Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ronewirl (2nd nomination)

 __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The result of the discussion was  Withdrawn   S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronewirl
Apparently previously deleted essay on personal beliefs in a person's userspace.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  02:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a short statement of the user's personal opinions which is not inappropriate on a userpage. The version that was deleted last year was longer and had different content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi. Years ago when I began editing here, the rules were once upon a time long ago, we were permitted to write anything on our own userpage since we were barred from opinionated statements made in Wikipedia articles. So, the second nomination is interpreted a personal vendetta? I do not believe the reasoning is Christian based - since Wikipedia has an extensive data bank of articles on Christianity, Jesus Christ the Messiah and His 12 Apostles and all the articles written on Catholic Saints and so on....I think the nomination is a personal attack.  Sven Manguard is obviously an alias. Ronewirl (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A few things of note. First, as I am not an administrator, I cannot see the previous version. I suppose I will have to trust Metropolitan90 in that the previous version was worse. Second, this was not a personal attack. I nominated this because I saw it as a recreation of deleted material, and as soapboxing. Three, I really would rather not deal with this any further. Religion tends to make people too emotional to think and act rationally. I have little patience for dealing with irrational people, and find interactions of that kind unpleasant. As such, I have asked for Ronewirl to discontinue posting on my talk page, and would kindly request that she stop throwing out unsubstantiated accusations.  If an uninvolved administrator checks the two versions and deems that this is not a recreation of deleted material, and is not a violation of the soapboxing guidelines, and makes a statement to that effect here, they may close the MfD with my implicit withdraw of the submission. Superseded by "Second Update" As I have already stated on my talk page, this isn't a vendetta and I could really care less what anyone believes. I'd prefer if this whole thing just ended quietly without any further exchanges between Ronewirl and myself.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Update Just got off of a chat with an admin via IRC, where he assured me that the current version is not the same as the deleted version. That being said, the soapboxing issue has not been addressed, so I won't withdraw this. This doesn't mean that I won't withdraw this, only that I won't do so now.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Second Update This has gotten very ugly very fast, and I have seen, both here, and on Ronewirl's page, statements that are unsigned, including one statement on Ronewirl's page that is placed in a manner that would indicate that I said it, and is not attibuted to anyone in particular. I have, and my edit summary will back this, signed all of my statements here and to Ronewirl. I also, other than this posting, have not been in communication with anyone on this matter for the past 18 or so hours. I have, as I said I would, distanced myself from this ever devolving mess. That being said, since words appear to be being placed in my mouth, I would like to ask that people attribute comments that they have cut/pasted, and sign all of their posts. Also, for the record, since there is not a clear consensus on this issue at this time, I will not be withdrawing this MfD, it must now run it's full seven day course. Thank you,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "gotten very ugly" part. See this post by Ronewirl on my talk page.In response to that, I'd point out that I never commented on their talk page. Plus, I never really mentioned the use of social networking sites on this MfD. I don't really see how this has any relevance with "sharing knowledge" since the subject of this discussion is a user page about a user's belief, not an article. Also, I have no idea how they get the idea that I'm a BOT. NotARealWord (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note -- I didn't describe the previous version of this page as "worse" (or "better"). I just said it was longer and different from the current version. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a very weird page, and I can't help but feel it is done with the interest of advocating a religious stance rather than simple identifying one's self. Doctrinal statements of faith serves no real purpose and are completely unrelated to building an encyclopedia, we're not myspace and we're certainly not the place to preach about religion. That said, I would rather see the user page changed into something more appropriated than deleted, as deletion sends a message I'm not enclined to endorse. although I can't say I'd shed a tear if this page would end up deleted. I would suggest to Ronewirl to take a look at other other Christians' userpage for inspiration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you are one of the more serious editors here in Wikipedia. Good to see that you are not an ammature.  BTW:  the socialite wannabe's are now using Facebook.  Ronewirl does not have a Facebook account.  So that in itself should also reveal more about the person behind Ronewirl - in addition to Ronewirl's Wikipedia userpage - an American born-again Christian; which by the way, is not the same as being just a Christian.  There is a distinct difference. Sadly, there are editors here who would rather not see that information being divulged here or anywhere for that matter since it is offensive to them.  Cheers.  Ronewirl (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd be happier if we eliminated all such pages from user space, but this is not the worst I have seen. I did check, and it is substantially different from the previous version.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto Headbomb above. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the person requesting deletion is who I think it is, ... rest assure, this individual does not believe you and other editors here in Wikipedia are qualified enough to write about religion or any other types of belief systems. You and the others (whether atheist or not) are being suckered into this person's own belief system.  Take heed.  Don't say you were not warned ahead of time.  Ronewirl (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to arbitrate to set this issue right. Ronewirl (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is the last step in a long dispute resolution process, and this is no where near as ugly or large or dangerous or complicated enough a case for ArbCom to take. Perhaps if this becomes an issue in the future, the first step would be the Admin Noticeboard (AN, not AN/I). Even then, we are likely not at that point yet.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're violating my rights here as an editor. I think we've reached that point.  Ronewirl (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say. I have better things to do than argue with you about this. Clearly this has devolved into a mess, so I'll take my leave from it now. Another user can get me if I'm needed.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete clear WP:SOAPBOX...unless being the soulless gay atheist I am, my opinion on religious matters don't count. The user just saying "I am an American born-again Christian" is enough to describe him/her without trying to convert people to believe this user's opinion on religious matters. C T J F 8 3  chat 06:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I have asked for arbitration.  Keep in mind, this could potentially impact other belief systems written about here in Wikipedia including Atheism.  If you would recall, it took a lot less to remove prayer in public schools that received U.S. tax dollars for funding.  Ronewirl (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ronewirl, I'm having a hard time actually understanding what you're trying to tell us here. You do sound kinda preachy. especially you're comment saying "You and the others (whether atheist or not) are being suckered into this person's own belief system. Take heed. Don't say you were not warned ahead of time". Also, accusing something of being a personal attack isn't very nice, people are supposed to Assume good faith. And I don't see the relevance of "Sven Manguard is obviously an alias". It's not like people expect editor's to give their real names. NotARealWord (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a social network like Facebook. If Sven was attempting to connect with Ronewirl, .... this is not the place.  Ronewirl does not have a Facebook account and wishes to keep it that way. --unsigned comment by Ronewirl; Revision as of 17:37, 20 December 2010
 * I am unsure where this came from or who said it, as it is unsigned, but Signed it for the poster. I do not want to, nor did I ever, want to connect with this person. Indeed, after the mess that has transpired, I would be all too happy to never have any contact with her in any form ever again.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree, page is substantially different from the prior page. That one was much longer and had active proselytizing. This one is merely a short statement of the user's beliefs, which editors are free to consider or ignore as they wish. I think its pushing the definition to call this a soapbox. Frankly, the user could probably say all this in user boxes and no one would blink an eye. Having said that, the user's escalation and responses here aren't really helping. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. perhaps very strong choice of words.  Under my alias "Ronewirl", I've always been very frank and honest with my edits.  I don't sugar coat anything; and don't intend to start now.  I am sorry if my words are offensive to some readers.  Just trying to get my point across.  Cheers.  Ronewirl (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep user page. In general, I don't see how a few sentences about a user's religious views on their own page are against WP userspace policies. I don't really think this one paragraph on a user page amounts to problematic soapboxing here. --KFP (contact | edits) 19:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was the person who nominated the previous version for deletion, and this is much more contained than that version. The content doesn't make any sense to me, but I don't see a problem with a user expressing their beliefs to that extent on their User page. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, not really attacking anyone or any set of beliefs, merely proclaiming this users. (Disclaimer, I'm an atheist.) f o x  10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no idea why anyone would be bothered by someone's statements of personal beliefs on their userpage. While there is plenty of room to disagree with the content from atheists and believers in other faiths and creeds, I see no reason to waste our time trying to delete userpage content like this. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn After seeing what is alleged to be the original version (linked to on Ronewirl's page) the difference between the two versions is clear. For the record, I still believe that Ronewirl's userpage needs to be changed, and I still believe that it is soapboxing, however the consensus here is that while it might not be in the best of form, it isn't against policy. More than anything else, I'd like to get this over with, and I will state, publicly and for the record, that I never want to hear from or about Ronewirl again. Even if her userpage is deemed acceptable, her openly hostile attitude towards me, complete with unsubstantiated accusations and requests for arbitration, has lead me to believe that any positive or constructive interactions with this user in the future will be all but impossible. Also for the record, I am going to reiterate that I a) have no issues with Christians, b) have not made personal attacks against her, and c) initiated this MfD on the basis of seeing it as the recreation of deleted material. This whole thing thoroughly disgusts me and I am all too glad to be rid of it.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:04, 23 December 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.