Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ameliorate!/Voter guide guide

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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.

It's snowing "keep"s outside! Has also been removed from template. lifebaka++ 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ameliorate!/Voter guide guide

Clearly personal attack page with no "guide" value, just trying to make a drama. --Caspian blue 18:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm loath to interfere with the political process. If any leeway in the civility rules exists (and I don't necessarily see this list as incivil per se) it should be to allow for community members in good standing to give their honest opinion of ArbCom candidates. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have an honest opinion about the author's intention? "Grudge" (nothing new though per his usual behaviors)--Caspian blue 19:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: It's none of my business what the author intends--that is, political speech should not be subject to intent-based censorship. Mind you, I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and "rights" here are substantially different than in the real world, but I still see no compelling reason to interfere in the currently ongoing political process based on the content of this meta-guide. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, we censor such inappropriateness to maintain "Wikipedia" healthy. "Personal attacks" and "humors" are clearly different.--Caspian blue 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Jclemens, basically. Clearly not an "attack page". The one comment that could be an "attack" is a "some people" linked to the entire ACE2008 template of all users who have produced voting guides; reluctant to say that taken as a whole this makes the entire page an "attack page". The rest of the page is commentary on voter guides, not on people. Within the bounds of tolerance and acceptable humor, and may be useful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please read the "the lazy and incompetent voter" (not plural) and others. I don't find any humor, but twisted attacks. If so, we can create "editor guide guide guide" to criticize the "editor guide guide"'s value.--Caspian blue 19:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I thought Wikipedia wasn't censored? It seems to fall under the humour category, rather than trolling. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing to do with "censorship". Given the user's usual comment against me, I see this is the latter.--Caspian blue 20:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per previous comments. No worse than the voting guides it parodies, and arguably as useful (if not more so, since it made me laugh...) If you're going to participate in a democratic process (and commenting on it, in the form or producing a "guide to candidates", is participating) you've got to expect commentary and criticism, satire and parody. I believe the lazy and incompetent voter is intelligent enough to understand both guides to candidates and guides to guides of candidates in context. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, re-read the above comment.--Caspian blue 20:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, which one? (FWIW, I did read through the previous comments, but I did edit conflict with §hep) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The one including "Editor guide guide guide"--Caspian blue 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Alrightee, understood. OK, in order: (1) "the lazy and incompetent voter" is a reasonable idiom, comparable to "the man on the Clapham omnibus"; (2) I found humour and no twisted attacks, but I respect your opinion; (3) Sure, why not? A guide to guides to guides could be quite funny. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  User:The man on the Clapham omnibus would be a pretty cool username. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Dammit, you're right! I guess you've called "dibs" on it, but I'd be prepared to settle for "User:The lazy and incompetent voter". I've voted in three countries and numerous elections, and I don't think I've ever really studied what candidates believe or represent... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Let people say whatever they want. Disagree? Post your comment on the attached talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A little humor is a wonderful thing. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Humourous and interesting too, since it points out which guides the author finds most useful. Also not mean to me. :) Franamax (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I confess myself unimpressed by Amerilorate's overly harsh criticism of all the pages in question, but I am equally unwilling to censor his opinions or to delete a userspace page that is not an attack page. Concur that the page could nonetheless have drama-mongering effects. It could also be useful. AGK 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: it might be worth Ameliorate! placing a humour-tag on the page. Ameliorate! may also want to consider carefully before discussing editors with whom they've had less then harmonious past dealings, with a view to minimising dramah. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This meta guide isnt intended to be a personal attack; if it contains one, then take it up on the talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, so the consensus tells me that the "trash" (no censorship on it, yey!) created by some editor who has a history with me is humorous to non-involved people. Good to know about Wikistandards of civility and admin roles. --Caspian blue 21:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I realize I'm out-numbered here, but I have to say I disagree that this page is at all useful. It violates WP:CIVIL and WP:ATP, and appears to be doing little else than cluttering up the {{ACE 2008 guides}} template with useless information. Or at the risk of WP:BEANS, let me put it another way: If we had 50 sockpuppets show up to post similar "guides" which trashed other people's opinions in an uncivil way, would we still add them all to the template, to the point where it became impossible to navigate, and near useless for anyone who was interested in real guides? --Elonka 21:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ameliorate is not a sock puppet, however, but rather an established contributor with what is clearly a serious qualm with ArbCom election guides. Should be really be voting to delete simply to stifle that opinion? I disagree that the page is incivil. It consistently comments on the guides themselves and not the editors. It's strongly worded rather than incivil, no? AGK 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing the creators of the other guides of setting up their own "personal attack pages" is uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. The term "lazy and incompetent voter" is also uncivil. The standard I use for judging civility, is to think about how such statements would be perceived if they were made on an article talkpage by a new editor. And if a new editor came in and said that other editors on the page were "lazy and incompetent", then even if that comment was not specifically targeted, I think that some, if not most, reasonable admins would regard the comment as uncivil. --Elonka 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong, Snow? Keep - This is simply an easier way for people to find what they need. Remove the commentary if you want, but keep the links somewhere. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Attacks of other editors are hilarious, and are permitted because NPA only applies to non-regulars. Al Tally ^talk 22:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unconvinced by the personal attack argument. Concur it appears to be snowing slightly. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but... remove from the {{ACE 2008 guides}} template. Whether humor or commentary, this is clearly a different sort of beast than the other actual guides-to-ACE2008-candidates that populate that template. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like the election guides, some of which contain personal attacks, it will be taken with a pinch of salt. Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. As one of the people commented on in the guide I'll just say that I don't mind being there. (I don't understand why he referred to me as a "deletionist," but whatever.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.