Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wer900/There is a cabal

 __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: no consensus. I don't see a consensus to delete here. Discussion has not been updated in 2 days so I think it's not disruptive for me to close it now. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Wer900/There is a cabal


Delete, because: The page in question hasn't been substantively edited by anyone else (just typos, link fixing, removal of non-free images). Finally, nothing about this is a page or is tongue-in-cheek; the author was dead serious, and was a Wikipediocracy critic of WP. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  09:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:POLEMIC (and a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory). This fails WP:NPA by directly attacking entire classes of editors (those who work on WP:P&G pages, and those who participate in XfDs by citing policies) with various false and evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS about their actions and motives.
 * Serves no collaborative or encyclopedic purpose (is in fact anti-collaborative and inflammatory).
 * Also fails WP:UP (Wikipedia is not a soapbox' is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself") – attacking (not just proposing reforms to) WP's policy formation process is WP:NOTHERE.
 * A string of AN[I] complaints about  supports this NOTHERE assessment, showing a general pattern of "fed up" activism against WP, its consensus-based policy system, and various admins; proxying for banned users; and, in particular, the author made unsubstantiated legal claims against WMF, its board and officers, and recipients of its funding.
 * WP:MFD's "User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion" is not triggered here, because of the user history and because this user has been indeffed as a compromised account since 12 May 2014.
 * So, the author is not here; we have no interest in perpetually archiving the beyond-contrarian opinion of someone who's not a Wikipedian and appears to be permanently gone. If they return and want to repair the policy faults in this page, they can do WP:REFUND.
 * The presence of some non-attack material in this page (which the author userspaced on purpose as a one-person opinion piece ) is insufficient to save this; we'd need to un-userspace it and very substantially revise it.
 * The are virtually no incoming links to it (none we need care about, since the essay alleges much and proves nothing) ; there are a handful more to WP:There is a cabal, but this redir has been retargeted to WP:Words of wisdom, an essay with way, way more buy-in.
 * Keep. Project related opinion by a contributing Wikipedian. The subsequent block does not change that, and makes retention of the opinion only more important. Deleting unhappy users’ opinions on the project smacks of censorship and is destructive to the community’s self-reflecting, facing of issues, and continued growth. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the content of the essay: It contains things I agree with and things I disagree with. I agree with it all being a reasonable opinion of a single editor with a particular string of experiences. The opinion is valid. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The noms bold redirect of the projectspace title was a good edit. Projectspace titles should not redirect to userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Usually. They definitely shouldn't when we already have a high-consensus page that addresses the same thing more reasonably.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely believe that Wer900’s intent with this essay was redundant to a superior more recent project space version, that calls for a redirect. Do you have any history with Wer900?  How did you come across this page?  I find all of your several rationales to delete slightly short of sufficient, as users, including departed users, have always had considerable leeway with userspace essays. Nothing in it is deemed true. Everything in it is the opinion or belief of the author, at the time of writing. It is an explanation of a troubled user. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Wer900/There_is_a_cabal: A perfectly fine useressay.
 * Words_of_wisdom is a different essay.
 * Do not redirect or blank. It is an accurate record of the perspective of the user.  A fuller discussion is located at Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_101.  There is a little discussion on its talk page.


 * Re:  SMcCandlish's eight dot points:
 * Dot point #1: Does not meet POLEMIC, instead it is coherently argued, directly relates to the project, and even tries to be constructive.  WP:FRINGE is not relevant.  Not an NPA because it is not personal.  Editors who work on WP:P&G pages should indeed be open to criticism.  The ASPERSIONS are clearly opinion of the editor.  Editors are allowed to record their project related opinions in their userspace.
 * Dot point #2: Free and robust communication is important, noting it does not rise to violating WP:NPA.  I don't even see the inflammation.  The Wikipedia Cabal meme pre-existed Wer900's first edit by many years.  Instead, I see deletion of this essay as censoriship of unpopular opinion, and that is far worse.
 * Dot point #3: NOTSOAPBOX does not apply to opinions related to the project.  The NOTHERE allegation is false.  The essay clearly believes it is attempting to be constructive.
 * Dot point #4: That Wer900 had issues with collegiality is not in question. The essay serves to explain his thinking, and in a very reasonable way.  The community should respond by being more transparent and diffusing possible perspective of an operating cabal.  NOTHERE does not apply, my bottom line based on my review of his contributions.  He was clearly attempting to contribute in good faith.  He appears to have got into trouble due to overloading astronomical data.  I would say that he wasn't on the WP:PSTS page, but that doesn't make him NOTHERE, and he certainly wasn't alone.  Many editors have fought on the hyperinclusivity side for including information on asteroids, stars and geographical and geological features.  It is quite understandable that they have trouble understanding the community's decision against such inclusions, and that these community decisions then seem like there must be a hidden cabal.
 * Dot point #5: Indeffed as a compromised account has no relevance to prior edits by the uncompromised account.
 * Dot point #6: Users' leaving statements are given broad leeway.  Users' leaving statements provide valuable information for the community to learn from.  The educational value may not be close to the intent of the leaving statement.  Suppression of unhappy statements has chilling effects and is broadly unhealthy.
 * Dot point #7: Not an argument for deletion.
 * Dot point #8: Incoming links are not a useful measure of a useressay.


 * SMcCandlish pointed us to http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/12/wikipedia-as-a-political-battleground-after-a-gmomonsanto-content-dispute-longtime-wikipedia-contributor-viriditas-is-blocked/  Slightly interesting.  Slightly more shrill, some evidence of paranoia.  Valid public discussion, but it includes some crital faulty points in my opinion.  The authors want to rank accuracy above civility.  By accuracy, I read WP:Truth.  Civility is required to discuss accuracy, and so I rank civility higher than they do.


 * The issues discussed here are important. I don't think that they are important enough for us to spend time agonising over, but they are not worth the inflammation that results from attempted censorship.  Better to leave weak opinions in the sun for all to judge.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Do you have any history with Wer900?" No. "How did you come across this page?"  By putting in WP:There is a cabal and expecting to end up where that now redirects, and instead arriving at a userspaced gross attack page.  "I find all of your several rationales to delete slightly short of sufficient".  In the aggregate they have a tremendous amount of weight. Many of your nitpicks against various of them amount to just "I disagree", commingled with the fallacy that as long as the page has something in it that's not an attack then the attacks in it can be excused, and mistaking every point I made for a deletion argument in and of itself, when much of it is simply backup material for the WP:NOTHERE, anti-collaboration, anti-Wikipedia, polemicism assessment, and yadda yadda yadda. I'm not going to go down them all by number, per WP:BLUDGEON. You're entitled to your opinion.  You're not entitled to mischaracterized this as "attempted censorship", which is a damned shitty thing to say.  Wer900 is a Wikipediocracy writer (or was) and has an entire platform on which to demonize thousands of editors; WP is under no obligation to Web-host this for him.  He's long gone from here and this page serves no purpose but to make bogus accusations, inflame tempers, polarize editors against each other, and corrode WP's inner workings.  I don't think you know what censorship really means.  I really resent that jab, given who I am and what I've done IRL – nine years at EFF defending your and everyone else's right to an Internet that isn't  censored.  FFS. WP is a private-sector system, with policies about its use and about user conduct.  Removing the non-compliant is not "censorship", it's housecleaning.  It's like a dog took a shit on your bed, and you want to preserve it because the dog's expressing an honest sentiment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And now you are upset. I am sorry, but I do not support deletion of old userpages without very good reason.  I think you exaggerate tremendously.  Wer900 and cabal memes are part of Wikipedia history.  Censorship?  I consider this useressay to be Wikipedia-policy compliant.  OK, you think it contains attacks?  What's thee worst attack in there to your reading?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the history of Wikipedia cabals is over 16 years old. Wer's essay is part of that history.  It always was confusing, and it has significantly settled in the matured project.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This history of attacking particular clusters of editors over the matter is not a time honored tradition. More than sufficient "very good reason" has been given, the settled nature of the old "cabal" stuff makes it of little current relevance, and no violence in done to the internal history of the issue by deleting an attack page that doesn't actually demonstrate a single claim it makes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep looks fine as a userspace essay. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mysterious to me that you and think this is "fine" even "important" to keep.  Is it okay if someone puts up an essay making evidence-free and unprovable, bullshitty, demonizing accusations about all WP:MEDRS- and WP:FRINGE-enforcing editors (as a class, and ad homimem about them not about their arguments)? The author would be keel-hauled within the hour. Coming from SmokeyJoe I  understand this, as part of his "'free speech' trumps project interests" position (see arguments about joke and protest categories at WT:CFD). But even in that context, it doesn't fly. We have WP:NPA policy for a reason, and I'm certain SJ wouldn't support the existence of a "Category:Users who think those who edit policy pages are all power-hungry zealots who never contribute to the encyclopedia and have no respect for consensus", which is exactly what the article says, just in way more invective. Even aside from anti-collaborative, anti-Wikipedia incivility, it's actually an irrational viewpoint, since WP:Civility and WP:ENC are in fact policies written by editors working on policies.  If this person wants to write a nasty and self-contradictory screed against Wikipedia and its editors, he can go do it at Wikpediocracy (again). We also have no evidence this was even written by that editor rather than by whoever hijacked his account, which he's apparently never tried to do anything about, being long gone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The essay doesn't mention any specific editor, nor MEDRS, nor FRINGE. WP:NPA is completely irrelevant here because a a diatribe about an amorphous, poorly defined, large group of editors cannot by definition be personal. It is a WP:USERESSAY: a document authored/edited by only one person, that represents a strictly personal viewpoint about Wikipedia or its processes and contradicts widespread consensus. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with this essay. We don't "clean up" user spaces simply because editors aren't here any more. Hence the !vote. VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clearer, I meant "fine" as in heading 1, def 2: passable. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Gahhh ... The point was making a direct comparison, to swap "this essay demonizes X group of editors" with "this essay demonizes Y group of editors" and see if you'd still think it's "fine" (yes, as in "passable"). Of course  essay doesn't mention MEDRS; I'm illustrating that it doesn't matter which group of editors is being attacked with bogus accusations and aspersions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But your definitions of populations X and Y are not interchangable, making it a poor analogy. A category would explicitly define individuals (the "P" in NPA); the essay under discussion does not come anywhere close to doing so. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. ArbCom and WP:AE have been very clear that attacking entire groups of editors instead of doing it by name falls squarely under NPA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * provide a link, and I'll read up. VQuakr (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As requested ...

The shortest and most direct ArbCom statement I recall is this one from WP:ARBCC, explicitly in the plural and not limited to incivility against single editors: "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all." This was principle was used agains (so I know it well), before I really learned how to comment on content instead of contributor, here's two AE admins in the same AE thread several years go decided whether to put a lengthy TBAN on me: 'personalizing ... disagreements by ascribing disruptive intent to other editors (whether named or not). This is reflected in the diffs cited as evidence ("members of [wikiproject name elided] massively canvassed, disrupted ... abused ..." ...' etc. etc. And: 'commenting ad hominem or replacing ad hominem with vague indirect aspersions of misconduct (which are just as prohibitted as direct ad hominem BTW) then action must be taken.' (I narrowly avoided sanction, and radically changed my approach, so much so that I wrote the WP:HOTHEADS advice essay about how to effectuate such an adjustment, since I was not alone in needing to make one.)  But make no mistake: the administrative interpretation is that generalizing attacks to an entire group of editors is WP:SANCTIONGAMING and may actually be considered worse that attacking a single editor, since the attacked parties are numerous, and accusations against an entire group essentially cannot be proven with anything short so many diffs no one could read them. This is just one example; WP:You can search, too and do your own homework on it. But frankly, no one should have to look this up anyway. It's obvious and completely implicit in the purpose of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc. But there's more. See also various ArbCom cases, especially of the "group X versus group Y" sort. E.g., at WP:ARBPIA: "Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." Nothing in that wording suggests that it only applies to off-WP politics. WP:ARBGG: "Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited." and "Making unsupported accusations of ... misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable." That is not limited to individual A versus individual B; that case had 27 parties, largely divided into two camps. WP:ARBGC: "Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation." and "An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all." Stated in the singular, but we already know by now that all this stuff applies when you do it to editors in groups. "Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere", "Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable." Back to explicit plural. WP:ARBFLG, WP:ARBEE, and various others: "Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive." Not singular, not limited to off-site ideology, though obviously what caused that case. Essentially the same wording isis found in case after case. WP:ARBEE: "Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable." Not limited to individual targets. More from WP:ARBCC, a long one, and explicitly plural throughout: "Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to adopt a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. ... Uncivil, unseemly, or disruptive conduct, including but not limited to lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, unjustified failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, are all unacceptable as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums." A compressed version of this is also in WP:ARBMAC and numerous other cases. To round this out, WP:ARBSEX: "Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas ... or to publish or promote original research is prohibited." This "WP policy conspiracy theory" is both, and userspace is not exempted. Userspace drafts, for example, that fail these tests are deleted here on a daily basis. Finally, WP:ARBAP: "Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus." No exception is made for userspace pages, and WP:User page policy is clear that users do not actually own and totally control pages in their user space (as does WP:NOT policy in various places), even if considerably leeway is granted. Much of what MfD does is delete userspace content, most of it poor attempts to create stuff actually intended for the encyclopedia, which the mass-attack rant page at issue is not, so of even less utility that bad drafts.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all just from a quick skim of about 1/3 of the cases that are subject to DS, which is a small percentage of cases. I didn't even get into the AE, AN, and ANI material – numerous editors have been sanctioned for generalized attacks on classes of on- and off-site people, and many have been indeffed or site-banned as WP:NOTHERE for generalized anti-WP sentiment and a habit of just agitating against WP's consensus-based policy, administration, and editing system, most recently that I know of here, 26 October.
 * I see broad consensus from Arbcom and the community that editors who judge other editors (or content) on protected or historically persecuted criteria such as ethnicity or gender are to be banned. No argument from me there. This essay, however, groups some editors, in a very general way, by editing style. This meta-grouping is obviously and dramatically different than, for example, racism. It, therefore, looks fine as a userspace essay. The stated opinion of delete !voters here (that 1. vague criticism of editors who focus on policy and 2. white frickin' supremacy are similar problems that necessitate similar actions) is bizarre. Should either this editor (upon his or her return) or this essay begin to cause "generalized anti-WP sentiment", feel free to bring it to ANI, ARBCOM, or VP/P - any of which would be better suited than MfD to discussion of behavioral stuff (which is what this nomination is, albeit in a very temporally displaced sort of way). VQuakr (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I waited to vote until others weighed in and got what I expected. User:VQuakr, should reevaluate his random votes to keep assorted junk because he seems to believe people have a Jimmy Wales given right to use Wikipedia as a webhost for garbage that does not improve the project. This “essay” would get little support from productive editors, is not by productive editor, and will not contribute to the development of productive editors. It’s an abandoned mess. Time to clear it out. Outstanding nomination statement BTW Legacypac (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We just indef’d an editor with white nationalist stuff on his userpage, which included a desire to wipe out a whole group. It was at ANi amd his userpage at MfD. More extremely offensive, but the principle that we don’t allow attacks on groups of people is the same. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Criticism of editors excising OWNership of WP:P&Gs being disconnected from the community of content writers, and white nationalist promotion. These are two very very different things.  It doesn't matter that both are wrong.  One is an important subject for discussion by Wikipedians, the other doesn't belong at all.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're mischaracterizing the essay. It is zero-evidence accusation that all editors as a class, who work on WP:P&G pages at all contribute nothing to the project, are a conspiracy, are anti-consensus, and many other things. And it also includes the entire class of editors who rely on WP:N and other policy arguments in deletion discussions.  I again refer you to, 26 October; a very similar WP:NOTHERE matter, which ended in an indef. The principal difference is that in his case, the user was defying the sourcing policies rather than WP:N, used different "fed up and quitting" wording, and verbally attacking all WP editors in general as "wankers" and the project as "wankerpedia"; in the case at hand now, the author has done essentially the same thing, except narrowed the hostility and aspersion to some subsets of editors (i.e., made it marginally  personal and specifically identifiable an attack), while continuing to maintain the general "down with WP, and to hell with this place anyway" narrative of the recently banned party. And that's just one of  WP:NOTHERE indefs for attacking the project and subsets of its editors.  WP isn't a host for memorializing the screeds of people who hate Wikipedia. The closest I can recall seeing MfD keep is a "Why I quit" message on the user page, and even plenty of these have been administratively redacted or deleted when they contain personal attacks (I know this for a fact since I was the subject of one of them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  10:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm mischaracterizing the essay by noting that it is project related, unlike white nationalism? I don't get what you are trying to tell me.  Obviously the accusations, especially as paraphrased by you, are not true.  Who would read them as true?  I don't see the similarity with .  Are they connected to ?  Samsbanned was banned for some screeds I see, but I do not see screed of close to a similar level in the useressay.  I see nothing in this essay that would justify a wp:revdel or IAR deletion per WP:NPA.
 * Wer900 did the right thing in userfying his essay. You did the right thing in retargeting the mainspace title.  This unhappy wikipedians essay makes no personal, no identified person, attacks.  I an a WP:P&G page frequent, and often argue delete per [details contained in] WP:N (I agree with the implicit WP:VAGUEWAVE criticism, & WP:N actually does not mandate deletion as many things can be merged), and I feel absolutely no insult in the essay, I instead read a fair description of the perspective of a hyper-inclusionist (he was an astronomy hyper-illusionist).  I oppose its deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "no personal, no identified[-]person, attacks" – I already disproved personally-identifiable targeting as relevant, with a large block of ArbCom evidence, here. Part of what incensed me so much about your "censorship" accusation (or mischaracterization) above – the direct imputation of a nefarious personal motive – is that it, too, is a (weak) personal attack or at least a (not weak) incivility.  Your excuse for it amounts to "well, some editors  as if censored, so it's your/Wikipedia's fault for not taking their emotions into consideration."  Let's ignore for the moment that everyone owns their own emotions and none of us are mind-readers, and that this is an unreasonable burden reversal, as well as a WP:KETTLE matter. That outlook is illustrative of an outlying, idiosyncratic (within the WP context) approach to civil discourse as it  applies on WP.  It appears [I do not read minds, either, so correct me if I'm wrong] to come from the "free speech must reign supreme for democracy to prevail" mindset. It's one I share fervently – with regard to actual society and democracy.  WP:NOT and WP:NOT (and WP:NOTCENSORED applies to encyclopedic content, not internal material, or WP:CIVIL could not exist).  WP is a private-sector work environment (albeit volunteer work) for achieving specific goals. We're tolerant of personal opinion, but within lots of limits, including multiple policies and effective policies against verbally savaging other editors, singly or in groups (NPC, CIVIL, AGF, HARASS, BATTLEGROUND, ASPERSIONS, etc., just as we have ones against treating WP like a personal resource or entertainment source at the expense of the project and its community (FORUM, WEBHOST, SOAPBOX, RPG, NOR, etc.).  The page at issue is clearly not within some those limitations, even if not every word in it falls outside them.  All that said, I'm taking this off my watch list. I'm skeptical it's possible to re-present the argument any clearer, and either it'll be understood or it won't be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  12:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your large block of evidence, with links to lengthy cases and further links? What I read proves nothing, is nearly completely irrelevant, and it rapidly became TL;DR.


 * OK, I should stop mentioning thoughts of what might motivate you, and just say: I completely do not understand your feelings to this essay, but note they are not in proportion to the text of the essay.


 * "Censorship" concerns were not an imagined motive, but the "appearance of censorship" is a test I apply to every MfD nomination of an essay. Essays often get nominated because someone doesn't like them, and they hit a nerve, and they cite any factual inaccuracies.  when it comes to citing factual inaccuracies, the concern is that the appearance of censorship causes more damage than a few isolated single author assertions.  On this one, I definitely call the appearance of censorship because the essay includes assertions or poor judgement that impacted the the author adversely.  My opinion is that he has the write to write this essay.  If you think there is no merit in the essay, I advise you to ignore it.  Don't validate it by responding.  I think Wer900's statement is clear enough, can be read as his unhappy testimony, and requires no response.  It contains no serious allegation of substance.


 * Most of what you say in the second half of your last post I find agreeable, except that I would add that WP:Editors matter and that this necessarily includes an editors' right to openly voice their complaints, tempered by limits such as NPA, which I can concluded this essay doesn't cross. To my reading, every word lies within WP:NPA and CIVIL.  FORUM, WEBHOST and SOAPBOX don't apply because the essay is directed at project issues.  They are not limited to mainspace content issues, because WP:Editors matter.


 * I have read everything you have written here (not everything linked), I understand your arguments and position, and my position is that you are wrong. Wer900 wrote an acceptable useressay.  I don't feel the least bit threatened by it, even though I read strong criticism of editors like me.  I don't find the criticism particularly persuasive.  It, like User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia_is_broken_and_failing, makes strong statements, but frequently lapses into bold bald assertions of facts that are readily disputed.  It is like when angry people yell in street, or more like unhappy people who whinge in the tearoom.  No, they are not generally supportive of a positive collegial atmosphere, but letting them have their air is far less bad than suppressing or censoring their unhappy statements.


 * The most interesting think about it is that it reveals the thinking of an unhappy editor. I can see where the community could improve.  It mostly has to do with WP:Notability.  Hyperinclusionists have always got very upset when the majority community gives up talking to them and agree amongst themselves that the inclusionists' work is to be deleted.  The inclusions of course feels cabaled.  I have put forward a serious idea here, which although directed at promotion and vanity articles, could equally be used to put the ball back into the court of the astronomy hyperinclusionist, for them to justify their belief that others care about their data.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2017 (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.