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 Keep.  Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 15:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Extremely large attack page, presumably about an ArbCom case to be filed at some point. However, the page seems to consist solely of attacks against large numbers of editors loosely grouped into various "cabals." Parties intended to be named include sixteen editors, an entire WikiProject, and finally, "[a]ll admins on WP:ANI from 15 October, 2009 – 20 October, 2009." Solutions to be sought include injunctions on a large group of editors "preventing them from reverting any of my edits on any page in any namespace; preventing them from involving themselves, in any way, in any page in any namespace I might involve myself in." The page also includes a large section accusing others of attempting to "wiki-murder" the author. Seems to be an extreme case of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Glass Cobra 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Politeness Police, by the same author. Be sure to catch the edit summary used on creation, and read the talk page. Equazcion (talk) 17:33, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Attack? No.

Only one cabal not various.

I thought it was recommended that a subpage be created in userspace for a future ArbCom case?

Shallow analysis from GlassCobra.

Large group? Three who have been Wikihounding me, and one who made an explicit declaration to revert anything I did.

The large "Wiki-murder" (my quotes) section is about 4 paragraphs.

Any other misrepresentations?

The scope of the "case" is not for you to comment on - if you don't like it, tough. HarryAlffa ( talk) 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment HarryAlffa, are you intending on filing a ArbCom based on this page in the very near future? The reason I'm asking is that I feel that I cannot make a reasoned !vote unless I know your intentions in the near future (say the next few days)? -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Clarification To clarify my reason for asking, HarryAlffa, on WP:USER in the section about what you cannot have, there is 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. (emphasis mine) - that is why I need a reply to my question, so I can make a reasoned !vote under the criteria of that guideline. -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

At the centre of this is Wikihounding by the "cabal", here is that part of the document [1]. HarryAlffa ( talk) 18:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'd like to hear an answer to PhantomSteve's question, HarryAlffa. In my mind that seems to be central to whether or not this page should be deleted. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It is not only a new page, it falls squarely into a specific protected category of pages in userspace. It is not in the purview of MfD to make any determinations as to whether the accusations are right or wrong - just that pages representing material which might reasonably be presented to ArbCom are not deletable, as that is entirely a matter for ArbCom to weigh in the future. Otherwise we would routinely see material from userspace which is intended for transmittal to ArbCom be deleted by people in MfD. Collect ( talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • On the list of involved parties is "All admins on WP:ANI from 15 October, 2009 – 20 October, 2009." This doesn't strike me as something that might reasonably be presented to ArbCom. It rather looks like a fantasy, and I'm inclined to vote to delete, pending HarryAlffa's answer to PhantomSteve's question above. Equazcion (talk) 18:29, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Wikiproject Solar System comprises 3 co-ordinators and 47 members; a quick check through the ANI archives showed 35 admins leaving posts between 0000 and 2000 on the 15th Oct - I stopped counting at that point (and I may have missed a couple). -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. His listing me as a litigant notwithstanding, I think that, justified or not, this... whatever it is... is nonetheless part of Harry's user space and he should be free to edit it as he sees fit. Call me when he actually tries to bring this forward. Serendi ^pod ous 18:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Don't care. As one of the accused I am not the least bit concerned since the only person this reflects badly upon is HarryAlffa himself. However, since he seems to be editing under his real name I have added the {{NOINDEX}} template. We don't want t find people's medical history or similar on Google. Hans Adler 18:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As long as he's doing it in user space, he's not harming anyone, and it keeps him busy... -- Kotniski ( talk) 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Neutral. The page, while distasteful, does clearly illustrate the real problem. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Neutral, as I have somehow found myself named as a party. I may comment more, later, but Phantomsteve's question is a valid one. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep, for now. The user has every right to draft an Arbcom filing in their userspace, and since the contents are essentially brand new it's a little early to pass judgement and say that it is being used as an attack page. If HarryAlffa intends to file a case with Arbcom then let him do so; if this thing lingers with no action in the near future it can be safely deleted at that point. As someone pointed out above, should HarryAlffa actually go throug with it and file a case I believe it reflects poorly upon himself rather than those he has singled out, but if an editor is intent on embarassing themselves that is their own prerogative. Sher eth 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep drafts are an allowed use of userspace. ArcAngel ( talk) 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, and I say this as one of the named parties. He's allowed to prepare an ArbCom request like any other user. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per all the "Keep" arguments above and also Wikipedia:Attack pages"...However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes..." The name of the page indicates its intent sufficiently. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep If the people named on the page have no problems with this being kept, I see no reason why I should object. -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Allowed use of user subpage, it's clearly not abandoned, and appears to be a draft for a planned ArbCom case presentation. If it becomes obviously and significantly stale at some timely point in the future, renominate. This does not mean I agree or disagree with any of the content, however. — Becksguy ( talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I like criticism. Thank you, HarryAlffa for your input regarding my participation here. I'll think about what you said. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I add one comment to HarryAlffa, who I assume is reading. Harry: If, as you wrote, your wish is that GTBacchus "never, ever involves himself in any aspect of my life again," then listing me as an "involved party" to some ArbCom case you might or might not file... is a poor strategy for keeping me at a distance. When I wish not to see someone, I don't summon them to court... because I'll see them there, and that's what I didn't want. It's just something to think about. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I seem to be tilting at windmills but this is an attack page, only formatted to look like an arbcom case, which doesn't make it any better. If those being attacked don't mind it, I suppose IAR could apply, but in my book, this page should be deleted. It would be a different story if the author were claiming that it's an actual draft to be used in the near future as an arbcom case, but he is not, and the page in its current state couldn't be used that way. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• On point of policy, is it a personal attack to call editors incompetent, or to accuse them of lying? It's possible that a Keep result should include a request to redact some of the more egregious comments not directly related to evidence. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Agreed, but you're operating under the good-faith assumption that this is a draft of an actual case to be filed. My good faith expired when the author referred to it as a ""case"" above, quotes included. Along with his refusal to answer the direct question of his intentions, I'm not seeing any reason to continue assuming this is intended as an actual case, rather than "the recording of perceived flaws", which is not allowed. Equazcion (talk) 23:49, 3 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• Good or bad faith doesn't enter into it, and rules don't enter into it. There either is a good reason to delete the page, or there isn't. If there's no good reason to delete it, then we'll let it be. It's better to argue from reasons than from rules, I think... or maybe I'm soapboxing again if I say that. I'll quit while I'm ahead (or "ahead"). - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Depends who you ask. I think there's a policy or guideline somewhere that says policy-based arguments are the best kind. If you want reasons instead, I think we should be discouraging the use of process drafts as a guise for attack pages. But again I realize I'm in the minority in this case, and will bow to consensus, whatever it ends up being. Equazcion (talk) 00:01, 4 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• You shouldn't judge HarryAlffa by normal standards. I am 100% sure this is a good faith action. Whether HarryAlffa is fit to contribute to Wikipedia is a different matter and can't be resolved here. Hans Adler 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I am sure it's intended for Arbcom, although by now he knows he can't simply dump this material there. [2] [3] Hans Adler 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Wait, hang on. I didn't even see that he'd already tried to file this as an actual ArbCom case. That changes the situation considerably; I didn't know that it had already been rejected. Glass Cobra 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Point of Order: it wasn't "rejected" per se - the filing was too lengthy (even allowing a little leeway!) - it was about 20 times longer than the reasonable limit of 500. Dougweller didn't say that it was rejected - just that it was filed incorrectly, as well as advising WP:DR as as refiling "is likely to be denied". Personally, I agree with Dougweller - but if HarryAlffa wants to refile, he is entitled to - and as such is entitled to prepare his ArbCom case on his user page before submission - if only so that it can be edited to a more reasonable size! -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep. If it's part of a draft for (possible) filing, it has a legitimate purpose in general, and I don't (with a quick skim) see much evidence that it qualifies as an attack page. It shouldn't hang around indefinitely, but if it's under active development, then it's fine. Rd232 ^talk 00:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't see how it is anyone's business to nominate a user space page for deletion. Neuromancer ( talk) 13:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• Is this a serious comment? Userspace pages are nominated for deletion on a very regular basis. See several other current discussions on this page, as well as any number throughout this page's history. Glass Cobra 20:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

In my first contribution to this page I said, "I thought it was recommended that a subpage be created in userspace for a future ArbCom case?". The initiator of this page said, "...presumably about an ArbCom case to be filed at some point". Take these as replies to later questions. But I will not be pressured into a timetable.

I was criticised, with an implication of subterfuge, for including quotes when calling it a "case". Get real. It only becomes a case when actually a case at ArbCom, till then it is a "case". You will never find any contribution of mine which is deliberately dishonest in any way. I actually find it quite difficult to deliberately lie. I just don't like it. And to lie here seems pointless - all the evidence is there, which brings me on to corruption. Evidenced, deliberate lies have been ignored by admins - in an ANI [4]. Hence "all the admins ...".

As I said to LessHeard on my talk page, "I've come to regard Wikipedia as the most corrupt society I've been involved in".

This page was initiated with this;

Extremely large attack page, presumably about an ArbCom case to be filed at some point. However, the page seems to consist solely of attacks against large numbers of editors loosely grouped into various "cabals." Parties intended to be named include sixteen editors, an entire WikiProject, and finally, "[a]ll admins on WP:ANI from 15 October, 2009 – 20 October, 2009." Solutions to be sought include injunctions on a large group of editors "preventing them from reverting any of my edits on any page in any namespace; preventing them from involving themselves, in any way, in any page in any namespace I might involve myself in." The page also includes a large section accusing others of attempting to "wiki-murder" the author. Seems to be an extreme case of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

—  User:GlassCobra

Obviously I will accept opinions as opinion

• Extremely large attack page
• seems to consist solely of attacks

But facts are facts:

This careless approach to veracity and accuracy have not improved my view of Wikipedian society.

But as I also said to LessHeard on my talk page, "However, in a triumph of hope over experience, I do hope that my current view of endemic corruption and dishonesty of Wikipedians will be overturned".

With the obvious effect that making this prediction will make it become untrue

• I'm sure I'll be described as saying, "HarryAlffa thinks Wikipedia is a corrupt society", omitting my counter-part quote of triumph of hope over experience except to be couched in a way to make it sound negative, though it was obviously intended as a positive thing, and if it wasn't obvious it is now. The lie would be in not describing my full view - the hope part.

That hope, although still critically ill, has been stabilised by those uninvolved who said keep. To those of you I did not name individually in my "case" I extend my thanks, while fully accepting that this in no way says anything about your opinion of the evidence & conclusions.

I think User:Collect gave a good argument for the big picture.

To those who are named individually in the "case", I say nothing, in particular I especially say nothing to anyone involving themselves here when it is transparent I desire no such involvement, I did not call you here - save it for ArbCom, when it will be ArbCom you will be speaking to, not me.

HarryAlffa ( talk) 16:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

point of order: the nominator seems to have notified every person you identified on the page, so it's not surprising at least some of them commented. Rd232 ^talk 18:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, whether Harry called anyone here, he might as well have applied ordinary common sense to realize that his actions were very likely to bring named editors to this page. This makes his claim, "it is transparent that I desire no such involvement," sketchy at best. Those who desire no involvement do not do things that are 100% likely to result in involvement. What you get is precisely what you desired, Harry, otherwise you wouldn't have asked for it. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 18:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

• I was unaware of canvassing efforts by the nominator.
• My legitimate action would not be expected to result in anything. Drafts like this should be left well alone - as the consensus and common sense agrees - so this nomination was surprising to me, although it weighs in my opinion of corruption. Further faulty analysis is the "sketchy claim" by one who earlier quoted the relevant part of the document asking for that one for no involvement. The further involvement by that one is starting to look like baiting on that one's part. To recast my earlier comments on honesty - I say what I mean, and mean what I say. Don't flatter yourself, this wasn't a come-on. HarryAlffa ( talk) 19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Well, this is an engaging chat, but no, I'm done here. Good luck to you. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - some people 'round here could do with thicker skins, they could. Crafty ( talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - The ONLY person this silliness reflects badly upon is the creator and no one else. If he really feels the need to reveal to the world that he is the kind of person who would create a page like this, then we are better served that we can see that out in the open. Let him have this. It only lets us know what kind of person he really is. -- Jayron 32 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• He's already been rejected? Delete. If he wants to re-file, do so: shit or get off the pot. If he wants to save it, that's what hard drives are for. And shame on those who offer mewling words about "civility" for encouraging his fantasies. -- Calton | Talk 03:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• I find it hilarious that Calton would comment on this since his own page is just as bad of an attack page yet nothing seems to be veer done about it. 67.76.14.222 ( talk) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Collect. This is absolutely a legitimate use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 16:31, 8 November 2009 (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.