user a) would expand this to further criticism, and b) goes to WP:DRV to complain about the deletion of wikinazi and see what the non-wikinazis think. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Without excusing past incivilities, I think PeterMarkSmith's current user page is within the leeway that is normally allowed for such things. I think User:Merope's quote from Jimbo should be read in the context it was cited from, where the main issue was possible libel of living persons through the use of unsourced information. The term 'wikinazi' does not appear on Peter's user page at present, and I hope it does not return. EdJohnston 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep I may not agree with all the statements, but I think that categorizing this as a 'personal attack' would set dangerous precident. Saying "Joe public is a moron" is an attack, saying "there exist morons" is not.  In the same way saying "joe administrator abuses his power" is an attack, saying that, "in my opinion wikipedia administrators have too much power" is not.  We're allowed to have opinions about the project, even negative ones.  I reject the idea of whitewashing strong, but relevant, opinions. Wintermut3 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't agree with what the user has to say, but yes, it's a very bad precedent to delete something just because the user is giving his opinion. If it attacked specific users, that'd be another story. But it isn't. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:49, 16 March 2007 (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.