Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WCityMike


 * 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. Xoloz 15:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:WCityMike
On August 2, 2006, WCityMike added a link to a disruptive anti-Wikipedia diatribe on his personal website that contains numerous personal attacks on Wikipedia contributors, both individually and collectively. I suggest that the revision of User:WCityMike from 18:28, 2 August 2006 along with any subsequent revisions of this page which contain this link be deleted to expunge this link from the user page and from the page history. John254 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Per User page, "If the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. &hellip; Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it." and "In excessive cases, your user subpage may be deleted, following a listing on Miscellany for deletion, subject to deletion policy." This does not seem to be an excessive case. KWH 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, he has a right to leave and express his reasons for doing so, and his article doesn't seem to be so damning/full of personal attacks as you make it out to be. -- nae'blis 18:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh, come now. The linked rant may be forceful but it is not personal. The policy states that "excessive" cases may be dealt with here, and I don't see how this meets that standard. --Dhartung | Talk 19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, for a good while at least. This user was a significant contributor for quite some time.  Reading his statement as to why he left may be helpful to other editors.  He even directs readers to the appropriate edit history so that they may form their own opinion.  Furthermore, it is not clear to me that anyone is personally under attack here. -MrFizyx 20:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Ashi b aka tock 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jimbo, who claims that criticism can be useful. Mike makes some good points, which deserve to be heard, even if you disagree.  &middot; rodii &middot;  18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Constructive OK, after reading it three more times, it's not exactly constructive. Criticism is always good, and some of it is quite constructive .  I don't think that this link qualifies as an "excessive case", either, and I'm not sure that I see any personal attacks.  Srose   (talk)  18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is constructive, he's pointing out what he considers a major flaw in the system and explaining what's wrong. Ashi b aka tock 21:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the best things about it is that he took a look at himself and concluded that a big part of his motivation for being here was basically power. I think that's a good thing for people to think about.  &middot; rodii &middot;  23:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Generally, I don't feel this kind of expression should be censored by us. I also agree with   rodii   – the article presents some self-reflection that could be helpful to a wannabe admin. The guy clearly has some personal issues, but also some semi-valid points. --Satori Son 02:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above.-- Andeh 08:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep "Disruptive anti-Wikipedia diatribe"? Ridiculous. Mexcellent 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I've had previous occasion to criticise this (former?) editor, I won't state a preference for the disposition of his seemingly defunct userpage. However, I should clarify some history: in an apparent huff, WCityMike asked that his user-page and talk page be deleted and attempted to place a self-enforced javascript block "(Forever lock me out of this account. :))"; but a week later returned to add a link to his provocative essay against Wikipedia. This appears to be a case of sour grapes and an attempt to stir up reaction from the community. Those who do not see the incivility in his blog entry perhaps aren't reading closely enough. (Personal attack removed) In all, I'm glad to find out this user's real opinion of Wikipedia and its participants, but wonder if even as a link, it's not really appropriate. It certainly wouldn't be kept if posted on a userpage.-- LeflymanTalk 09:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed much of your comment per WP:RPA as it seems to be a campaign against the person and their past actions, and not topical to the User: page, but I have retained the crux of your opinion. Also there is no need to reproduce the off-wiki claims on-wiki. I would note that neither the users prior fulfilled request for deletion, nor their unofficial request to be "locked out" of the account denote some sort of ironclad bar against them returning to Wikipedia. The addition of the link can be viewed as WCMike responding to people who might have wondered why he left, and that he was in accord with User page by linking to content which he recognized was inappropriate on-wiki. (See my 'Keep' comment above) KWH 15:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Editing other editor's comments is considered extremely bad form, especially during a deletion discussion, and particularly given your subjective explanation "seems to be a campaign". Please take note that RPA is a highly disputed guideline (as clearly stated at the top of WP:RPA); pay particular attention to the section following When not to refactor: "If you change another person's words and then "respond" to them, it's likely to look like you're deliberately setting them up to look bad, or belittling them.". This MfD is about the content of the off-wiki entry being linked on a userpage; quotes from its contents are factual, relevant and material to the discussion. Please revert your removal of my comments.-- LeflymanTalk 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I stand by it, and encourage you to bring it up for review to anyone you see fit. My removal and reply bears no resemblance to what you suggest it is. KWH 22:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment -- A diatribe so filled with personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors that quotations from its contents must be removed as personal attacks is not the sort of material that should be linked to on a user page. Additionally, the user page guideline's suggestion of the acceptability of linking to material that wouldn't be acceptable if posted on user pages directly refers to material that is unacceptable on user pages merely because it is irrelevant to Wikipedia.  Where the material is relevant to Wikipedia, and is actively disruptive, it shouldn't be linked. John254 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not seeing the "active disruption."  &middot; rodii &middot;  23:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not either. Where exactly is the active disruption taking place? Mexcellent 00:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Come on, his "disruptive anti-Wikipedia diatribe" is only a long, meandering whine about losing an RfA, along with boilerplate Wikipedia-bashing borrowed from other critics. This tepid, tedious stuff (who cares about some dinky primary in Chicago?) couldn't disrupt a church picnic, much less Wikipedia. Casey Abell 03:41, 19 August 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.