Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme




 * 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  Delete The fact that the page has not once been edited by the user to whom it is attached persuades me that the argument that it is not an evidence gathering exercise but being used to attack others is correct. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mnyakko/aboutme
Attack page, masquerading as an "evidence" page, but its not - it was begun 24 February 2007. Huge volumes of content copypasted from various talk pages, with no dif links, interspersed with claims of censorship and NPA violations. No indication anyone intends to even file an Rfa against anyone; group of apparent malcontents whose edits have not been accepted. --KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep "Attack page"? I suppose any page at all which mentions any discussions on any other pages is also an attack page at that point.  Does it attack any individuals? Not that I can see.  Is there a place in userspace for personal opinions related to WP articles? Heck - it is not even necessary, in my opinion, that all opinions be related to articles - but if that is a criterion, this page passes it.   Do all pages in userspace have to be premised on WP procedures in the future? No. Though pages so intended fall into a "protected class" specifically, that does not mean all pages must fall into that class to avoid deletion.  Is anything misattributed on the page? Not that I can see.  In short, failing a reason for deletion, default to Keep. Collect (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the page consists largely of copypasted posts, not made to that page, which are objectionable in their own right. Not attempting to persuade, merely noting. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be more inclined to object if edited versions had been made, which would be more likely to be intended for a false impression. See for an example thereof. Collect (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite understood - I once had my name added to a poll. No kidding. So I am very familiar with the increased sense of violation when your own name is used or your words edited. That would probably provoke an immediate delete and strong warning from me, not an Mfd. However, "it could be worse" isn't a really strong keep reason IMO. I'm not sure I see your posts being altered in the dif you sent, though, please contact me on my talk page? thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it you missed such interpolated gems as [Collect tactic : Listing of dictionary definitions, accompanied by an implication that the definitions somehow vindicate a point of argument, without actually demonstrating or even suggesting how.][Tactic : Pointless use of Latin to dress up an otherwise meritless argument.][Tactic : Change the subject, back to previous Tactic (personal attack).] Collect (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are comments interspersed. I am speaking of violations of Copying within Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are derogatorey comments -- clearly "attack" is not the concern then. Alas, the article you now cite does not deal with copying of posts for which the user and datestamops are retained -- as that furnishes sufficient information for anyone to see the history of the comments. The concern of the cite you give is where the history is not determinable due to loss in the copying process. Retention of the user name and posting time is sufficient attribution by any standards. Collect (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mentioned misuse of posts, one concern. You said that had occurred to you, and posted a link, which did not have any modifications of your posts. That I have said there is no such modification should not be misprepresented, as you have, to imply I find the comments interpersed to be acceptable. Please refrain from loaded comments. I am done with this, as it has no bearing on this Mfd. If you wish to speak to me about this, you know where my talk page is. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

By definition, all allegations are conjectural. A conjecture is something which is asserted but not proven. An allegation is a specific type


 * Keep per Collect above. There is no good reason to delete this. = Brittainia (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC) (indef. blocked)
 * How is this beneficial or helpful to the encylopedia in any way? I have already advised you to file an Rfc if you have concerns about WMC's conduct. This page is nothing but a rant against him with no apparent purpose except to attack him and accuse others of "censorship". KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some rule that user pages must be beneficial that I am unaware of? However since you ask, if editors are not vigilant of POV pushing groups, Wikipedia would be completely subverted. So this page helps to perform part of that useful vigilance function, which is highly necessary. This page is not a rant, it is merely a collection of evidence copied from other pages. The group whose conduct is documented here have been exposed on CBSNews for controlling the Global Warming pages.  After Climate Gate, I am surprised you can ask what is the benefit of alertness to control and censorship on Wikipedia.  = Brittainia (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. If there is POV pushing, the correct venue is Rfc. Your page is not "being vigilant" nor is it doing a darn thing about your alleged concerns, "censorship" and "POV pushing". I have already informed you that there are venues to which you can legitimately take those concerns. A page full of rants, accusations, and copied posts does exactly nothing to correct or change anything, and violates WP:ATTACK. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Collect on this one. I fail to see how this is an attack page in the sense of WP:ATP, as it does not exist merely to disparage. There's no real reason to delete this that I can see. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it exists, then? Please let me know, if it is not to disparage. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really feel strongly either way. Brittainia being blocked makes me less inclined to accept good faith. The intent of the page may be to disparage, although I'm not positive. I'm striking my vote above, in any case, and will stay neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * delete I don't see any practical use for this page. If the user wants to file an RfC then they can do so. The page is uncivil and clearly attacks users. Users are accused of "insidious censorship", "hijacking" articles, and others simply because the general consensus of what articles should have do not support certain fringe viewpoints. There's also a copyright concern in that conversations have been copied from elsewhere without proper attribution. This may break GFDL. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Violates WP:UP, #10. I see no reason to believe that this material is being compiled for an imminent dispute-resolution process, given its content and the length of time which it has been maintained without its owner actually pursuing any such processes. MastCell Talk 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly violates WP:UP, only serves to attack people, and there is no pending rfc. It's basically an 'enemy list'.  Also per Mast and Josh.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 01:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP. Also note that this editor has only four edits (none in the mainspace) since 2007, and has never edited this page.  It looks like / (same editor, currently blocked for socking, among other things) has been using this page to collection information about the "misdeeds" of other editors.  It would be an inappropriate use of Brittainia/Rameses's user space, but it seems even more inappropriate use of another editor's userspace (especially since that editor hasn't been active in two years).  Guettarda (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a social network site. Pages here need a reason. Plenty of latitude is available for user pages and humor, whimsy, and insights into how the user thinks are all good reasons for some userspace pages. However, collecting a bunch of complaints for no particular reason is not helpful to the encyclopedia. When those complaints appear to be focused on a particular editor or group of editors (and when it is clearly not valid RFC/U evidence gathering), such a page is violating WP:CIVIL and should be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep . Cannot be seriously considered a serious attack on anyone.  Is a reasonable attempt at a workspace journal of thoughts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. First of all, WP:NOTMYSPACE, secondly, WP:NOTWEBHOST, thirdly, it can, as it references several editors directly.  Fourthly, it cannot be considered as a reasonable workspace journal.  The page was exclusively edited by socks that have been now blocked indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry and disruption.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 11:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The first and second don't apply, because the page is sufficiently related to Wikipedia. Third point can be fixed by editing, but I should look again.  I hadn't considered the fourth point, although it does obviously have a complicated edit history.  Is the page there is good faith, or is it intended for abuse and disruption?  I am still inclined to assume good faith.  Who was blocked for abuse?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The same users who edited 90% of that page, and their master.  See Brit's userpage for the link to their master.  Secondly, there is no complicated edit history.  80% of that page is comments copied from other pages.  The page is not there in good faith, it is only there to accuse, as the nominator said, others of censorship, personal attacks, POV pushing, agendas.. , etc.  It only serves to attack Will, with no long-term goal of attempting an rfc or arbcom.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those edits you think you see, are not. My sig is on that page seven times. I have never edited that page. My sig was copied, as were the others. See JoshuaZ's concern about violating GDFL with these copies from other pages, taken out of context. Look at the history, and you will see mostly Rameses and Brit, the indefblocked authors of this page. There has been no "discussion" on this page. There is no "complicated edit history." Everything not a GDFL violating copy-paste is an attack. And its been going on for years with no Rfc, even tho it is supposedly an "evidence" page. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, switching to delete on a fresh look, seeing it as a POV battle staging ground, with an improper use of multiple account mixed up in it. The complicated edit history to me is how the page was created and used by users other than User:Mnyakko, with edits that copy yet others' signatures, definitely not acceptable norms of quote formatting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per MastCell and others good arguments.  Also, WP:Advocacy & WP:Soap apply.  Since the user of this page has been inactive for so long and the users that have put most of the recent info there are now indefinitely blocked for sock and/or meat puppeting, there is no reason to have this page.  All it is doing is causing a lot of heat in an already very hot area of the project.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely Keep There is a group of editors who appear to have direct links to the climategate "censors of peer review" who have used the same tricks to "hide the downturn" by manipulating the review system on wikipedia (look for any mention of the 21st century cooling in any climate article on wikipedia). This attempt to delete this page is just part of the ongoing campaign to manipulate the system in wikipedia to turn it into a propoganda tool and it must be resisted at all costs if Wikipedia is not to loose all credibility as an impartial website. Isonomia (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a blog, or a soapbox. This page serves no purpose other than to slander other users with claims of POV pushing, advocacy, censorship, and more.  Secondly, this page is not being used to for any long-term goal as an evidence page for an arbcom case or rfc.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 11:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, and that is why we should stop wikipedia being used as a climategate propoganda blog/soapbox: address the root cause of the problem, not attack those who are highlighting the problem! Isonomia (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you, you contradict yourself. This page was primarily edited by sockpuppets who have now been indef'd due to abusive behavior and abuse of multiple accounts.  The sockpuppets used this page to attack Will, along with several other users.  If there is no long-term goal of an rfc or dispute resolution, then such a page is not allowed to stay, per the policy I cited above.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 11:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on this editor which is being referred to here is even mentioned in the climategate emails by name. There's no doubt given the evidence in the emails for the internet campaigning they do that there are several other editors on climate articles that are part of the climategate propoganda team - for god's sake you've only got to look at the single minded focus on climate and the time they put in to see they are paid to do this! The comments on this page are reasonable, justifiable, and to be frank, they highlight the failure of other editors to take these problems seriously and give support to those (unpaid - at least that's what they appear) editors who have sought to uphold the supreme law of Wikipedia WP:NPOV (aka don't let the paid lobbyists run the show!) Isonomia (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this page only serves to attack him and others and has no long-term goal of being used in an arbcom or rfc case, or any other kind of dispute resolution.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox to post your views on things, or for that matter, other users.  Like I said, you contradict yourself, and you only appear to be voting keep because you dislike the Will for the reasons mentioned above.  As I have said before, Wikipedia is not for things like this.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 11:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this is merely a record of calls for help in preventing this group of editors forcing through their POV - it did not develop as an attack page - it is the signature of a vicious campaign by other editors and attacks on this editor. And like all the rest, sooner or later, this group of editors will turn their vindictive gaze on me, and I will become another NPOV matyr in this supposedly NPOV website.Isonomia (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a record of calls for help. The page was exclusively edited by sockpuppets who are now blocked indef for abusive sockpuppetry and disruptive editing.  The user whose userspace this page is under never once edited it.  It did develop as an attack page and is an attack page.  No goal of dispute resolution, no compliance with policy, no deal.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep But I already knew what the outcome would be long before this even started. It was just a matter of time.  Though it was a foregone conclusion even before the deletion request was official, let me answer a few questions I noticed.

Why are there no diffs? Two reasons, first is initially I did not realize the value of diffs over the actual text. The second reason is that once I started working with my own wiki I realized that it is possible to alter the diffs...which explained why I would sometimes find that diffs I collected did not have the text I originally wanted to capture.

What is it that makes it an "attack"? Honestly, nothing, except that it is sometimes called "attacking" when capturing the actual words and/or actions of someone. However, the standard used to call one thing an attack is determined by whom the "attack" refers. That is actually the one consistent standard throughout all of the administrative processes: "Who" is involved determines what criteria of judgment is followed.

Is there a coming complaint? Potentially...but I realized long ago that the decisions on the complaint(s) will be made by in large part by people against whom some of the complaints would be. The reproduction of diffs, texts, etc is being handled off site. People send their complaints to various locations and they are reviewed, researched and documented. In most cases there is little substantiation. The rest of the cases warrant watching the pages in question. The problem is the Wikipedia system is stacked against a complainant. To file a grievance one must provide proof, but too much proof and the complaint is dismissed due to wiki-lawyering. Most substantive complaints involving anyone that is more than a regular user (or a friend of someone more than a regular user) is met with request for more proof with unreasonable thresholds of burden to be given in unreasonable windows of time. The best case scenario in those complaints is very minimal punishment while large reprisals for the complainant as well as anyone who voted on the complainant's side.

So if it is decided that a complaint will be initiated it will be beyond well-documented, thorough and well-based enough that the bias in administering the complaint will be beyond a shadow of doubt. It is not that the potential complaints are not solid enough...it is that the bias in administrating the complaint may not be as easily demonstrable.

If you have any other questions I suggest e-mailing me (as I will not be able to check Wikipedia for the next several days) directly at tony@tonytalk.com. Then I will know there is further direct questioning for me to be addressed here.

I am not "malcontent", I am simply someone who has witnessed the ills of abuse 3rd hand, then 2nd hand and then a victim of them 1st hand. My hope is that eventually those bad processes which allow those abuses get fixed (not even for the abusers to be dealt with as severely as those that cross the abusers). -- Tony G 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP. It is well established that it is not allowed to keep a laundry list of grievances in user space unless it is specifically being prepared as evidence for use in some form of recognised dispute resolution and clearly labelled as such. Brilliantine (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly archive/blank, otherwise Delete. Much of this content isn't suitable for a userpage, for the reasons explained above, as it contains attacks on other users and isn't obviously intended for use in an RFC; on the other hand, users are given a great deal of leeway over their userspace, and I wouldn't mind the user keeping this if it was hidden from view and made clear that it's no longer active. If that isn't going to happen, I support deletion. Robofish (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail how to see making it not active would allow anything of this sort in userspace. You are right to say that users are given much leeway in userspace, however, you are wrong to apply it here, as WP:UP still applies.  In fact, such an argument is usually in regards to discussions with the user on their respective talk pages, not lists of perceived flaws with no goal of dispute resolution.  As the page only serves to document these flaws, with the goal of changing the reader's perspective regarding the users it lists, it cannot be allowed to remain, at all.  Wikipedia is not for things like this.  If the user wants to start a blog about supposed cabals, he can make his own website for such, in the meantime, however, this is not what wikipedia userspace is for.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 01:26, 21 December 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.