Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Martinphi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:56, 27 December 2008

User:Martinphi

Per WP:USER: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive." and "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." As Martinphi has left, I think that this page should be blanked. (It probably need not be fully deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:USER (and block editor as he's retired). Verbal chat 17:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, I'm not aware of any precedent for blocking users who have retired... MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blank per OP. There's nothing in WP:BP about deleting the user pages of editors who have retired. He has not requested the the right to vanish, and may return. — BillC ^talk 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, just leave it. — BillC ^talk 19:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removal after one day of "retirement" seems quite speedy indeed. Collect (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad faith nom by an editor who has been trying to get me ever since he was desysoped partly for blocking me, and I played a part in his RfC. Read the thing, and then you will see that the nom is nonsensical since it attacks no one, is related to WP, and if you think the other stuff is relevant there is currently an ArbCom against SA- or about to be. You have to assume a lot of bad faith to think it is an attack on anyone. You also have to say I'm a liar, because I really have been urging WP to go either way on SPOV. If it's gone SA's way, why wouldn't I congratulate him? If you know any of my friends, you can confirm by email that though I criticize SA, I actually defend him a good deal as well. I don't know a one of them who is less radical about SA. I defend him against others who dislike him a lot more than I do. So get going, Shoemaker, and stop harassing me unless you want me to ask ArbCom to give an injunction against this harassment. It's gone on long enough, and I warned you last time I wouldn't put up with more of it. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad faith?" Can you back that accusation? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since ScienceApologist is currently the subject of an arbcom request, it's improper to remove a page that is part of the events surrounding his actions. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Personal vendettas against MartinPhi is not a valid reason to delete his user page. MaxPont (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't at all agree with MartinPhi, but he has the right to make a civil statement of his opinion on his own user page. Spotfixer (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a user page,and the statement is a civilly stated opinion so see no reason to delete.(olive (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. An interesting read. He seems to be concluding that it shouldn't be difficult to include facts about proven reality, and it should be difficult to include fringe POV as if they were reality, which makes sense. If fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for pushers of reality. "Advocacy" of nonsense is forbidden here, while advocacy of reality isn't forbidden. The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense. That type of "advocacy" is forbidden. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We don't allow OR here, and opinions need to be sourced and attributed, but undeniable facts don't. Those who are so far out in left field as to not understand reality or to consider nonsense to be reality should have a hard time here. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Keep'''. I don't at all agree with MartinPhi, but he has the right to make a civil statement of his opinion on his own user page. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer|talk]]) 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''This is a user page,and the statement is a civilly stated opinion so see no reason to delete.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 06:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
+*'''Keep'''. An interesting read. He seems to be concluding that it shouldn't be difficult to include facts about proven reality, and it should be difficult to include fringe POV as if they were reality, which makes sense. If fringe POV pushers want to edit here, they should have a hard row to hoe, and shouldn't be allowed to make life difficult for pushers of reality. "Advocacy" of nonsense is forbidden here, while advocacy of reality isn't forbidden. The push may look the same, but it's allowable to push for reality, but not allowable to push for nonsense. That type of "advocacy" is forbidden. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No one is entitled to their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We don't allow OR here, and opinions need to be sourced and attributed, but undeniable facts don't. Those who are so far out in left field as to not understand reality or to consider nonsense to be reality should have a hard time here. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] ([[User talk:Fyslee|talk]]) 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)