Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pitchka/Freemasonry Page


 * 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 Delete per WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Pitchka/Freemasonry Page
This is a similar page to User:Dwain/Freemasonry Page also up for deletion below. It is in violation of User page (Polemical statements, Other non-encyclopedic material) and Jimbo Wales' statement. It seems to be bordering on an attack on freemasons. James086Talk 13:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - are User:Dwain and User:Pitchka the same person? I've just noticed their userpages are identical, in addition to the near identical (at least as far as percived intent goes) pages on Freemasonry in their userspace. WegianWarrior 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, they are.--Vidkun 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - as per above. Much of the information included there would be acceptable in wikipedia, and is in many cases verifiable. But creating a page for the specific purpose of insulting a group of editors is a clear violation of wikipedia guidelines. Badbilltucker 14:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page would be acceptable were it a research scratchpad (and it still could be), but this section could easily be construed as a personal attack. I would consider changing my vote if Pitchka removed that section and commented prior to the end of discussion. A Train take the 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MSJapan 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. User is free to rent some webspace for this material.ALR 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per No personal attacks, on the assumption that Mason-bashing constitutes personal attacks. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly a campaign against freemasonry. Compaigns against people, organizations or believes are forbidden by the policy the nominator cited. - Mgm|(talk) 08:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NPA, sorry we don't want attacks here on Wikipedia. You are violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Dwain and Pitchka person (same person), sounds fishy. If no checkuser case is filed yet, I suggest filing one will solve the matter. Ter e nce Ong 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe they have flat out admitted it's two accounts, one is the primary one, the other had a name that was misconstrued as being a offensive word in a language other than english, so, it's not really a disruptive sock, except for the person attacvk and uncivility issues.--Vidkun 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Vidkun 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete hardly see how this pertains to what is allowed for a user subpage and agree that it does constitute personal attacks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an attack page. Koweja 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As an attack page on a current organization, and also as an abuse of user space. Has anyone considered warning the user politely that attacks on organizations (especially without sourcing or if I understand correctly outside the context of a balanced NPOV article) are forbidden? Wintermut3 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - what are we doing here? Attack pages are explicitly forbidden by some of the core Wikipedia policies, so I have nominated the page for speedy deletion. Yuser31415 01:47, 17 December 2006 (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.