User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
Further information: WP:ANI § Improper use of MfD page?
A page like there are many in Wikipedia, including the user spaces of the commenting users. It violates no policies. There was no consensus to delete, but an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, this screams
bad faith : "...an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless." Can you please find a citation or substantive content to verify that poor acquisition? In fact, I can't recall having any prior interactions with you, Guido, because I have purposefully kept myself out of the dramas that you seem to induce on an almost weekly basis.
- This edit summary is also in bad faith, in regards to the MFD. seicer | talk | contribs 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - The 'study' is the result of long-term deliberate disruption; no need to
validate it by leaving it here. // roux 18:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse deletion Clearly appropriate. MBisanz talk 18:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that we have to ask ourselves a simple question here: Is this true? If it is true, then I'd be inclined to support an indefinite block of the remaining account. If it is not true, then the deletion is correct. Personally, it looks like a load of juvenile twaddle to me. CIreland (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - he claims it's true, and there's no way to prove otherwise. I'd absolutely support a community ban, but I think the consensus at ANI when it was brought up was not to ban. // roux 18:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original posting on the ANI was by Guido (
complex 20:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- Endorse Deletion - your reasoning is that an admin you have never had interaction with had a vendetta against you? --Smashvilletalk 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made no such claim. But if you must know, Seicer had me blocked in January and reverted my edits to ]
- I noted that you were well over
WP:3RR and reported it to the noticeboard, but did not do the blocking. You were blocked by Tariqabjotu for 40 hours, which was then lengthened to 48 hours. If you were to take into account all that have commented against you in the past, or have taken action against you in the past Guido, we would have very few "uninvolved" administrators left on this project. Your block log is quite scary. seicer | talk | contribs 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- "(An) admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless". Did you forget what you wrote in your nom here? --Smashvilletalk 19:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion for all reasons cited in
complex 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- Weak endorse. Defensible application of
WP:UP#NOT, although I fail to see why this particular instance of soapboxing is especially objectionable. Sandstein 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- Because he spent over a year, in tandem with other people, disrupting WP to get to his 'results'. WP:DENY seems applicable. // roux 19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please address the issue of lack of consensus, rather than to do the MfD and the mud-slinging all over again? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from an uninvolved admin: I count seven Delete !votes, including the nominator, to five Keep !votes on the original MfD. One of the keep !votes suggested simply moving the text to a subsection on Guido's userpage. Hardly consensus in either direction. Hermione1980 19:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion debates are not votes. The fact that the user's "experiment" was disrupting Wikipedia definitely weighed a lot into this argument. --Smashvilletalk 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware they're not votes (hence the !vote designation). The only reason I included that was for summary purposes. Everyone here is more than likely aware that there are other factors to consider when discussing deletion/undeletion. Hermione1980 19:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please. It's not my experiment, only my report. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which does not exist. I've done quite a few queries for a report from the United Nations on Wikipedia, and have come up with nothing. seicer | talk | contribs 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which you've been provided a copy of. --Smashvilletalk 20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, Seicer, now we are getting to the true motive for this quick deletion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not Seicer? --Smashvilletalk 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, still not seeing your point, Guido. I've provided a personal copy of this surmised report to your e-mail address. seicer | talk | contribs 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please use caution when you try to assess 'consensus' on the basis of raw numbers. At least one of those 'keep' votes was actively solicited ([11]). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - appears appropriate to me, policy and consensus considered appropriately by closing admin. Orderinchaos 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per well reasoned close. --Kbdank71 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - policy does not allow this sort of screed and/or non-existent "UN Report" in userspace. As an uninvolved lurker, I suggest that discussion be initiated at the proper location as to whether or not Guido has exhausted the patience of the community. I've disagreed with several of Seicer's administrative actions, but he was absolutely correct in this instance. Skinwalker (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - removal of self-feeding drama generators is a good thing. Seicer made a good call here. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse no compelling arguments given as to how the process broke down. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - disruptive junk gets deleted. Any process that would stop that from happening is a bad process. --B (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong endorse - Only there to cause angst. ]
- Overturn Invalid deletion reasons, as follows:
- "in the interests of keeping drama to a minimum,: since when is that a reason for deleting anything?
- "user page resembles a soapbox" a considerable litattitude is allowed for expression of views in user space.
- "no positive relation to Wikipedia" it certainly does bear a relation to Wikipedia , and if its negative criticism that is just a valid a sue as positive.
- "blog for personal opinions" personal opinions about Wikipedia are arppropriate content for user space.
I do not in the least agree with guido, but the deletion is a clear violation of NOT CENSORED. We follow NPOV about the outside world in article space, and in WP space that applies to views about us as well. DGG (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'keeping drama to a minimum' falls squarely within '
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point', it seems to me. Bollocks about some alleged 'UN report' or 'experiment', even more so. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
Delete Endorse. A rather creative way fighting to include one's own POV into articles by claiming authority, but unwanted nonetheless. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a deletion review; !votes should be "endorse", "keep deleted", "overturn", "undelete", etc.
talk) 10:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- My, you rather seem to have appointed yourself protector of this page. Correction made. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's keep it civil, shall we? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now THAT is genuinely amusing. And let me add, correctly, Delete userpage or any other copy also, now and whenever and wherever it crops up again. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)?
talk) 10:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- strongly endorse deletion- deranged ramblings of someone who I thought should already be indef blocked for POV pushing and general 'illness', which he himself says is being exacerbated by the project, because on this issue a lot of people here's opinions are too much like those of the real world for him to handle. Sticky Parkin 14:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As a side note, Guido has restored the above page on his main user page. seicer | talk | contribs 14:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that should be CSD per G4, no? // roux 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed it, was reverted by Guido, someone nominated it for CSD G4, then it was deleted, then reverted, and now its at Jimbo's page. seicer | talk | contribs 17:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you editwarred on my user page, threatened me, and then you protected your preferred version. Great going there, Seicer, but I have already presented sufficient evidence in my report, more is not needed. --Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No...you continued to repost the article that was deleted at MfD and is currently under DRV review before the DRV has been completed. --Smashvilletalk 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse all the deletions of this material. Verbal chat 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: Closure of MfD represents a reasonable interpretation of deletion policy and consensus. MastCell Talk 20:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion: DRV is not "MFD part II", and the original MFD was closed appropriately. No need to comment on content. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - While my !vote on the original MfD would have been delete, we will not go into that. Needless to say the MfD was closed correctly and within the confines of policy. I see no valid reason to restore the content. Tiptoety talk 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per DGG. Invalid reasons. Was this userspace essay rampaging over Wikipedia, terrorizing us humble villagers? Was there really a consensus for quick deletion at MfD? This is of course independent of whatever sanction may be imposed on the user for other actions. In my experience, "Keeping drama to a minimum" is a phrase generally prefacing a drama-increasing action. This is no exception.John Z (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
- So it appears that 'rampaging over Wikipedia' is an accurate description, then. As for reducing drama, the best way to do so is removing the source--the obvious next step is left as an exercise for the reader. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. This page had no value whatsoever to the encyclopedia and Seicer was correct and courageous to delete it.
talk) 09:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
|