Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:35, 31 October 2006 editDHeyward (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,753 edits →One particular case with documentation: misleading and confusing post.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:13, 3 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(39 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''keep''', a snowball keep and the only interested parties have now been banned from the debate for turning it intoa cesspit. 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
(<small>Above closure was by ], who forgot to sign. ] ] 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)</small>)

====]==== ====]====
{| class="messagebox" style="background: {{{1|#D8E3FA}}};"
|-
| ]
| <div align="center">This MfD is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to ] when commenting here.<br>
As a result of heated editing and two separate complaints to the ], ] and ] are banned from making further comments in this debate, per discussion at the . They may comment on the talk page as long as they stay out of each other's hair and refrain from editing, refactoring, moving or altering each other's comments.
|}

Violation of user space, Votestacking Violation of user space, Votestacking


Line 12: Line 27:
I couldn't have said it better myself. ] 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (ex NBGPWS) I couldn't have said it better myself. ] 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (ex NBGPWS)


'''Note:''' I think the closing admin should look at this, apparently this whole thing is actually NBGPWS making an accusation --]<s>]</s> 11:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Note:''' I think the closing admin should look at this, apparently this whole thing is actually NBGPWS making an accusation --]<s>]</s> 11:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''': Another Conspiracy Theory from a Conspiracy Theory Board member. You posted this at the top of a page laid out in chronological order in violation of protocol. I assume you feel that your newest Conspiracy Theory is so Tin-Foil-Hat worthy that it deserves to be on top of eveyone elses measurered discussion on the issues, but that's not the way things work around here. I filed an ANI. (Note that I wouldn't have called it a Conspiracy Theory except for the fact that when I refactored your use of that term towrds me, you reverted my refactor, and claimed that the term is not insulting - You're a Conspiracy Theory Board Member, so I accept your expertise on this matter as it relates to the use of the term Conspiracy Theory, among Conspiracy buffs such as yourself) ] 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I guess the irony is that you allege we want to delete conspiracy theorist articles regardless of merit, yet you are now calling me a conspiracy theorist. I guess I am self-hating at this point. --]<s>]</s> 21:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I think what Nuclear<s>Zer0</s> is objecting to is the claim that there's a "Conspiracy Theory Board" which has members. I don't think an objective analysis would find two people on the "board" who agree on much of anything. &mdash; ] | ] 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' <s>as previously kept in an MfD under a different name, and now even less possibly considered POV.</s> Note that the (partial) nominator, as NBGPWS, was adding AfD's not related to conspiracy theories, (some not even started) to the list. If he cannot use the list properly, it may show he does not know what a proper list might be. It should also be noted that many projects keep AfD lists related to that project; I see no reason why an individual cannot keep AfD lists related to a topic, as long as ''any'' AfD related to that topic may be included. *'''Keep''' <s>as previously kept in an MfD under a different name, and now even less possibly considered POV.</s> Note that the (partial) nominator, as NBGPWS, was adding AfD's not related to conspiracy theories, (some not even started) to the list. If he cannot use the list properly, it may show he does not know what a proper list might be. It should also be noted that many projects keep AfD lists related to that project; I see no reason why an individual cannot keep AfD lists related to a topic, as long as ''any'' AfD related to that topic may be included.
*'''speedy reject Speedy Delete''', if I see it appear, for the reasons given in my '''Keep''' !vote. &mdash; ] | ] 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''speedy reject Speedy Delete''', if I see it appear, for the reasons given in my '''Keep''' !vote. &mdash; ] | ] 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 44: Line 61:
::*I took action on Byron Insert because after you added it, I noticed that someone had removed the official AfD notice, and it needed to be put back in place. That does not change the fact that it was an inappropriate article to add to the conspiracy noticeboard, and that your repeated adding of it violated ] and was flying in the face of ]. It was needlessly disruptive, and the admins have already made clear that they agree with that assessment. --] 19:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::*I took action on Byron Insert because after you added it, I noticed that someone had removed the official AfD notice, and it needed to be put back in place. That does not change the fact that it was an inappropriate article to add to the conspiracy noticeboard, and that your repeated adding of it violated ] and was flying in the face of ]. It was needlessly disruptive, and the admins have already made clear that they agree with that assessment. --] 19:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or move to Misplaced Pages space. ] 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' or move to Misplaced Pages space. ] 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Move''' to ] or something similar. ] 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Move''' to ] or something similar. ] 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''keep''' per Author Rubin and Rosicrucian. Sparkhead's suggested move makes sense as well. ] 16:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''keep''' per Author Rubin and Rosicrucian. Sparkhead's suggested move makes sense as well. ] 16:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Just to be transparent, I have made a copy of the page at ] where it will be moved to Misplaced Pages space if a delete vote goes through and adapted to meet Sparkheads suggestion. --]<s>]</s> 16:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' Just to be transparent, I have made a copy of the page at ] where it will be moved to Misplaced Pages space if a delete vote goes through and adapted to meet Sparkheads suggestion. --]<s>]</s> 16:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 51: Line 68:
*'''Strong Keep''' clearly a bad faith nomination when someone uses a rational such as this “''In light of the upcoming Nov 7 elections, and the risk that it could be used in an effort to affect actual votes'',” ] 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' clearly a bad faith nomination when someone uses a rational such as this “''In light of the upcoming Nov 7 elections, and the risk that it could be used in an effort to affect actual votes'',” ] 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' I urge admins to look at the edits of several of the board members. I believe they will find that several of the board members are 'working overtime' to add 'negative' info into the articles of numerous US Politicians running for office on Nov 7, 2006. ] 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC) :*'''Comment''' I urge admins to look at the edits of several of the board members. I believe they will find that several of the board members are 'working overtime' to add 'negative' info into the articles of numerous US Politicians running for office on Nov 7, 2006. ] 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Do any of you voting keep have an issue with it being moved into wikispace?''' It seems that would cover all the bases as similar pages already exist. ] 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Do any of you voting keep have an issue with it being moved into wikispace?''' It seems that would cover all the bases as similar pages already exist. ] 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:*I'd require a more thorough explaination on what would be required of it if it were to migrate to wikispace. While the deletion sorting page seems like a likely candidate, its format also seems radically different. Perhaps you could explain further your proposal?--] 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) :*I'd require a more thorough explaination on what would be required of it if it were to migrate to wikispace. While the deletion sorting page seems like a likely candidate, its format also seems radically different. Perhaps you could explain further your proposal?--] 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::*I don't know that I'd change the formatting much. The way the current DS pages are structured are not a required format, and it seems most of those AfD's don't see the sheer volume of comments the AfD's listed on this page do. Note the "template" at ] which isn't far off from the current structure of this page. I think it's a good fit. ] 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::*I don't know that I'd change the formatting much. The way the current DS pages are structured are not a required format, and it seems most of those AfD's don't see the sheer volume of comments the AfD's listed on this page do. Note the "template" at ] which isn't far off from the current structure of this page. I think it's a good fit. ] 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:::*That does seem like a pretty workable format.--] 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC) :::*That does seem like a pretty workable format.--] 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I endorse ''"move to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Conspiracy_Theories or something similar"'' per Sparklehead ] 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' I endorse ''"move to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Conspiracy_Theories or something similar"'' per Sparklehead ] 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 66: Line 83:
*'''Keep''' Central location for single topic. It's Wikiproject of sorts. Everyone from everywhere is free to peruse and use the information. --] 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Central location for single topic. It's Wikiproject of sorts. Everyone from everywhere is free to peruse and use the information. --] 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
**Most everyone from everywhere has no idea it exists. Plus, obviously from the history, not everyone is welcome to add things. Hence, the idea of moving it to somewhere in wikispace. ] 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC) **Most everyone from everywhere has no idea it exists. Plus, obviously from the history, not everyone is welcome to add things. Hence, the idea of moving it to somewhere in wikispace. ] 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Arthur Rubin, Rosicrucian and Tbeatty. If this should go, then the pages devoted to saving school stubs from deletion need to go too. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' per Arthur Rubin, Rosicrucian and Tbeatty. If this should go, then the pages devoted to saving school stubs from deletion need to go too. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Posts like the following (more to come) are more proof of the board's admitted agenda and/or bias.<blockquote>'''"Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis''' (third nomination) -- '''not conspiracy theory''', but axe-grinding piece of cruft promoted by '''Left-Leaners'''. Had been deleted and then re-created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morton devonshire"''</blockquote> ] 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' Posts like the following (more to come) are more proof of the board's admitted agenda and/or bias.<blockquote>'''"Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis''' (third nomination) -- '''not conspiracy theory''', but axe-grinding piece of cruft promoted by '''Left-Leaners'''. Had been deleted and then re-created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morton devonshire"''</blockquote> ] 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:*She was the '''subject''' of a conspiracy theory, according to the deleted article. Seems relevant to me. Just because the nominator couldn't produce a coherent reason is no reason to delete if there ''is'' one, just as your failure to produce a coherent reason for your nominations is no reason to delete if there ''is'' one. &mdash; ] | ] 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC) :*She was the '''subject''' of a conspiracy theory, according to the deleted article. Seems relevant to me. Just because the nominator couldn't produce a coherent reason is no reason to delete if there ''is'' one, just as your failure to produce a coherent reason for your nominations is no reason to delete if there ''is'' one. &mdash; ] | ] 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 79: Line 96:
::::*Who said they do? This is becoming overly dramatic at this point. If an article is put on the noticeboard it still goes through the normal AfD process, and AfD is not a vote anyway. --]<s>]</s> 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ::::*Who said they do? This is becoming overly dramatic at this point. If an article is put on the noticeboard it still goes through the normal AfD process, and AfD is not a vote anyway. --]<s>]</s> 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't need to respond in kind with quotes from you. Admins know how to find them. ] 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''' I don't need to respond in kind with quotes from you. Admins know how to find them. ] 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep'''. After looking at the page itself, the nomination doesn't make any sense to me. It's someone's innocuous user subpage, listing a bunch of AfD results of interest. So freaking what? ]]] 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong keep'''. After looking at the page itself, the nomination doesn't make any sense to me. It's someone's innocuous user subpage, listing a bunch of AfD results of interest. So freaking what? ]]] 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' - Though keeping it does serve as proof that there is indeed a conspiracy to delete pages that do not match the GOP version of reality. ] 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong Delete''' - Though keeping it does serve as proof that there is indeed a conspiracy to delete pages that do not match the GOP version of reality. ] 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:*As a guy whose spent the last week making phone calls for democratic house candidates I resent that. This has nothing to do with the "GOP version of reality" LOOK AT THE PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN NOMINATED! First, the vast majority are only tangentially related to American politics. Second, they weren't nominated or deleted because people disagreed with the subject, they were deleted because they didn't meet wikipedia policy, particularly notability. Do you honestly believe that we need article's on books that are owned by fewer than 30 libraries? Or people whose only claim to fame is that they are someone's webmaster? Do you think that getting rid of those articles has anything to do with politics? Some leftists have this tendency to purge anyone who disagrees with them - it drives me absolutely up the wall. ] 05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) :*As a guy whose spent the last week making phone calls for democratic house candidates I resent that. This has nothing to do with the "GOP version of reality" LOOK AT THE PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN NOMINATED! First, the vast majority are only tangentially related to American politics. Second, they weren't nominated or deleted because people disagreed with the subject, they were deleted because they didn't meet wikipedia policy, particularly notability. Do you honestly believe that we need article's on books that are owned by fewer than 30 libraries? Or people whose only claim to fame is that they are someone's webmaster? Do you think that getting rid of those articles has anything to do with politics? Some leftists have this tendency to purge anyone who disagrees with them - it drives me absolutely up the wall. ] 05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 85: Line 102:
*'''Keep''' per MONGO and GabrielF. There's no harm in a user keeping a list of articles. --] <small>(])</small> 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' per MONGO and GabrielF. There's no harm in a user keeping a list of articles. --] <small>(])</small> 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - like my list of pages at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - like my list of pages at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per NuclearZer0, Rosicrucian, and Morton devonshire as many editors (both conservative and liberal, Republican & Democrat) have tracked AfD by this list as this is useful. So much for my "Wikibreak" - I couldn’t resist this any longer. I spotted this last night, and since then this has become a circus by one specific editor. This same editor got blocked for disruptive behavior pertaining to this ConspiracyNoticeboard, and now wants to prove a point by deleting it altogether under a new name. Don’t miss the forest because of the trees here people, this was a bad faith nomination. I am surprised this has continued to go on like it has. ] <small>]/]</small> 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

*:"this was a bad faith nomination." Puke, as above. ] 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
=====One particular case with documentation=====
*::This is not one of those wife asking- ''Does this dress make me look fat?'' situations, you can tell the truth here. ] <small>]/]</small> 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
'''"Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletes/Kathleen Christison - wife of William Christison, with 1/5th the notability!"''' Nominated by board member Aaron - 12 Oct 2006

She's an author, lecturer, ex CIA Analyst (16 yrs) and a vocal critic of Israel and the US's support of Israel. She wrote several books. Even I (admittedly a progressive liberal) don't agree with many of her views, and find some of them objectionable. Non-notable? ''' 89,500 GHITS for "Kathleen Christison" + CIA'''. Numerous inclusionable third-party mentions.

'''PROD for AFD''' by Aaron (board member)<BR>
'''Delete''' by GabrialF <del>(board founder and member)</del> - I created the page but labeling me a board member is misleading ] 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)<BR>
'''Delete''' by Eusubias (status undetermined)<BR>
'''Delete''' by Crockspot <del>(board member)</del> '''comment''' - Don't label me again - ] 13:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)<br>
'''Delete''' by Morton Devonshire (board member)<BR>
'''Delete''' by Nuclear0 <del>(board member)</del> '''comment''' - I would also prefer not to be labeled --]<s>]</s> 13:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) <BR>
'''Delete''' by Peephole (board member)<BR>
'''Delete''' by Jersey Devil (status undetermined)<BR>
'''Neutral''' by Blainster (Status undeterimed)<BR>

do we have catered meals at board meetings? --]<s>]</s> 03:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'll bring it up with my Illuminati masters. They're all Rothschilds and De Beers' so I think they can spring for it.] 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


:Please see ]. The only "boards" I belong to on Misplaced Pages are Wikipedians who play computer and video games, WikiProject Computer and video games members, and Wikipedians interested in anime and manga. That's it. Is this some kind of personal attack? ] 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::That's light years away from bing a personal attack. You have dozens of posts to the board, and answered Derex, on that board, using 'us' and 'we'. ''"If you notice the Afds, you will see that each of us..."'' ''"Notice that we're NOT nominating articles..."'' ] 03:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Result was '''delete''' for an admittedly controverisal woman whose views many people find objectionable. But non-notable? Google her yourself and tell me that. I contend that this vote was PURE POLITICS, and AT LEAST 7 of the 10 votes, AND the PROD came from board members.

] 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

: Um, given that she pretty clearly fails ], this is less than persuasive. Is this the worst example you can construct? ] 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Fails BIO? -- -- ] 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::If she's so inherently notable, how come nobody challenged the AfD? ] 02:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I'll let the admins judge if it was a good faith nomination, or agenda driven. Did you post an RFC to get feedback from the HUNDREDS of Wikipedians who are primarily interested in Israel-Palestine issues? - Oops, I was wrong - she has 3 books and 5 other published works available on Amazon. ] 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Its not a WAPO article, its a question and answer session. I am sure if you called Washington Post you would most likely find its a seperate group that handles the content of an online Q&A then handles choosing articles for the website. I also do not see her mentioned in many sources for views, so you can write to your hearts content, but if noone cares ... well your still not notable. I wold also like to note as Gabriel said, if she is, and her views, so notable, why did noone oppose? Better yet how much of that information was in the article? I will tell you, none of it. You can view the cache on google if you know how to search for it. You should research your examples better as they arent working out too well so far. You also turned this MfD into a mess. --]<s>]</s> 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll let the admins decide 'what's working'. I contend that even the initial argument was bad faith.

''"NN. Only real assertion of notability is from her book, which gets only 150 Ghits , practically all of which are blogs. Aaron 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)"''

She's written 3 books, yet the nominator used the title of one. Why might that be? Most of her notability is from being a 16 year CIA officer with 'radical' views, and is why she gets 89,500 GHITS on her name + CIA. She lectures all over the world, and has a published history dating back a decade. ] 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry but radical CIA officer doesnt satisfy WP:BIO, but thats another issue. The Learning Annex is having a convention with "Power Earner Guru's" giving speeches, people who give them all over the continental US ... do I really need to finish, should we give them all articles? Again the article did not establish notability, if you felt it did, you should have chimed in. You can see the link I provided above and review if you feel the article presented notability. --]<s>]</s> 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Here's her WAPO BIO from 2001, and she has become even more notable since then. ''"Formerly, Christison worked as a political analyst with the CIA, dealing first with Vietnam for several years and then with the Middle East for her last seven years with the Agency before resigning in 1979. Since leaving the CIA, she has been a free-lance writer, dealing primarily with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her book, "Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy," was published in 1999 by the University of California Press, and was reissued in paperback with an update in October 2001. A second book, "The Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story," was published in August 2001. She has published articles in Foreign Policy magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, two encyclopedias on the Middle East, and several Middle East journals, as well as book reviews in newspapers throughout the country, including the Washington Post."'' ] 04:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Its not a WAPO bio its a description before the Q&A. Lets not try to prop that up to more then it is. --]<s>]</s> 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

;::That's for the admins to decide. ] 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:PS you may want to remove your list above, its starting to seem ]. --]<s>]</s> 03:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::That's YOUR list, not mine. ] 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I mean the one you tagging people as board members. Stop trying to label people. I think Derex made a comment that when you run out of points to argue you start talking about the people ... hmm ...
--]<s>]</s> 11:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:13, 3 March 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was keep, a snowball keep and the only interested parties have now been banned from the debate for turning it intoa cesspit. 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (Above closure was by User:JzG, who forgot to sign. the wub "?!" 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

 This MfD is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

As a result of heated editing and two separate complaints to the administrators' noticeboard, User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:NuclearUmpf are banned from making further comments in this debate, per discussion at the noticeboard. They may comment on the talk page as long as they stay out of each other's hair and refrain from editing, refactoring, moving or altering each other's comments.

Violation of user space, Votestacking

Violation of user space, Votestacking:

As Jimbo Wales himself opined : "Using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." What can I not have on my userpage

I am taking the liberty of reposting Derex's succint thoughts regarding this possible misuse of a user page / space. In light of the upcoming Nov 7 elections, and the risk that it could be used in an effort to affect actual votes, or Wiki user's free access to information, I also respectfully ask that it be "Speedy Deleted".

"The Conspiracy Noticeboard has been serving as a de facto noticeboard for people proposing and following AFD's on a particular topic: 9/11. To an extent has begun to broaden its focus into politically related articles in general, serving as an AFD conservative noticeboard. Among several recent examples, the Yellowcake forgery nomination was listed there as it went on AFD. This sort of private noticeboard strikes me as quite counter to the ideal collaborative and neutral spirit of AFD. I doubt, for example, that we would permit a WP:AFD noticeboard on topic X. Isn't that what AFD itself is for? So, I personally take issue with a user-space page which is serving the same role of co-ordinating editors with a particular outlook. There seems to be quite a lot of pre-discussion among editors watching that page, almost all of it off the relevant article talk pages. An unwiki lack of transparency, in my opinion."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (ex NBGPWS)

Comment: Another Conspiracy Theory from a Conspiracy Theory Board member. You posted this at the top of a page laid out in chronological order in violation of protocol. I assume you feel that your newest Conspiracy Theory is so Tin-Foil-Hat worthy that it deserves to be on top of eveyone elses measurered discussion on the issues, but that's not the way things work around here. I filed an ANI. (Note that I wouldn't have called it a Conspiracy Theory except for the fact that when I refactored your use of that term towrds me, you reverted my refactor, and claimed that the term is not insulting - You're a Conspiracy Theory Board Member, so I accept your expertise on this matter as it relates to the use of the term Conspiracy Theory, among Conspiracy buffs such as yourself) Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess the irony is that you allege we want to delete conspiracy theorist articles regardless of merit, yet you are now calling me a conspiracy theorist. I guess I am self-hating at this point. --NuclearZer0 21:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think what NuclearZer0 is objecting to is the claim that there's a "Conspiracy Theory Board" which has members. I don't think an objective analysis would find two people on the "board" who agree on much of anything. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as previously kept in an MfD under a different name, and now even less possibly considered POV. Note that the (partial) nominator, as NBGPWS, was adding AfD's not related to conspiracy theories, (some not even started) to the list. If he cannot use the list properly, it may show he does not know what a proper list might be. It should also be noted that many projects keep AfD lists related to that project; I see no reason why an individual cannot keep AfD lists related to a topic, as long as any AfD related to that topic may be included.
  • speedy reject Speedy Delete, if I see it appear, for the reasons given in my Keep !vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Link to previous MFD? I think you're mistaken about that. 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment What's ironic is that numerous members of the Conspiracy Noticeboard commented on, and voted to delete the article which you mention. The same article which they objected to me posting - which they said was of no interest to them - and out of place on the board - with one editor commenting at length several times. Odd, huh? The Byron Insert Deletion Discussion Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
should also be noted that many projects keep AfD lists related to that project I would be interested in a list User_talk:Arthur_Rubin. What article are you two talking about? Please remember that most editors have not been involved in these arguments that you have. If what Fairness/NBGPWS is saying is true, then this statment: I see no reason why an individual cannot keep AfD lists related to a topic, as long as any AfD related to that topic may be included. is false. Travb (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS added deletion requests for Clinton Chronicles, which was removed, but was then reinserted and I retagged with NBGPWS's signature (all during his block), and The Byron Insert, which is clearly off-topic. He did repeatedly reinsert both, which I'll put down to unfamilarity with Misplaced Pages guidelines. Puns on "insertion" are entirely NBGPWS's fault for inserting the AfD on The Byron Insert. WikiProjects I'm familiar with which attempt to keep lists of project-related deletions include Mathematics and Numbers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There is also Guantanamo Prisoners, and I know a general one for videogame based AfD's, I can dig up the project if needed. --NuclearZer0 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete As per Fairness And Accuracy For All/NBGPWS. Many well researched articles have been deleted or been voted for deletion by those with strong political or ideological biases. See: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Clinton_Chronicles I believe the absolute worst abuse of wikipolicy are those editors who push their own POV by deleting articles whose POV they disagree with. No matter what a persons political perusasion, and the political slant of the article, this should not be allowed to continue on wikipedia. I comment more about this here: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically motivated AfD's: the elephant in the room. Dispite NBGPWS own AfD's, he has some excellent points. This votestacking article should be deleted. Travb (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    Note this user voted in the same manner as many of the user who watch this noticeboard, on the Clinton Chronicles AfD, which was keep, however not all voted in tandem, Crockspot, Strothra and Edison all voted merge or delete and only 3 other participants voted keep, pretty even split. Further Derex, the author of the MfD justification also voted keep on that article, so I am quite confused as to the point of bringing it up, especially when its shows the non-bias of the group, 3 voting keep, 1 merge, and 2 delete, technically more supporting it being kept then voting for deletion. --NuclearZer0 19:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator has been blocked just last week over vandalizing the board he is now attempting to get deleted, you can see his block log under User:NBGPWS the specific block is at: , he has been told so far by another admin that the page is permissable as all AfD groups that cover a specific area, cartoons, war articles, Guantanamo Bay prisoners etc. --NuclearZer0 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominator has a history of blocks relating to this board and vandalism, as pointed out above please see User:NBGPWS, I guess when you cannot vandalize it anymore you look for someone to delete it instead. This is clearly a WP:POINT violation as the paragraph listed above doesn't point to a rationale and the user has been told the noticeboard acts as all noticeboards related to a small group of articles, such as conspiracy based ones. --NuclearZer0 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per myself (quoted at top). If we would accept a wiki-space article like this, then this ought to be deleted and re-created there, where it's public. If we wouldn't accept such, then this ought to be deleted. Either way it should go. Derex 12:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like people on both sides wanting articles to stay or go based on whether they believe the goverment's official coverups for their conspiracies. Anomo 12:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't single out individual editors and is merely a list of articles related to conspiracy theories and theorists, most of whom listed are not notable anyway. It's in userspace anyway...so no harm no foul.--MONGO 12:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete simply because it is in one person's userspace. Noticeboards are very dangerous things, and need community oversight to ensure that they are being used fairly. By definition, this can't. --InShaneee 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to Wikispace Bad faith nom. Nom was blocked for a month under User:NBGPWS for vandalism of this page, and steadfast refusal to stop. MONGO lessened his block to 48 hours under the assumption that he would cool it and stop harassing the noticeboard and its users. Beyond this, anyone can list a conspiracy article on the noticeboard, as evidenced by the nom himself. Those who use the board are not guaranteed to argue for or against deletion, and there is no political bias on the board except against cruft. Its founder is a Democrat. I myself use the board heavily and I'm quite liberal. I can personally say I've voted "Keep" on several articles put on the noticeboard, for reasons such as article improvement during the AfD process, articles being nominated too soon after a previous keep, and many others. Nom's campaign against what he believes is a "conservative deletionist squad" borders on wikistalking, and though he's gone through proper channels this time this is not votestacking.--Rosicrucian 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have revised my above note to accomodate Sparkhead's proposal below.--Rosicrucian 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just so its clear, "deletionist hit squad" was an actual term used to describe the noticeboard participants by the nominator: --NuclearZer0 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You're one of the editors who voted on The Byron Insert AfD. If it was compelling enough that you and several others board members voted in and commented on this AfD at length, I can't fathom how you would continie to call my actions of bringing the AfD to the board 'vandalism'. It was an appropriate AfD for inclusion on the board for you, or you would't have voted on it. This was perhaps a violation of WP:POINT, but the actions of the board showed that the board operates like a 'private club' banning participation of people with whom they may not agree, or like. Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to point out, you were not banned from anything as you later added Clinton Chronicles on the grounds you felt it was a violation of BLP and consipiracy cruft, and the people who use the noticeboard took a look at your addition, one I was skeptical about its merits, and some weighed in on it. So I am not sure of who the private club is when you are allowed to edit the noticeboard, not like permission needs to be given, and further it was taken seriously, though I was against an addition by you after the now admitted WP:POINT violation. --NuclearZer0 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You should put this under my comment so it makes some sense and gains context, I point out however that I stated:

    So I am not sure of who the private club is when you are allowed to edit the noticeboard, not like permission needs to be given, and further it was taken seriously, though I was against an addition by you after the now admitted WP:POINT violation.

    That is a quote from above, which is why I ask you move it, and I guess this as well.--NuclearZer0 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Given your prior disruptive behavior on that noticeboard, I think we were all a little gunshy when you showed up there again with an actual serious nomination. It's the peril of the boy who cried wolf, and while it was removed, it was later re-added and we agreed it was a good faith nom. The irony here is that if you had approached the noticeboard in a non-adversarial manner, this wouldn't have happened.--Rosicrucian 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would also like to note, that people weighing in on the Bryon insert doesnt actually prove anything, If I went to a military history noticeboard and kept spamming an article on my software company with no sources, and people state they feel it should be deleted, that does not prove that its not a military history noticeboard, simply that the AfD was brought to some's attention, even by means of vandalism. --NuclearZer0 19:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I took action on Byron Insert because after you added it, I noticed that someone had removed the official AfD notice, and it needed to be put back in place. That does not change the fact that it was an inappropriate article to add to the conspiracy noticeboard, and that your repeated adding of it violated WP:3RR and was flying in the face of WP:POINT. It was needlessly disruptive, and the admins have already made clear that they agree with that assessment. --Rosicrucian 19:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I urge admins to look at the edits of several of the board members. I believe they will find that several of the board members are 'working overtime' to add 'negative' info into the articles of numerous US Politicians running for office on Nov 7, 2006. Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd require a more thorough explaination on what would be required of it if it were to migrate to wikispace. While the deletion sorting page seems like a likely candidate, its format also seems radically different. Perhaps you could explain further your proposal?--Rosicrucian 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If I hear the term "bad faith nomination" one more time ever on Misplaced Pages, I'm going to puke. And I've heard it a lot lately. Just because someone has disagreed with you in the past, even about that article, does not make a nomination bad faith. It also has absolutely zero relevance to the merit of the AFD, which other can judge perfectly well themselves regardless of the hypothetical malign and vengeful motives of the nominator. It's a bogus ad hominem argument. .... I'd also, in the spirit of transparency, like to know who here commenting has actually used that page. Well, I actually do know, and it's quite a few. But on a wiki it's nice to be upfront about everything. To an extent, it's the same issue as this nom is trying to resolve. My involvement: I have commented unfavorably about this page before, and I became aware of it a week or two ago. Derex 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Lovely, more ad hominem — the last resort of those without any substantive arguments. This old page (now completely different) which I nom'ed speaks for itself. I withdrew my nom after you blanked the page yourself, so a "keep" isn't much vindication (as you essentially deleted it yourself). What on earth has on article by Morton Devonshire titled "Why I hate Mumia" got to do with this nomination by someone else about something else where your name hasn't even been mentioned? Derex 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Central location for single topic. It's Wikiproject of sorts. Everyone from everywhere is free to peruse and use the information. --Tbeatty 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Most everyone from everywhere has no idea it exists. Plus, obviously from the history, not everyone is welcome to add things. Hence, the idea of moving it to somewhere in wikispace. Derex 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arthur Rubin, Rosicrucian and Tbeatty. If this should go, then the pages devoted to saving school stubs from deletion need to go too. Jayjg 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Posts like the following (more to come) are more proof of the board's admitted agenda and/or bias.

    "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination) -- not conspiracy theory, but axe-grinding piece of cruft promoted by Left-Leaners. Had been deleted and then re-created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morton devonshire"

    Left-Leaners Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • She was the subject of a conspiracy theory, according to the deleted article. Seems relevant to me. Just because the nominator couldn't produce a coherent reason is no reason to delete if there is one, just as your failure to produce a coherent reason for your nominations is no reason to delete if there is one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You're completely misinterpreting both what Jimbo said and what we're doing. Jimbo doesn't mean that you can't use a userpage to help clean up the wiki and we aren't campaigning for anything except eliminating inherently bad articles. In fact, the only one attacking people is you. GabrielF 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Who said they do? This is becoming overly dramatic at this point. If an article is put on the noticeboard it still goes through the normal AfD process, and AfD is not a vote anyway. --NuclearZer0 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As a guy whose spent the last week making phone calls for democratic house candidates I resent that. This has nothing to do with the "GOP version of reality" LOOK AT THE PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN NOMINATED! First, the vast majority are only tangentially related to American politics. Second, they weren't nominated or deleted because people disagreed with the subject, they were deleted because they didn't meet wikipedia policy, particularly notability. Do you honestly believe that we need article's on books that are owned by fewer than 30 libraries? Or people whose only claim to fame is that they are someone's webmaster? Do you think that getting rid of those articles has anything to do with politics? Some leftists have this tendency to purge anyone who disagrees with them - it drives me absolutely up the wall. GabrielF 05:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I actually had a lot of useful contributions to wikipedia planned for this week, but instead I've been spending my time responding to vandalism of the noticeboard, vacuous accusations on my talk page, the village pump, various AfDs and deletion reviews and now here. This nomination is groundless and absurd. "Fairness and Accuracy for All" - a user who was recently blocked for a month for incivility, vandalism and violating 3RR - is upset that an article about a friend of his was deleted. He brought the AfD before deletion review and deletion was endorsed, he tried vandalizing the noticeboard on my userspace and was blocked, now he's trying a frivolous and time wasting MfD. This is a revenge nomination. It makes absolutely no sense - the idea that I'm somehow trying to influence the midterm elections is laughable. Almost none of the articles nominated have anything to do with politics. Finally, the noticeboard's record speaks for itself. 46 out of 55 or so AfDs listed have been either deleted or merged, many of them were decided unanimously. Look through those AfDs and see if they were nominated for political reasons or because they were sucky articles. You'll see that this nomination is completely baseless. GabrielF 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per MONGO and GabrielF. There's no harm in a user keeping a list of articles. --Aude (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - like my list of pages at User:Tom harrison/ToDo#Refrigeration pages. Tom Harrison 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per NuclearZer0, Rosicrucian, and Morton devonshire as many editors (both conservative and liberal, Republican & Democrat) have tracked AfD by this list as this is useful. So much for my "Wikibreak" - I couldn’t resist this any longer. I spotted this last night, and since then this has become a circus by one specific editor. This same editor got blocked for disruptive behavior pertaining to this ConspiracyNoticeboard, and now wants to prove a point by deleting it altogether under a new name. Don’t miss the forest because of the trees here people, this was a bad faith nomination. I am surprised this has continued to go on like it has. JungleCat talk/contrib 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    "this was a bad faith nomination." Puke, as above. Derex 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    This is not one of those wife asking- Does this dress make me look fat? situations, you can tell the truth here. JungleCat talk/contrib 22:27, 31 October 2006 (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.