Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:48, 23 March 2008

SPAs

I am alarmed at the number of SPAs that are popping up in this deletion discussion. I am concerned not only by their effect on the discussion but by their uncanny similarity to one another. Does anyone else consider this a problem worth further investigation? --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here they are, for the record:

• Antignom (talk · contribs)
• 82.69.100.45 (talk · contribs)
• 129.31.222.133 (talk · contribs)
• Proscience (talk · contribs)
• 76.68.237.72 (talk · contribs)

I'd also point out that the nominator has contributed 75 edits to Misplaced Pages (excluding userspace), and 41 of them (55%) have been to this AfD (or the article in question):

• R Physicist (talk · contribs)

I'm concerned that when you remove the (redundant) rationales of these four SPAs (who I suspect, although assume not, to be some type of puppets), the discussion looks very different, particularly in the makeup and substance of the delete rationales. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is interesting compare the comments of above mentioned users with the comments some russian users which they did in the first AfD discussion of my article (see please Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations). Also these english comments absolutely same with the logic and contents of comments (in russian) which were in Russian.Wiki.(see please ] and ]). Here I would like to present just one and short quotation from their comments " ... Осталось теперь на англвики добить. --RedAndr 15:26, 24 января 2008 (UTC)" main contents of which can be from russian to english translated approximately as " ... our next task is kill (delete) english version of the article" that is my article Myrzakulov equations. Also both of these two russian users actively participated in the previous AfD discussions directly and in the second AfD discussion anonymously and using (by) associated users. Ngn 92.46.69.162 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  Now that is inappropriate. Users from one Wiki are not welcome to flood another in order to influence matters in what is a more-or-less independent project. This kind of tendentious, deliberate, motivated stuff might fly on ru.wiki, but it doesn't here. This certainly explains the fact that so many users have popped up with virtually (or literally) no prior history on en.wiki to vote in uncanny unison to delete this article. I would, at this point, consider this AfD to be spoiled, procedurally, due to the interference of these SPAs, although if one (properly) disregards their contributions, there is a much more productive AfD discussion buried somewhere in here. If I had the time, I'd file an SSP case against all of the editors with little or no prior history on en.wiki who have this otherwise singular opinion - I strongly suspect an abuse of this process going on here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved here from discussion page

Misplaced Pages or Wackopedia?

• Absurdity upon absurdity. Self appointed pundits who have no scientific competence whatsoever casting aspersions upon precise and pertinent remarks by experts in the field; then insulting them with their contemptible derision and even imperiously commanding them to desist from expressing themselves! Other pundits called "administrators" with no other visible qualifications than the fact that they have made thousands of edits to Misplaced Pages, and have attained to certain "special powers" through God knows what absurd and arbitrary scrutiny process within this self-referential club. These latter, or at least some of them, apparently feel entitled to register totally unfounded, intimidating remarks like "...a new account. Possibly suspicious." that would be worthy of thought police, to redefine the English language so as to comply with their notions of "Misplaced Pages usage" and "good practice", to overtly and explicitly express their hostility and contempt for anything that might be viewed as "expert knowledge", and to cast aspersions on the integrity of highly respected, well-known scientists, who have no other motive than to set the record straight regarding scientific content.

Is this science fiction, fantasy, an "other-world" nightmare or reality.? What is Misplaced Pages all about? The tyranny of the ignorant? I am very curious what all these threatening remarks, gratuitous insults and assaults by the uneducated upon the integrity of the knowledgeable leads up to. Is this a serious process, or one in which a number of Misplaced Pages "insiders" impertinently act out their fantasies of power and importance, while those who, in the real world, are highly qualified scientists and professionals devoted to advancing our actual state knowledge, are silenced by impudent administrators who believe that "expertise" is irrelevant, and only Misplaced Pages experience and status has any importance?

I have a feeling the outcome of this debate will have more significance for Misplaced Pages than merely whether this poor article is kept or deleted. If the ignorant and the arbitrarily empowered class of "admistrators" and "arbitrators" turn out to be the real decision makers, because they wield, in this "closed shop" the power to overrule all those who actually know the subject, then it will be Wikpedia itself that is on trial in the long run. What, really, is its validity or value as a repository of knowledge or vehicle of its communication? Has it any integrity or reliability, or is it an arbitrary, monstrous mixture of fact and fiction, self-advertising and ignorance, inseparably intertwined? There is after all, a "real world" out there as well, which is not determined by Misplaced Pages rules, in which little of any value can be achieved through contempt for expertise, and arbitrary, bullying gestures by seasoned, but empty-headed "insiders" and self-appointed "thought police".

Having saId this, I will look forward to the barrage of overt attacks, threats, intimidating remarks, citations for violations of rules, and aspersions cast on my character, integrity, competence, etc. that will surely follow from those seasoned "insiders" who feel insulted or threatened by these self-evident remarks. Are there also those who believe in the value of Misplaced Pages and hold another view? Are there enough of those who do have an adequate respect for knowledge, qualifications, real-word competence and, simply, the truth, who have a say in how Misplaced Pages is run and decisions are made to tilt the balance? I am curious to see who actually holds sway in this strange "alternative world" that claims to represent "the masses" and knowledge simultaneously.]] R_Physicist (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This rant is very inappropriate. I have very little to say other than that. Since I've been more involved in this AfD than others, I won't delete this entirely, but I seriously hope someone outside might delete this inappropriate rant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• To Cheeser1:Your abusive comments and conduct have been noted. A report will be duly filed. I would like to suggest that you desist as soon as possible from your baseless accusations, vandalism of legitimate contributions and bullying tactics. They will get you nowhere, except, possibly denial of further access to editing privileges.R_Physicist (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  O.O .... what?? Are you at all familiar with policies like: WP:NPA, WP:SOAP, WP:POINT, etc? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• You cannot intimidate me, so don't bother trying. A similar notice will be placed at your user talk location. Take some good advice now: desist from this conduct immediately.R_Physicist (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop ranting here. No one has been abusive or intimidating. I recommend you familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies, especially those I pointed you to above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am not interested in your continuing insulting language. I intend to reinstate the very central contribition that I have made, as nominator for deletion, which you have vandalized. If you do this again, you will be reported for it in the appropriate way. I suggest that you reconsider your conduct, and find a way to improve your language, whch will only end in your disqualification from further particpation. R_Physicist (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The following thread was taken from the main discussion, responding to the same long post/rant above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Continuing vandalism The above contribution has now been vandalized three times by Cheeser1. His continuing use of such tactics will be duly reported. R_Physicist (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  Deleting your blatant ranting, personal attacks, and irrelevant commentary about Misplaced Pages is not vandalism. I have given up trying to remove it, since you continue to add it back in, and I've even given up good faith attempts to collapse it or move it to this discussion's talk page, because you apparently refuse to do anything to minimize the disruptive effects of something that, at this point, seems to have no motivation but disruption behind it. I am highly disappointed in your conduct, but given the bad-faith displayed in your nomination of this article and the actions of the SPAs here, I am not surprised. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • To Cheeser1 Your repeated insults, bullying tactics, baseless accusations and irresponsible conduct disqualify you from being taken seriously henceforth in this debate. I hope it will return to the relatively civilized level that was present before you decided to intervene. R_Physicist (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

    I have done no such thing. Please try to maintain some perspective on this issue, and once again, I'd implore you to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, especially WP:SOAP, WP:TALK, WP:AFD, WP:NPA, etc. The only thing I see on this page that is not "relatively civilized" is your "Misplaced Pages or Wackopedia" essay. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To Cheeser1. Please refer to the last paragraph of my "rant". It anticipated precisely attacks of this nature from your type. My purpose is to discover who the "we" are that you are referring to when citing, proprietorially, "our policies and guidelines". Is it others like you? Or is there really a large mass of clear-minded, sensible and well-mannered "Wikipedians" who are, like myself, not doing this in order to engage in battles, create a persona, or bully others, but to improve the quality of information that is available through Misplaced Pages? R_Physicist (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"We" refers to all of Misplaced Pages and all editors and contributors to Misplaced Pages. That includes you, because following these policies is mandatory. I suggest you read them, because they do apply to you. Please also note that pre-emptively pointing a finger at some group of Wikipedians out to silence you is not evidence that you are "right." --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) R physicist, your contributions to this discussion are apalling. They are the only reason why I am not voting here. (I would have voted for deletion.) Your accusations to Cheeser1 of "repeated insults, bullying tactics, baseless accusations and irresponsible conduct" are a textbook example of projection bias. It is in your best interest to stop this now and wait at least 24 hours to allow yourself to cool down, before you make any further postings here. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have once again removed the long rant from the deletion discussion. It is not germane to the immediate question of whether or not to delete the article, and is highly inappropriate. Moving it to the talk page is very generous, considering what normally happens to such lengthy tirades about Misplaced Pages (Wackopedia, as it were), administrators, conspiracies, thought-police, etc. I strongly suggest that this matter be dropped entirely (God knows this entire thread should be deleted with prejudice), but I suggest even more strongly that the duplicate of this rant be left off the deletion discussion - inserting it there creates significantly more disruption and is totally unacceptable, regardless of whether the rant is acceptable. By disrupting the process, R Physicist, you are only making it harder for your nomination to result in a "delete" decision. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Degeneration

This AfD has degenerated utterly, attracted innumerable dubious contributions, some on each side, and incorporated a debate on the very nature of wikipedia's editorial structures... now, this isn't entirely unusual, but I suspect this will make life very difficult for the closing admin.

Is there anything that can be done to make this cleaner and easier for the closing admin? SamBC(talk) 13:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)