Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Posturewriter


 * 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.  

User talk:Posturewriter
The result of the debate was keep. PeterSymonds (talk)  10:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC) '''NOTE: Nobody is suggesting that the entire talk page be deleted. Comments below like "Whatever the problem, the sledgehammer approach of deleting the whole talk page is not an acceptable solution" show that people are not even reading the nom. I was informed by an admin at WP:ANI that MfD was the proper approach to gain consensus for removal of a section of a user talk page. If you disagree with this, please take it up at ANI, not here. We are talking about the section.

The closing admin should ignore any keep !votes that mention deletion of the entire talk page, because those keep !votes clearly did not read the nomination.''' --Jaysweet (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure MfD is the correct process, but I was told on ANI to try it.

Please see the section entitled "The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics". This section appears to run afoul of WP:UP point #9, in that it outlines "perceived flaws" of other users, and does not appear to be in preparation for a user RfC or some other process. (Note this, but firstly it is about this' user, not about his "Critics", and secondly I think it will be quite some time before that RFC/U reaches a conclusion on anything of import)

The user was asked to remove or revise this section, but refused. I personally do not feel this belongs on the page, as it does not in any way facilitate the goal of creating a quality encyclopedia. I'd like to get community consensus on that. Jaysweet (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If we delete the page, we lose everything, including various warnings about COI, OR, and such.  Is there a way to permanently remove just the objectionable parts of the page?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually what I'm endorsing, is just removing that section. I tried to raise the issue at ANI, and although some admins told me they thought it should be removed, none of them were willing to do so themselves, and  advised me to use MfD.  I told him I didn't think it was the appropriate process because I only wanted a section removed, but he reassured me that MfD is what I wanted.  I'll dig up the thread from the archives if necessary. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Userspace content disputes, especially those based on userpage guidelines can be settled through MfD. The result, nor even the goal does not need to be deletion, but the community insisted removal of the objectionable content. That being said, I am not at this point making an opinion on the matter as I have not had time to review the content in question. Chillum  21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Chillum. Sorry if I'm being a jack-ass, I just feel nervous because I've never seen MfD used this way.  But as you can see, I defer to your far vaster experience :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing;
 * What you are suggesting is that all of your criticisms of me on my own Usertalk page should remain, and all of my words of defence are removed. which would be rigging the rules against me.
 * I would like to recommend that wiki policy be improved to allow defence as standard practice for all new contributors who are not familiar with the intricacies of wiki policy fine print.
 * I am in control of the situation on my Usertalk page, and quite confident in my ability to defend myself against criticism, and don’t think it is necessary for me to go to your Usertalk page and attack you. If I did, I am absolutely certain that you do everything you could do to defend yourself.Posturewriter (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter


 * Jaysweet;
 * On a previous discussion page called Wikiquette Alert, I saw your comments, and as I came here as a contributor, and was having critics using policy against me, I asked you to assist me with determining, and removing anything which was deemed as inappropritae in “The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics” on my User talk with the following words . . . “ I am also requesting that you move the information to the appropriate page so that Gordonofcartoon can’t say that I did it wrong in relation to one policy or another. I also prefer the way things are on my Usertalk page at the moment, so if you don’t wish to change it I will leave it there.


 * I am happy for you to decide what to remove and don’t see any reason to take it any furtherPosturewriter (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter


 * Keep I see no basis for deleting the page, or even forcing the removal of the section--it is not an attack on specific named editors,a nd one is welcome to criticize Wikipedia    policies as one likes if one doesnt violate npa. DGG (talk)
 * "it is not an attack on specific named editors" Actually, gordonofcartoon is called out by name, and 100% of the diffs in the rant are in regards to gordonofcartoon and Whatamidoing.  So yes, actually, it is an attack on two specific named editors.  Also, it has nothing to do with criticizing Wikipedia policy itself (which I agree there is nothing wrong with), the section criticizes how two specific named editors have allegedly exploited Wikipedia policy.
 * Also, the comment I see no basis for deleting the page is completely irrelevant. Nobody is asking to delete the entire page.  This is a pure straw man argument.  --Jaysweet (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, would you be happy if I started a talk page section that says "Maybe DGG is violating WP:SOCK, since he and several other "apparently independent" editors disagree with my POV?" Would you consider a baseless accusation against a named editor to be a reasonable use of a user talk page?  Because that accusation is part of the section that's being objected to.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whatever the problem, the sledgehammer approach of deleting the whole talk page is not an acceptable solution.  This user has made many non-trivial contributions, and it is important for the project that his talk page history remains accessbile.  After a few minutes, I cannot find the problem.  Could the nominator remove the specific sections he wants removed, and provide the diffs, for easier assessment please?  Also note that I have attempted to correct/improve WP:UP point #9.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to "correct/improve" WP:UP was reverted by a completely uninvolved user. And dude, that doesn't make any sense... you didn't like the MfD, so you unilaterally edited the policy page on which the MfD is based??  Um... heh.  Dude.
 * As I said in the nom, the section in question is here. Notice that it does not say "The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics that could potentially be employed by people on Wikipedia".  It says "my Critics", and it is clear he is referring to gordonofcartoon and Whatamidoing.
 * I do agree with you on one thing, SmokeyJoe -- if we aren't going to enforce WP:UP the way it is written, we should change it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, excluding The posture theory, which has been entirely deleted, the editor has made 47 edits in the mainspace, involving exactly six articles. All of his contributions outside of Da Costa's syndrome have been reverted.  Here's the complete list:
 * Human position -- add his own website (where you can order his self-published book). It's removed as spam. (March 2007)
 * Chest pain -- add his personal theory. It's removed.   (Nov 2007)
 * Chronic fatigue syndrome -- add his personal theory. It's removed within minutes.  Repeat. (Nov 2007)
 * Varicose veins -- add, and claim non-existent "ref.26". It's removed.  (Dec 2007)
 * Kyphosis -- add his personal theory. It's removed.  (Dec 2007)
 * Da Costa's syndrome -- Add his personal theory. Cite self.  It's removed.  Add personal website.  It's removed.  Add some history and parts of his personal theory.  Cite favorite primary sources.  It's heavily edited.  Complain.  Add exhaustive catalog of every single primary source that might support personal POV.  It's deleted.  Complain.  Repeat.  Repeat.  Repeat.  Repeat.  Repeat.
 * So given this information, would you say that this track record really constitutes "many non-trivial contributions"? How does "has had every single contribution outside of Da Costa's syndrome deleted, and has had practically every contributed sentence inside that article either deleted or substantially revised" strike you for accuracy?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "many non-trivial contributions" ws deliberately weak. He is contributing to wikipedia.  The fact that his contributions are contentious only means it is more important that his talk page contributions remian accessible.  If we delete (not just blank) them, then we open ourselves up to accusations of editorial censorship.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * SmokeyJoe; Thankyou very much for your comments about the quality of my contributions to Wikipedia
 * 1. Regarding WhatamIdoing’s criticisms based on evidence that almost all of my contributions have been deleted, and must therefore be of poor quality, I would like to provide you with some information about one example from his list above; re; Varicose Veins; In the early twentieth century, when garters were part of many uniforms, and were fashionable, it was common knowledge that they caused varicose veins, given that the bulging veins occurred below the garter line and not above it. I provided one source of evidence which was deleted, but I can provide many sources, and this is another one “The Specialties in General Practice” (1951) edited by Russell L. Cecil M.D., Professor of Clinical Medicine Emeritus, Cornell University Medical College, New York City, and published by W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, and London. On page 48 it states “the return of venous blood from the legs by direct pressure on the veins . . . may contribute to the development of varicose veins as may the use of garters which by encircling the legs, produce visible distension of the superficial veins” etc. I will add that reference today. Please note that the previous reference was added when I was new to wikipedia and not familiar with referencing methods.


 * 2. Please also note that WhatamIdoing is trying to create the impression that I have a lot of critics, but that in relation to his list
 * Da Costa's syndrome - the majority of my contributions were deleted by WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon
 * Kyphosis - my contribution on 28-11-07 here [] was reduced by WhatamIdoing on 14-1-08 here []
 * Chest pain - my contribution on 26-11-08 here [] was deleted by WhatamIdoing also on 14-1-08 here []
 * Varicose veins - my contributions on 9-12-07 here [] were deleted by Jfdwolff (JFW) on 18-12-07 here [], and that he is one of the critics on my Usertalk page, the COI page, and endorses disruptive editing claims against me here [] Posturewriter (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter
 * I previously have said that I consider JFW to be one of our leading wikipedians. I haven't met these others, but you should probably accept at face value anything JFW says to you.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments. My attempt to "correct/improve" WP:UP was not reverted, but refined by CMB "Carl", an editor I have long respected, and I am happy with the net result .  If there are comments about this, please make them at Wikipedia talk:User page  Note that I began that thread before this MfD.


 * This MfD, as clarified, should be closed as wrong forum. Sections do not get deleted.  I sorry that you were sent away from WP:ANI, and this is turning into a runaround, but you should take your dispute to Requests for comment/User conduct.  Individual sections can be blanked, or oversighted.  There is definately no case for oversight.  You should blank the offending section.  If the User reverts, it is a user dispute, not a content dispute.  As an early step, I would suggest that you answer the criticism found in the section that offends you.  Alternatively, and probably more wisely, you could ignore it and move on.


 * I do not find the section in question to be nearly problematic enough for deletion, even if it were alone on its own page. It is clearly the users opinion, it is to his credit that accurate diffs are cited (I followed a few), and I am not left with the impression that the user does not believe that his efforts are for the good of the project.  Perhaps his efforts are misplaced, in which case he should be engaged in polite dialogue.  If polite dialogue is not productive, and the problem cannot be ignored, take it to WP:RFCC.  There is not enough evidence of dispution, inflammatory behaviour, or libelous contributions to warrent action at WP:ANI, and MfD is not a forum for behavioural issues.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Re the previous two comments, the nomination does say that this is not a request to delete the whole page, just the section The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics.


 * My problem with it is that it's an open declaration of bad faith, ascribing various hostile motivations to editors identified by name and via the diffs cited:


 * Using Policy as Red Herrings ... The Double Bind Tactics, Including the Friendly Trojan Horse ... Flooding, Drowning, and Smoke Screen Tactics ... The Wild Goose Chase ... Blatant Anonymous Vandalism - with a Clue ... Sweeping the Tracks, and Making Forks in the Road (Side Tracks) to Hide the Trail of Evidence in History ... Policy Tactics ... Victory by Deletion


 * As well as being a breach of WP:AGF, it looks well within the scope of WP:UP #9 "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn The community is clearly not interested in enforcing WP:UP point #9. I have tried at multiple forums and in regards to multiple user pages, and every single time the loudest voices tells me it's the wrong forum. (Those who referred me from the previous forum may make a clarifying comment, but then remain silent. This is not purely a knock on Chillum; he's only like the fourth admin to have done so)

There is already a RFC/U on the user, but it's not getting a whole lot of attention. And anyway, for blatant violations of WP:UP, we shouldn't need a long drawn-out process like RFC/U, it should be simple. But, it's not.

This is actually fine with me. The problem is that in my work at dispute resolution, it comes up fairly often that someone is upset that someone else's user page is talking shit about them. When I have tried to help these users, I have not had much success. But that's okay; from now on, I will just tell them that WP:UP point #9 is not enforced. No biggie. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, that "nom withdrawn" thing was a bit WP:POINTy, wasn't it? Anyway, let's see how this plays out. I really do want to get community consensus on whether this section is acceptable or not. I would urge the admin closing this debate to discount SmokeyJoe's !vote because 1) despite his assertions I believe this is the proper forum for discussing whether a section of a talk page runs afoul of WP:UP, and 2) he has gone on record saying he believes WP:UP/9 should be eliminated, and that point is the whole premise of the nomination. (In regards to DGG's keep !vote, I have concerns based on his comments that he did not read the section closely enough to understand the issues being raised, but at least he does not explicitly reject either the process or the premise) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This MfD preempts the result of Requests for comment/Posturewriter.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2008 (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.