Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ikip (talk | contribs)
59,234 edits
m →‎First separation: 23 October 2006
Line 203: Line 203:


:'''I suggest a comprimise''', which has been brought up on both AfD's: move this userpage to a wikiproject page, which will avoid the [[WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass]] violations and off topic AfDs, as catalogued [[#not|here]] which this page has been involved with in the past. Happy holidays, [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
:'''I suggest a comprimise''', which has been brought up on both AfD's: move this userpage to a wikiproject page, which will avoid the [[WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass]] violations and off topic AfDs, as catalogued [[#not|here]] which this page has been involved with in the past. Happy holidays, [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong delete''' - And the owner of the page should be blocked from wikipedia for at least a year. I see this page as an attack upon the neutrality and completeness of the encyclopedia as a whole. And as evidenced by the pages it proudly claims "kill credit" for, it has done significant damage to this project that we all pour our time and energy into. This must be seen as a cynical and inappropriate vandalism of wikipedia, and a hostile attack upon its very principles. NO COMPROMISE - this page must go and its owner must be banned from the project. --[[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:07, 25 December 2006

User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard

Note, this is the second MfD on this page. The first one is here. Thatcher131 20:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some question about the first MfD's validity. Travb (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This page is not appropiate.

  1. It is used in a userspace. Such a legitimate project would be used in a neutral or project space
  2. Since it is only in userspace, only a limited amount of people are aware of it's existance, thus creating a bias
  3. The format is inappropriate, and has led to "suggestion" on how people should vote, for example:

It is inappropriate to see "one of the token Jews" before even seeing the afd and if a researcher is truly non-notable, then surely people can figure it out on themselves without small "introductions". The whole concept of this is flawed, both the the "tip" on how to vote that has been misused per above examples and the location of it being in a "private club", this having attracted the attention of other users as well [5], having one previous afd . --Striver 18:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out to a similar "tracking device" of mine that was deleted, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion (second nomination). At the same time, a neutral version was created on a neutral ground that did not allowed for "infomation" on what is being voted on. --Striver 19:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I probably would have voted keep there as well. Sometimes precedent was made inappropriately around here, it seems to happen through flash mobs very frequently. Just H 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Wikipedia policy and precedent has been clear about this. Userspace noticeboards, such as User:XP/PendingDeletionsofNote have been found to be acceptable by Admin Tyrenius and others whenever they've been considered, and allowing them has been the norm. We have an uninvolved admin on-record as saying it's okay (see User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me#Opinion sought). When they are moved to Wiki "project" status they are not acceptable -- See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion (second nomination) as examples. When this very same userpage was considered before, the community decided it was a Snowball Keep. As Striver's conspiracy theory articles have been the subject of many of these Afd's, I can see why he wants to eliminate the userpage, but that doesn't matter -- community precedent has long allowed these kinds of userpages. Morton devonshire 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Explain to me why a userspace "noticeboard" is more appropriate than a project? If projects get deleted, why is the userspace version allowed? What makes them more merited for inclusion? And why don't you create a neutral one, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam, one that does not have "suggestion"? --Striver 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that "Projects" are Wiki projects, and therefore take on some sort of official mantle. Userpages are just userpages, and carry no community policy weight, just one user's opinion. Morton devonshire 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: ANI:Userpage_used_to_allegedly_vote_stack_AfDs
User:Morton_devonshire uses Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board as precendence on the ANI
Problem is, User:Morton_devonshire stated himself here that :
"..."Projects" are Wiki projects, and therefore take on some sort of official mantle. Userpages are just userpages, and carry no community policy weight, just one user's opinion."
Question So why is User:Morton_devonshire differenating User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard here, as not being a wikiproject, but comparing User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard to a wikiproject on Userpage_used_to_allegedly_vote_stack_AfDs?
User:Morton_devonshire can't have it both ways, it is either a wikiproject, which should have "some sort of official mantle" or it is a userpage which "carry no community policy weight".
Morton, your evidence in support of this page is two editors being asked if these pages are okay in a non-formal setting. This is the entire weight of your "community precedent".
I can't read Admin Tyrenius response because XP has since had his page deleted. User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, your "uninvolved admin" comments are not exactly a ringing endorsement of user attack pages like this one.
You readily admit yourself that when userpages have "wikipedia" in front of them they are not acceptable, and that is the only difference between this user page and the other two pages which were deleted.
Do you have any previous AfDs, Arbcom rulings, or wikipolicy which supports your position?
I think Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette and WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass are clear. User:GabrielF actively encourages users how to cast their decisions on AfDs, which is a clear violation of wikipolicy.
You also readily admit that Striver is a target of this user page in your ad hominem attack.
I suggest a comprimise, which has been brought up on both AfD's: move this to a wikiproject page, which will avoid the obvious vote stacking and off topic subjects that this page has been involved with. Travb (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You lack sufficient influence in the community to warrant such a compromise (Note: 'compromise' only has one 'i' in it). Morton DevonshireYo 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Travb: Do you honestly believe that I have so much influence on people that they'll vote my way on an AfD because I write a sentence fragment about it on a user page? I think that most wikipedians are smart enough to make up their own minds about how to vote on an AfD regardless of whether I "actively encourage" people to vote one way or another. GabrielF 07:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:GabrielF, bottom line, you and your userpage are violating Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette and WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass. You are welcome to defend this accusation anyway you wish. Travb (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep A listing of deletion nominations relevant to a given topic could be watchlisted by those in favor of such articles as well as those opposed to such articles. The downside is that it can act as vote solicitation, demonstrated when the same names appear en mass to cast Delete votes soon after it appears on the noticeboard. It seems improper to suggest how to vote, or to suggest a reason for deleting, but a listing of AfDs for any defined subject, topic, or category seems like nothing more than an extension of the official categorization of AfDs like "Biographical," "Games and sports," or ""Science and technology." Thus one could maintain a list of articles nominated for deletion relevant to a political issue, a college, a science, a religion, a country, etc. Instead of giving a reason for deletion on the noticeboard, the creator of the list could just state his reasons with his delete vote on the AfD and like-minded people could vote "Delete per Morton" (or whomever). Edison 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, I appreciate your comments, and I really see where you are coming from. The problem is this is a user page, and this user has historically shown a preference for certain articles being deleted over certain other articles. (See my "Strong Delete" below for evidence of this bias). Morton himself states this is not an official wikipedia page, like "Biographical," "Games and sports," or ""Science and technology." it is therefore open to abuse from a small group of like minded editors. Already, in several cases (See my "Strong Delete" below for examples) the AfDs have been expanded to include political articles which this small group of editors don't like.
How about making an official categorization of AfDs as a comprimise? This was suggested in the inappropriately closed first AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nomination, see Striver stating he is going to get this page deleted since his page was deleted for violating the rules[6]. This page was kept last time in s snowball keep [7]. Not sure how many people have to state it, but noticeboards are permitted and this one has been shown to have a largely diverse group in the last MfD, showing its not being used for vote stacking or anything. --NuclearZer0 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "snowball keep" was a vote of 18-5, after one day of the AfD being open, and when I brought this premature closing up, three independent editors thought closing the Afd was dubious. Travb (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is Strivers quote from the above link "Do you know of any other list of afd's i can "hassle"? --Striver 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)" Does really much more need to be stated? --NuclearZer0 20:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an obvious rhetorical question. And even since i voiced that i do not aprove of the methods of this "noticeboard", it has still continued to write things like "token jews". They show no sign of trying to clean up their act, rather, they give different excuses to keep going as everything was ok. --Striver 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section linked shows your anger at your Muslim Guild noticeboard being deleted for violating the rules, right after you appeared on this notice board to try to get it deleted. I guess you finally figured out how since we are now discussing this again after a snowball keep earlier. The worst part is you wanted to MfD it a week after the last one ended ... come on now ... --NuclearZer0 21:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep Where have we seen this before? It is out in the open for all to track. It is in private userspace, so no issues there. BTW, I have seen some user's personal pages that have issues that need more attention than anything else. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a user's watch list, like others. Anyone can watch it or edit it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Tbeatty 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This page is in userspace, and the only thing it comes close to violating is the "mount a campaign is a bad idea" guideline. Even so, I agree with Edison's comment that it is a useful tool. I would've probably never known about this afd without this page being here. Even this nomination here inspired me to dig through the policy and find that my own user page is violating the guidelines (I thought a fair-use image would be ok, but it is apparently not, I'll replace it with a public domain image soon). I would almost never vote to delete a page in user space. If a user was violating the policy, they would have to show a history of unwillingness to fix and comply with it before I would vote for deletion. If a user were to feel uncomfortable with a noticeboard, they could always make their own similar board in their own userspace. 71.226.71.36 21:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I didn't know I was logged out. Umeboshi 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator that it would not be any good if the page in question created a `biad'. However, I don't believe it does create any biads, and nor do I think it does any harm if someone tracks deletion events pertaining to articles in a particular `genre', or expresses their opinion (which is quite justified, by any reasonable standards) of the content of the articles in question. I can understand that it doesn't do any good to go around overtly soliciting support for various suspect editorial manouevres, but I very much feel that the only reason the person nominating this page for deletion did so in the first place is because it exemplifies a point of view contrary to his own, not out of some martyrlike devotion to utter disinterest and neutrality. Keeping the page in userspace helps to reinforce the idea that it is a personal side-project and not in any way official. And, allow me to be perfectly frank. There is, from what I have seen and experienced, a verbal war here on Wikipedia between two groups of people: one which thinks that the 9/11 attacks played out as the U.S. and U.K. governments say they did, and another one which doesn't. While certainly articles should be neutral, etc., anyone coming across GabrielF's page will probably already have made up their mind as to which side of the fence they occupy, and consequently which `voting-block' they will support. There are very few people who can honestly claim to be 100% neutral on the matter as far as their personal leanings go, and if such a person were to encounter GabrielF's comments on his list, it is doubtful indeed that they would be swayed by them, since the immense effort it would take to maintain neutrality through the screeds of polemics and vociferous argumentation we see on talk pages is hardly likely to be broken down by a comment like `inherently POV listcruft'. Rosenkreuz 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rosenkreuz, I am not one of those people who believes in 9/11 conspiracies, but I am deeply troubled that a group of wikipedians are deleting well research wikiarticles. User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard has been used to promote the deletion of several well researched articles in the past, including Yellowcake forgery. A group of wikiusers all watch a certain page, and then vote to delete the same pages.
This page violates Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette and WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass as I wrote below.
Ask yourself, how does this userpage help in the vision of wikipedia?: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales, July 2004. Deleting well researched articles does not further the goals of wikipedia. Travb (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I do see your point, Travb. But I disagree with you on two counts. The first, is that from what I have seen, many of these 9/11 articles are not well-researched. Extensively researched, certainly, but information is only as good as the source from which it issues — and unfortunately, 911truth.com is one of those sources where you can cite 200 times, but it still doesn't make it reliable or right. Which brings me to my second point.
The goal of providing the totality of knowledge for all is a noble one. However, we must ask ourselves whether theories that clandestine agents destroyed the WTC by planting thermite, or zapping it with a space-beam, and so forth, represent `knowledge'. It may be `knowledge', in a sense, that Conspiracy Joe says that the clandestine agents did it, but that isn't the impression the articles convey. Indeed, if we were to extend that humanitarian goal of Wales a little, I would say we arrive at the realisation that it is unethical to portrary the `knowledge' of these loonies as being on the same level as the `knowledge' of the comprehensive team of experts built up by NIST. Lest this starts sounding like a treatise on postmodern epistemology (and maybe it is, for Wikipedia is an experiment in postmodern epistemology, whether intentionally or not) let me be brief.
The idea seems to be that simply by laying out the facts, the reader can make up their own mind about things. So, presented with an article that says `Conspiracy Joe says x, y and z, and cites these chemical formulae and those equations of civil engineering to support his claim', the casual reader is expected to evaluate for themselves whether Conspiracy Joe is right or not. But the average reader cannot evaluate claims of that complexity: it took me a couple of hours research in organic chemistry to debunk, for personal benefit, the claims about the various residues left behind by what Conspiracy Joe claims was thermate wrapped in some sort of sol-gel. Unless one is a chemist, that kind of knowledge doesn't just lie around in the top of one's head the same way that how to make a good curry does.
Now, one could say that it ought to be possible to cite the research of someone who has gone out and debunked these claims already, preferably a reputable professional. Only, where Conspiracy Joe devotes his entire life to coming up with his ideas, reputable professionals, being professionals, have other work to do, and maybe only have a bit of spare time on the weekend to rip apart one of Joe's claims for fun, and stick on the InterNet, or send it to Popular Mechanics, or whatever. But by that time, Joe has published 10 more essays, written a dubious book and been interviewed about it, twice, on a dodgy radio chat show, and delivered 6 speeches at 4 conferences — all of which Joe's supporters demand merit Wikipedia articles, and which generate vast chunks of material, which the sane people can never catch up with.
So, to answer your question, Travb, I would say this. This userpage helps fulfil the mission of Wikipedia by providing GabrielF, and a few acquaintances, a way of co-ordinating their activities in trying to keep Wikipedia focused on knowledge, and not rumour and unbridled speculation. Many 9/11 articles may give the appearance of being well-researched, but aren't, since the citations are inevitably to the ignorant ruminations of paranoids and cranks. It may not be `politically-correct' to say that directly, but it is the truth. Rosenkreuz 11:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: So I take it that you support the similar removal of the conspiracy theory articles which claim the earth is 6-10,000 years old? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting removed — as you so rightly point out below, people who espouse those theories aren't averse to indulging in campaigns of disinformation themselves, and like the conspiracy theorists, use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. But certainly, I would say that young earth creationism should be portrayed purely as myth, without any claim to reality (and it is an important myth, it's been part of Western culture for millenia, unlike conspiracy theories which are not yet a decade old), and `intelligent design' should be stripped of all its pretensions to being science — for the best knowledge we have today tells us it's bunk. Although, I must say, I wouldn't call young earth creationism a conspiracy theory, per se, but it certainly ranks at the same dismal level of sheer bloody stupidity. Does that help at all? Rosenkreuz 01:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly that many of the themes of these articles are crackpot.[8] I once offered this group of wikiusers who are supporting User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard:
I will make these editors a deal:
I will become the most active protector of 9/11 and WTC if these AfDs stop. That means I will go against many of the editors on these pages who have to this point been allies with me, including Seabhcan, Salvnut, RaveenS etc....
The majority of these AfDs which are listed, the users contibuted nothing to these articles, disregarding: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD. As I #show clearly below, this userpage has been used to delete much more than 9/11 controversies, it has been used to agressively push a particular viewpoint, in violation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
How about creating an official wikipedia page about conspiracy theories?
I appreciate your concern about WP:V WP:OR and I share that concern. Merry Christmas. Travb (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope argument, Travb, is an informal fallacy, just as invalid as the tu quoque argument you taught us all about elsewhere on this page. So, being a fallacy an'all, it's nothing to get too concerned about. Rosenkreuz 22:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am glad that we both agree that Morton and Nuclear's argument is fallacious. I have struck my comment, and I would ask you to join me in asking Morton and Nuclear to strike theirs. Travb (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can see by Striver's noticeboards examples that the Wiki seems to disfavor such a move, as it places too much of the Wiki official mantle on the content. That result is that with the rare exception (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board), these things are not allowed in Wikispace. When they're in userspace, they're just one user's opinion, not policy, so that seems to be okay. The precedents are cited above. BTW, if we don't interract in the mean time, Happy Holidays! Morton DevonshireYo 21:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone promised to move, it someone asked, and another said they may if everyone agreed, no agreement was reached. It was also not a promise required for the keep. --NuclearZer0 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First separation
FIRST: This userpage violates: WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view":
"...This is one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia, and it deserves to be promoted to FULL POLICY."[9]
nn Air America conspiracy cruft-promoter.
The Jill Pike wikipage says nothing about any conspriacies. GabrielF admits that it is "beyond the scope of the page, but keeps it on the page anyway.[10] Morton then removes it from the page.[11]
Wikipedia: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.[12] Inclusion endorsed by GabrielF [13]
User:Morton devonshire stated:
long a hot-bed of original research and conspiracy theories, with most sources failing WP:RS, and overall the article violating WP:NPOV. Suppoted by User:Junglecat[15]
SECOND This userpage is not just about conspiracy theories:
Wikipedia: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.[16] Inclusion endorsed by GabrielF [17]
THIRD This userpage started out as a 9/11 conspiracy page and has grown to include anything this small group of users feel is a "conspiracy theory" [23] title move 23 October 2006: [24]:
  • User:Tbeatty readily admits, that many of these listed AfDs have nothing to do with 9/11 Conspiracy theories either:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Stephenson Not 9/11 CT but election CT. not notable cause celebre. Sad case actually as his reputation is attacked from all sides post-humously.
  • User:Aaron added this entry, which has nothing to do with 9/11, instead, it is a political article about the Iraq War:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowcake forgery [25]
long a hot-bed of original research and conspiracy theories, with most sources failing WP:RS, and overall the article violating WP:NPOV. Supported by User:Junglecat[27]
Travb (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't say its for 9/11 conspiracy theories. The example above doesnt show TBeatty saying its not conspiracy theory based at all, just that its not 9/11 CT (conspiracy theory) based, but is Election CT based. Pathological skepticism is surely related to Conspiray theories. Yellowcake forgery was a big conspiracy theory as the article attempted at one point to say the US knew the document was forged and used it instead as a piece of known false evidence to goto war, thats actually pretty much the def of a conspiracy, plotting using false evidence to by multiple people to lie. The article on Allegations of state terrorism by the US surely has plenty to do with CT as one of section was about Operation Gladio a pretty large conspiracy theory to implant troops into countries incase of a USSR take over, that part turned out to be true but the article then went on to further claim the US implanted them to commit terrorism. etc. the other countries were listed as being part of the same AfD, it was a bulk AfD, you voted on it so I am sure you were aware. Again Andy Stephenson claimed the US rigged the election by using machines with predetermined results, even his death is part of a CT about withholding money to prevent his surgery causing him to die. Jill Pike was properly removed, the Seabhcan and Mongo issue was beyond the scope but relevant to everyone there as almost everyone was aware of Mongo and Seabhcan including Travb. Oddly enough 2 of the examples actually contain people saying they are not 9/11 CT but other CT, the title is Conspiracy Noticeboard, not 9/11 Conspiracy Noticeboard, please read more carefully in the future. Thank you. Also letter beacon is about a conspiracy of what the beacons are for, if its secret transmissions etc. --NuclearZer0 19:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear as you know, this article started as 9/11 conspiracy cruft, so your argument that it is not about 9/11 conspiracy theories is dubious.
Since the name change, this AfD page has since grown to encourage vote stacking on policy page straw polls,[28] and listing a Requests for arbitration.[29]
This is in violation of Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette "make sure not to use language that may suggest bias" and WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view."
How is "axe-grinding piece of cruft promoted by Left-Leaners"[30] and "This is one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia, and it deserves to be promoted to FULL POLICY."[31] anything but an "attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view" with "language that may suggest bias" Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Againt please read the title, it doesnt matter what it started out as, what it does contain and what its named is what matters. Since its reagrding conspiracy theories, your points above are moot. I am also surprised below you attempt to defend an act of vandalism, then again you attempted to defend cplot, so I am really surprised as of late. As for vote stacking your example makes no sense, there is no votestacking possibility in an ArbCom hearing, people do not vote on the issue. Its also reccomended that as many people as possible input on the ArbCom hearings. So you cannot vote stacking in an ArbCom. You should be aware of that as well as you participated in the MONGO/Seabhcan arbcom hearing. As for people making remarks that shouldnt be there, they should be removed. If I made a remark that I shouldnt have on your talk page, should we delete the talk page? of course not, that doesnt make any sense. So again, the noticeboard, per the clearly labeled title, is regarding conspiracy theories, not 9/11 conspiracy theories, glad I could clear that up for you and put an end to your confusion. --NuclearZer0 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "I am also surprised below you attempt to defend an act of vandalism [Regarding Fair]"
WP:NPA "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia." Fair attempted to add a off topic article to this list. He was probably confused by the diverse topics on this "ConspiracyNoticeboard", many of which have nothing at all to do with conspiracy.
RE: "then again you attempted to defend cplot"
This has nothing to do with this AfD, and is simply a tactic to change the subject. FYI, cplot's advocate is considering a Arbcom regarding this case. Please stay on topic.
RE:what it does contain and what its named is what matters
So what does "This is one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia, and it deserves to be promoted to FULL POLICY."[32] and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#Straw_poll_on_decision_to_desysop Straw poll on whether to desysop Admins MONGO and Seabhcan have to do with Conspiracy theories? You stated "Againt please read the title, it doesnt matter what it started out as". What does a Request for Arbitration and a straw poll about Reliable sources have to do with Conspiracy theories? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did not read my reply, I already adressed the issue of the ArbCom and the straw poll, two items out of the pages 40+ just go to show that its normally on point and in the rules. The fact that all the AfD's are visible and those are the only items you found, items listed as related discussions and not as AfD's is a pretty good testament to the legitamacy of the noticeboard. We went through this on the last AfD and it seems noone is making a new arguement, and the concensus seems to be much in the same direction. Considering Striver admitted to attacking this noticeboard in an attempt to lash out after his noticeboard was deleted for breaking rules is prolly a major factor. And you did not defend any of your major points listed, so in reality only two items of your above list may be valid and those are 2 of over 40, good job. --NuclearZer0 23:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "I see you did not read my reply" WP:Civil, WP:AGF please.
I think I have illustrated clearly how this page has repeatedly violated wikipolicy.
You did not address my question, so I will ask it again:
What does "This is one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia, and it deserves to be promoted to FULL POLICY."[33] and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#Straw_poll_on_decision_to_desysop Straw poll on whether to desysop Admins MONGO and Seabhcan have to do with Conspiracy theories? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jersey Devil, welcome, I was wondering when you would come join the party with your fellow wikipedians. Your statment I am afraid, does not hold up to the factual history of the page.
RE: "...and is not preventing others from listing afds."
GabrielF actually actively stopped Fair/User:NBGPWS from listing a page, and a small edit war began, [34] which led to the clarification of what should be on the user page. This is dispite other users who have similar POV as GabrielF: User:Morton devonshire, User:Aaron and User:Tbeatty listing off topic articles for deletion (See above), listing policy page straw polls,[35] and listing a Requests for arbitration.[36]
This statment also assumes that this page is meets Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette and WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass, which it does not.
RE: "...userspace that isn't stating a position "
This statment is clearly not supported by the page history, "axe-grinding piece of cruft promoted by Left-Leaners"[37] is not stating a position? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention that the article that NBGPWS aka F.A.A.F.A was trying to add to the ConspiracyNoticeboard was about butt-fucking. Small thing that. Morton DevonshireYo 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't FAAFA blocked for disruption from that? from adding knowingly and later admittingly bad AfD's to the noticeboard? You do realize that FAAFA was adding a sexual act to the noticeboard, oddly this is something you would have listed above as it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories ... Good example ... Perhaps an example that didnt involve FAAFA to get blocked for disruption would be in order. --NuclearZer0 19:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is this board on? User:NuclearUmpf, you deleted Clinton Chronicles yourself when it was first put up by Fair. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because the last thing he added, which oddly you defend was a sexual act involving gay people, something he admitted to being in vioaltion of policy and was blocked for. Again, your defense of acts even the people who commited them admitted was were wrong is pretty odd and outright distasteful. --NuclearZer0 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that Travb has now gone out attempting to vote stack by putting this AfD on the talk page of articles that it has listed [38][39][40], which I believe is against vote stacking rules, they are also oddly marked as minor edits, which creating new section and entire messages are not minor edits. Have to say I am surely disappointed Travb.--NuclearZer0 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:NuclearUmpf, so would you agree that posting messages on a userpage or talk page to attempt to influence a AfD is against wikipolicy? Simple yes or no answer.
I may be guilty of "vote stacking" but is this any different from what User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard does?
Unlike User:Morton_devonshire, I did not violate WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass, by telling people how to "vote".
Most imporant, your argument is a fallacious Tu Quoque fallacy of logic, trying to deflect criticism of this userpage onto me:
Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"), which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't follow it herself. For instance, "Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?"
Would you agree that User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is votestaking?
Your own statment shows that this userpage is inappropriate: "I would like to point out that Travb has now gone out attempting to vote stack by putting this AfD on the talk page of articles that it has listed" isn't this the exact same thing that users have done on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard what is the difference?
Have to say I am surely disappointed User:NuclearUmpf. Happy editing, Travb (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job to admitting to violating WP:POINT. I think that tells everyone how serious to take your arguements. Please adhere to WP policy and do not violate them to prove some sort of political or other point. --NuclearZer0 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making a WP:POINT.
WP:POINT states: Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption
This userpage is "gaming the system" by thwarting WP:SPAM and WP:AfD policy.
Again, your own arguments against me show why this userpage should not exist.
I will ask for the second time: What is the difference between what I did on these talk pages and User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard?
I did not violate WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass as User:Morton_devonshire did repeatedly. Where is the condemnation of User:Morton_devonshire for WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass violations? Have a good evening, Travb (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some question about the first MfD's validity. Travb (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes violating policy by vote stacking because you feel something else is vote stacking is not WP:POINT ... sure ... Have a merry christmas Travb, its clear the concensus is against this again, as many people are aware of policy and the nature of your interaction with members of this noticeboard as well as FAAFA's which you seem to defend his admitted WP:POINT violation as well, even after he apologized and admitted it was WP:POINT. And again oddly you attack Morton for "spamming" when you have already admitted to doing it here, again, please do not break Wikipedia policy in an attempt to make a point political or otherwise. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to turn up the heat, but Travb has unfortunately turned his case into a situation of the pot calling the kettle black, with his advertising of his "fight against votestacking" (backed by dubiously worded wikilawyering) and his own attempt to unduly influence this MfD with his somewhat flaming rhetoric, if not outright act condescendingly to other editors on this page. --210physicq (c) 02:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Physicq210, and User:NuclearUmpf, AGF, I find your condemnation of my behavior yet your support of the same behavior on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, if I maybe so bold, troubling. Bottom line: I have followed all of the rules and guidelines of wikipedia, but this board has not: User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard Morton and several other users have repeatedly violated WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass, yet I see no condemnation of this behavior. Why is that the case?
NuclearUmpf, in defending Morton, please explain this: User:Travb/vote_stacking#Vote_spamming_case_2.
Again, Morton and others, have clearly violated WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass. Which you have yet to address.
"Consensus" thus far, is the same group of people who contribute to this attack page.
WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass is clear, the only person WP:Wikilawyering are those who "Hid(e) behind misinterpretations or technicalities of policy to justify inappropriate actions." Actually, neither yourself or NuclearUmpf have addressed WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass.
"his own attempt to unduly influence this MfD with his somewhat flaming rhetoric, if not outright act condescendingly to other editors on this page."
WP:NPA comment on the edits, not the editor. I will ask for the third time: What is the difference between what I did on these talk pages and User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard?
And for a second time: What does "This is one of the most important guidelines on Wikipedia, and it deserves to be promoted to FULL POLICY."[41] and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#Straw_poll_on_decision_to_desysop Straw poll on whether to desysop Admins MONGO and Seabhcan have to do with Conspiracy theories? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second separation
  • Comment I'm not quite sure why I have been cited in regard to this MfD out of context. The page User:XP/PendingDeletionsofNote, which I apparently approved (I don't recall it and there are no diffs), merely provides a list, whereas this page is polemic in nature, and puts forward opinions that should be properly on the AfD page in question. I suggest it is cleaned up so it acts as an aide-memoire, not as advocacy. Tyrenius 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per TravB. The page is advocacy and violates Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette and WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass. I must also address the coordinated campaign of deletions of 9/11 CT related articles and harassment of editors who believe in alternate 9/11 theories. The US Government unequivocally and unambiguously states that "the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age" [42], thus young earth science is a 'conspiracy theory', and (according to Fred Bauer's Admin ruling on the 9/11 CT's) anyone who publically contends that the earth is 1000's of years old, be that person a preacher or a creation 'scientist', politician or scholar, must be considered a 'conspiracy thorist' and " an active participant in a campaign of disinformation" and esposing young age earth arguments can only be seen as "propaganda operations" and the arguments themselves as 'Conspiracy Theories'. Following Mr. Bauer's ruling - all content from any person who believes the earth is 1000's of years old must be considered unreliable, and exclusionable from Wiki. Does this sound absurd? Perhaps, but 'young earth' theories are no more founded in science than alternate 9/11 theories - maybe actually less. Wiki needs to put a stop to the harrassment of alternate 9/11 theory believers, and the organised effort to delete their work. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note this user had an article they created deleted on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The article stated that US war ships launched cruise missles with advanced holographic systems disguising the missles as jets, and no planes were actually flown into the twin towers. These are the types of articles that are being deleted. --NuclearZer0 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's your point? I don't believe that anything other than commerical planes (flown by hijackers) hit the WTC, and I don't believe that the buildings were imploded, exploded, or even 'death rayed'! I felt those theories were so outrageous that they were notable and that they should be documented for historical purposes. That shows my value as an editor. I contributed content that I didn't agree with, in an effort to increase enclycolpaedic knowledge! I don't believe in Santa Claus either, but wouldn't want to see his article deleted. What's important is to note that you and your cohorts only object to conspiracy theories that meet a certain narrow politically motivated criteria. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating an article on cruft then being upset your articles was deleted. That was the point. One person saying cruise missles does not meet our requirements for articles. --NuclearZer0 02:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morton devonshire, NuclearZer0, et al. Jinxmchue 05:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't really have the time or the energy to defend this page at the moment. Those interested in my opinions can read my thoughts on the last MfD. I sincerely thank the many editors who have stood up for myself and my user page. GabrielF 06:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DeleteBless sins 07:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with consideration for a move out of userspace as an attempt at neutrality. --Wildnox(talk) 07:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Travb above. --- ALM 15:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison.Users should be allowed to do what they want in user pages. Akanksha 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: User:AkankshaG has less than 100 edits,[43] and has voted on several of these AfDs. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since none of the contributors to this userpage want to answer the questions, I will post them here, for the Wikipedia community to decide:
Question 1: Has this userpage violated: WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass and Wikipedia:Straw_polls#Survey_etiquette? See #Not, above.
Question 2: As per Nuclear: "...please read the title" why have these pages be on this userpage, which is supposed to be a "conspiracy notice board?":
Have to do with conspiracies?
Question 3. Why is User:Morton_devonshire differenating User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard here, as not being a wikiproject, but comparing User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard to a wikiproject on ANI: Userpage_used_to_allegedly_vote_stack_AfDs?
User:Morton_devonshire uses Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board as precendence on the ANI for why this userpage should be kept.
The confusing thing is, when a wikiuser brought up a wikipage being deleted, for the same reasons I bring up for why this userpage should be deleted, User:Morton_devonshire stated himself above that:
"..."Projects" are Wiki projects, and therefore take on some sort of official mantle. Userpages are just userpages, and carry no community policy weight, just one user's opinion."
User:Morton_devonshire can't have it both ways, it is either a wikiproject, which should have "some sort of official mantle" or it is a userpage which "carry no community policy weight".
I suggest a comprimise, which has been brought up on both AfD's: move this userpage to a wikiproject page, which will avoid the WP:SPAM#If_you_canvass violations and off topic AfDs, as catalogued here which this page has been involved with in the past. Happy holidays, Travb (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - And the owner of the page should be blocked from wikipedia for at least a year. I see this page as an attack upon the neutrality and completeness of the encyclopedia as a whole. And as evidenced by the pages it proudly claims "kill credit" for, it has done significant damage to this project that we all pour our time and energy into. This must be seen as a cynical and inappropriate vandalism of wikipedia, and a hostile attack upon its very principles. NO COMPROMISE - this page must go and its owner must be banned from the project. --BenBurch 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard_(2nd_mfd)&oldid=96372151"