Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zouavman Le Zouave/Ibaranoff24


 * 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 on whether this violates userpage guidelines.--Aervanath (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Zouavman Le Zouave/Ibaranoff24
Attack page started by Zouavman Le Zouave. -- Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an attack page, this is a personal page made to keep track of Ibaranoff24's edits. As WP:NPA recommends, I comment on the content of the edits, and not on the contributor himself.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment — List of sources is inaccurate. See corrections. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep Not at all an attack page, disagreeing with someone is not at all the same as attacking them. Using an editor's user space to document sources, edits made in a dispute and other such content is not in violation of any policy that I am aware of. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:UP#NOT/10 The information has a negative feel.  It may not be intended as an attack page, but it could be viewed as such, and so is to be discouraged.  Negative stuff like this is not the way to go forward.  Keep such data off-wikipedia, or keep it strictly not about a particular editor.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How can this be viewed as an attack page? There is no personal attack what so ever on this page. I comment exclusively on the edits.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   14:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator and I see the makings of a personal attack. It is personal; an editor is what they do.  It looks like an attack; it doen't seem to be a balanced summary and isn't there to congratulate.  Given these perceptions, the onus is on you to give reason for maintaining in public view this collection of negative information.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You comment on edits that no one has made. It's a list of false allegations and claims that are not supported by the given facts. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * What do you mean, I comment on edits "that no one has made"? Which parts are "false allegations and claims"?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   21:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire page. Claiming that I have been "pushing for the inclusion of progressive metal" when I never made any such statement. You are the only editor to express a strong opinion on the inclusion of any genre, by pushing for the inclusion of nu metal. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm afraid I have to contradict you. Since the genre debate was re-opened, two thirds of the users have voiced their support for the inclusion of nu metal in the infobox. Only one user has supported the exclusion of this genre. You. So far, you have done what ever you wanted with the article. Whenever I have made an edit that you disagreed with, you reverted it, instead of talking about it on the talk page. Re-read the talk pages and back it up with diffs if you disagree.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are obviously referring to yourself when you claim that I reverted edits that I do not agree with? You can continue to claim otherwise, but the facts don't lie. Your obvious bias is never more clearer when you remove information referring to a guitar tuning style in spite of the fact that its source directly states this information, just because you don't agree with it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Oh, and let us not forget your continued insistence of a genre consensus that never existed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * That's not entirely true. While I see the set of discussions ending with this section as the coming to consensus, I considered the possibility that it didn't count as a consensus. I am open minded. Whether a consensus existed or not does not matter anymore. Your edits were still illegitimate and your way of getting your message across is filled with bias. You interpret sources as you like, even when it involves inventing the author's intention. Example with how you used this source as supporting the claim that SoaD is a progressive metal band, while the article only mentions a "prog component" in the band's music.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're one to talk about how I'm supposedly interpreting sources my own way, being that you are trying to interpret my actions, in spite of the fact that there's no evidence of the bias you claim, and I've repeatedly stated that I do not have a strong opinion, one way or another, of the inclusion of progressive metal or progressive rock. However, I will point out that Rolling Stone, which refers to the band as progressive metal, would probably be considered more reliable than the best sources for nu metal, being that the best sources for the latter genre term are three obscure books, whereas Rolling Stone is a well-known publication. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
 * That is wrong. The sources used to describe the band as nu metal are just as reliable, if not more, than those describing the band as progressive metal (with the exception of Rolling Stone). Garry Sharpe-Young describes the band as nu metal, and the great quantity of news articles describing the band as such overwhelms that of news articles describing the band as progressive metal. This is not my point of view. The sources speak for themselves.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen nothing that says that the MusicMight biography was written by Young, or that Young is an authority in the field. And you've said yourself that scattered news articles do not make better sources than texts written by writers of music-related content. And the news articles pertaining to "nu metal" were not written by music writers. The sources do speak for themselves: "Nu metal" is not consistently reported at all. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep Avoids any direct personal attacks, hence is valid use in userspace. Nor is WP:MFD the proper venue for trying to handle any such dispute.  Collect (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you believe violations of WP:UP#NOT/10 should be discussed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * L::I do not view this particular case as violating that rule, hence not applicable here. Violations can and do get mentioned in MfD -- but where it is not seen to be a violation, the material is not deleted. Just saying that one is affronted and thinks something is a personal attack on themselves does not automatically make it one.  Collect (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, Collect, we would seem agree that the page is deletable if it violates WP:UP/10, which says:
 * 10 Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.
 * Here, we seem to have a content dispute spilling over into userspace. I say it violates WP:UP#NOT/10, you say it does not.  What do others think?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. The discussion is starting to meander and outweigh its usefulness, so I'm going to close this here. Generally I get the impression that people think this page, while perhaps not run-of-the-mill or wholly appropriate for a community-based project, is not a direct attack or outright condemnation of another editor's actions. I'm going with the most middle-ground position on this - keep, providing that BQZ follows up on the proposed RfC in the very near future. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Conditional on the fact that it is used "for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner." Please state your intended use for this information and your intended timeframe. While I agree it is an appropriate use and the basics behind the policy do not allow time to think about such a page, it should be kept for now as long as the near-term end-state goal is a WP:DR venue. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear violation of WP:UP/10 and WP:CIVIL. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Seeker and BQZip01 above. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely to do with editing Wikipedia, and is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that there is precedent for keeping such a page. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think “precedent for keeping” is an overstatement. I quote below the close from that MfD:
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (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.