Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ameliorate!/Voter guide guide

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

It's snowing "keep"s outside! Has also been removed from template. lifebaka++ 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ameliorate!/Voter guide guide

Clearly personal attack page with no "guide" value, just trying to make a drama. --Caspian blue 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are some people who just could not wait to tell the world how much they hate candidate X so they set up their own personal attack pages under the guise of being ArbCom election voting guides. Here is my take on the usefulness and neutrality of these guides.
  • that is perfect for the lazy and incompetent voter, but with sufficient mathematics skills that they are able to count the pretty green ticks. Even though it is a "meta-guide" it is rather biased against one candidate that the author has had past issues with. Not unusual for the author to be at the centre of drama. And if you missed the pun, even with the italics you are an idiot.
  • Most shocking is the attack on a candidate who they think "shouldn't be an admin". About what you would expect from someone who has failed an RFA, what, 4 times?
    - Top of the list for a {{POV}} sticker.
  • If you are looking for slanted hypocrisy this is the guide for you.
  • Keep I'm loath to interfere with the political process. If any leeway in the civility rules exists (and I don't necessarily see this list as incivil per se) it should be to allow for community members in good standing to give their honest opinion of ArbCom candidates. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have an honest opinion about the author's intention? "Grudge" (nothing new though per his usual behaviors)--Caspian blue 19:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: It's none of my business what the author intends--that is, political speech should not be subject to intent-based censorship. Mind you, I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and "rights" here are substantially different than in the real world, but I still see no compelling reason to interfere in the currently ongoing political process based on the content of this meta-guide. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, we censor such inappropriateness to maintain "Wikipedia" healthy. "Personal attacks" and "humors" are clearly different.--Caspian blue 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Jclemens, basically. Clearly not an "attack page". The one comment that could be an "attack" is a "some people" linked to the entire ACE2008 template of all users who have produced voting guides; reluctant to say that taken as a whole this makes the entire page an "attack page". The rest of the page is commentary on voter guides, not on people. Within the bounds of tolerance and acceptable humor, and may be useful. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please read the "the lazy and incompetent voter" (not plural) and others. I don't find any humor, but twisted attacks. If so, we can create "editor guide guide guide" to criticize the "editor guide guide"'s value.--Caspian blue 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ameliorate is not a sock puppet, however, but rather an established contributor with what is clearly a serious qualm with ArbCom election guides. Should be really be voting to delete simply to stifle that opinion? I disagree that the page is incivil. It consistently comments on the guides themselves and not the editors. It's strongly worded rather than incivil, no?
AGK 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Accusing the creators of the other guides of setting up their own "personal attack pages" is uncivil and an
assumption of bad faith. The term "lazy and incompetent voter" is also uncivil. The standard I use for judging civility, is to think about how such statements would be perceived if they were made on an article talkpage by a new editor. And if a new editor came in and said that other editors on the page were "lazy and incompetent", then even if that comment was not specifically targeted, I think that some, if not most, reasonable admins would regard the comment as uncivil. --Elonka 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
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.