Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dronebogus (talk | contribs) at 12:56, 9 February 2023 (→User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Sundostund mppria 03:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an obvious breach of several policies and guidelines (WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FAKEARTICLE, WP:UPNOT, WP:POLEMIC and WP:PURPOSE), not to mention its inflammatory and divisive character, as its nothing more than a long pro-Confederate opinion piece. — Sundostund mppria 03:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per all cited reasons, most of which were not addressed in the previous deletion discussion. Userspace is not the place for opinion pieces only tenuously related to Misplaced Pages editing, and it's certainly not the place for racist spiels. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: We don't need any more faux-articles or historical revisionism. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a disruptive nomination, WP:Presentism, and IMHO an attempt to improperly censor userspace. This user subpage was nominated for deletion less than six months ago and there was clear consensus to keep. Nominator participated in that discussion, made essentially the same points, and literally nothing has changed since that MfD, these arguments being rejected then. On the merits, as I described in my keep assertion then, this is "a personal user essay explaining in some detail how his view (of the Confederacy and appropriate coverage) was formed." We shouldn't be in the business of whitewashing Misplaced Pages's history when a fair number of readers have developed their views in a similar manner, for good or for ill. This retired user's point of view might not be popular (and certainly violates the precepts of essay Misplaced Pages:No Confederates), but for a user to explain their thinking does the pedia a service, because many modern people hold these somewhat anachronistic views. Historians of Misplaced Pages shouldn't be compelled to ask for REFUND just because explaining such views have fallen out of favor among a minority of editors. BusterD (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it's formatted like an article, and presents those opinions as if they were facts, which they're not. We aren't obligated to host this just because it's "unpopular", especially when it's unpopular largely due to its lack of merit. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    • These arguments were unpersuasive in October, and renominating a kept object mere months after a previous deletion discussion not only breaks with normal deletion procedure, but appears intended to police thought on userpages. I'm not okay with that. If somebody wants to say something on Misplaced Pages which reveals a foolish view, other wikipedians are entitled to read the foolishness and draw their own conclusions about the user. Courtesy blanking a page which might offend is just fine with me, but permanently deleting such material removes a significant part of the pedia's history and handicaps those wikipedians who come behind us. BusterD (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: Reads as a user essay, sufficiently related to mainspace concerns, and within reasonable leeway. I tagged it as a Userpage to allay any concerns that any Wikipedian might think a Userpage is an article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - I see we're back at this again. Emphatically, people have leeway to post content in their userspace, particularly their subpages.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete I don’t honestly know why this was kept last time. Sundostund has provided a long, valid list of policy violations and is being met with “but WP:ITSIMPORTANT to WikiHistory” or “it’s an essay in userspace, you can put whatever you want in it” or otherwise just making accusations of thought policing and disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Not getting your way in the last MfD isn't a ticket to go back and do the same thing again four months later to see if you get a different outcome. And at any rate, yes, we do allow latitude for userspace. See also when JRSpriggs's userpage was nominated for deletion recently, under the same pretenses. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Attribution in page history is one of the most important aspects of Misplaced Pages. We are transparent. We merge page histories when necessary in order to maintain attribution. Permanent removal of history is limited to trusted servants of the pedia, though various public discussions like this one may guide sysops trusted to do so. WikiHistory, and the maintenance of it, is crucial to reading and understanding Misplaced Pages. When we start removing large chunks of "who said what" we leave the cupboard more bare than we intended it to be. BusterD (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

We aren’t “permanently removing” anything. Deletion just hides the page and its history from public access. Plus Misplaced Pages is not an exhaustive archive on its own history, which is weirdly meta and self-referential anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be open to a courtesy blanking, but a deletion comes across as imposing Misplaced Pages's will on what sort of userspace content is and is not acceptable. You know the further down this route that we go, the more that question will become pertinent and the more we'll need to start asking at a centralized level where we draw the lines. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I have raised this exact issue here. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: This is a clear violation of WP:UPNOT. I do not see any merit in retaining this. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment of the nominator: IMHO, it is enough just to take a look at how many policies and guidelines this violates. That alone makes it justifiable to start another MfD discussion, months after the last one, and to delete this. All those violations of policies and guidelines were not properly addressed in the previous nomination and discussion. As for the unfair accusations of disruptive nomination and censorship, none of that was my motivation when I nominated this. We should simply make it clear what is allowed on Misplaced Pages, and useful for the project, and what is not. Misplaced Pages loses nothing with the deletion of this opinion piece – it is completely useless and worthless, totally unrelated to the encyclopedic work, and is also inflammatory and divisive on top of that, with the only purpose to make an apologetic case for the Confederacy. Eventually, I must only apologize for forgetting to mention the breach of WP:NOCONFED as one of the reasons for my nomination, with an obvious explanation: I was simply too preoccupied with listing policies and guidelines that are violated here, and those reasons are (naturally) far more important than an essay, regardless of how much related and important that essay may be. — Sundostund mppria 19:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOCONFED has no teeth compared to WP:NONAZIS. Period. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOCONFED, WP:NONAZIS and WP:NORACISTS are all dealing with the same, gravely serious issue. There are no "mild"/acceptable and "severe"/unacceptable cases of racism. Period. The only difference is that WP:NONAZIS exists for five years, while WP:NOCONFED exists for about six months. — Sundostund mppria 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am going to stop responding so that I don't get accused of WP:BLUDGEONing, but this is a dangerous game being played here, when we are deciding by subjective viewpoints what opinions are and are not allowable in userspace. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is nothing dangerous in sending the message to racists of all sorts that they are unwelcome here, and that their views and opinions are undesirable everywhere, including their userspace, which they don't own, by the way. — Sundostund mppria 19:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sundostund mppria 03:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Question: Can a participant in an AfD process, like the nominator relist their own nom? This seems out of process. BusterD (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  So far, I certainly saw some AfD processes relisted in the same way. My intention was simply to gather more participants, and generally prevent this from becoming a stalled discussion. I didn't want to do anything out of process, for sure. — Sundostund mppria 04:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is probably better practice to leave it for an uninvolved closer to decide whether to relist an XfD, but in this instance doing so is sensible, so to avoid any procedural complications I endorse the relisting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sundostund nominated this subject at 03:32, February 6, 2023, then relisted their own procedure at 03:15, February 9, 2023, before even 72 hours had elapsed in the MfD. It had not run the normal seven days' course yet. I have never seen that done before. A person can relist at anytime during the procedure? BusterD (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  If Sundostund wants more participants, they might consider, as a courtesy, pinging the participants in October's deletion procedure for the same subject. BusterD (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  User:Newyorkbrad, disappointing to see you endorse an improper action. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  No. Relisting is an administrative action that should only be done by someone qualified to close, certainly not a WP:INVOLVED editor. Also, comment-free relisting is stupid, pointless, or even counterproductive due to it hiding the old discussion amongst new discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  This comment seems like a mixture of veiled personal attack and Wiki-lawyering. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment For the record, let me state facts: Sundostund has renominated a subject for deletion, when four months ago another deletion procedure was closed as keep. Sundostund chose not to notify any of the previous MfD participants. Sundostund then relisted their own procedure a mere three days after their original nom "simply to gather more participants". IMHO they've clearly unstalled the discussion, but having nothing to do with the merits. BusterD (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  If it speeds up the process and gathers more consensus then I think WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO applies. Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: pure WP:SOAPBOXing, which means it break several other policies as well. UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)