Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kenatipo

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.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Cirt (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference please see User_talk:Kenatipo#Userpage and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Kenatipo. Kenatipo's userpage is violating guidelines found at WP:UP#POLEMIC. Userpages are not to be used display the percieved faults of those one may be in conflict with. I attempted to explain policy, and explained the ways to come into compliance with policy. However Kenatipo has refused. Were he willing, the matter could be resolved by removing the problematic sections, or by creating a proper and temporary evidince sub-page. Without Kenatipo's agreement to take one of those options, the page should be deleted per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Cube lurker (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Kenatipo has moved the deletion notice into the perceived abuse section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek, should you be weighing in here? You have a dog in this hunt, namely wikimanone, don't you? --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the conspiracy accusations, please. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to make accusations, just raising a question. Two days ago, Sarek voted in support of wikimanone's suggestion (as nominator) that the Pro-life article be re-named. Within the next hour, wm1 started putting JUSTAVOTE tags under 5 Oppose votes and 1 Support vote. Within 5 minutes, Sarek reverted wm1's tags. WM1 took it without a whimper and thanked Sarek. It's a scenario I don't understand, so I'm raising a question. I'm not making an accusation or alleging anything. And if Sarek says he has nothing to recuse himself for, I will take him at his word. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. First, what does that have to do with this? Second, "a dog in this hunt"--are you not saying that Wikimanone is Sarek's dog? I thought you were. Drmies (talk)

Shouldn't everyone coming here to vote do so with "clean hands" so to speak, especially admins like Sarek? Wikimanone is the "injured party" here, not Cube lurker. I'm not calling anyone a dog; it's just an expression meaning Sarek may not be completely neutral here. I've altered my question to Sarek, making sure the whole thing is a question. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek may have a personal beef with me: once I asked him if he was a legal alien or an illegal alien and made a joke about flying around Uranus. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the persons making this complaint please list the exact sections they are requesting removal of? Or is this supposed to be a guessing game? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say sections 3,4,5 & 6 violate WP:UP#POLEMIC. That is at this current time, some of those have been added since the MFD began, and if you continue to add additional similar sections the list might grow.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sections don't have numbers. Please be more specific. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the section numbers shown in the contents box, subsections included. (top left).--Cube lurker (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Every section above and including "Barnstar #3" is in violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Furthermore, since the editor has not earned any barnstars, any section that includes the term "Barnstar" should be renamed to NOT include the wording of "Barnstar".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know more about this Barnstar violation, Arc. Can you point me to something specific, and I mean specific? --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically not a "violation" per se., but barnstars are not self-awarded. I don't think you are purposely misusing the term, but it is misleading.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this attempt to turn a user page into a battleground. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User pages should not be used to build lists of grudges against other users, as per WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is allowable to maintain a list of evidence to be used in an RfC, Arbcom case, etc, but there is a proper way to do it - Cube lurker has explained and even offered to help, but User:Kenatipo did not react collegially to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC: userspace should not be used to host material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the rationales given above. In general, this editor appears to have WP:BATTLEGROUND problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And BTW, a note to the PTB of the WikiManOne cabal: I've yet to receive this month's check. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. It's on its way! ;) _WikiMan^One 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC. GiantSnowman 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sarek Rules! WikiManOne, whose behavior is the root cause of this nonsense, has been blocked by Sarek for 24 hours for edit-warring. The request to unblock has been refused, with the admin comment "it should have been longer". This MfD was never about me or Cube lurker. It was about WikiManOne's overly aggressive editing and other obnoxious behavior. Now that the long arm of official justice has (finally) reached out and grabbed WikiManOne by the scruff of the neck, the whole complexion of the issue changes. Feeling vindicated, I am seriously considering changes to my main userpage to comply with issues raised on this page. My decision will depend in large part on WikiManOne's behavior in the 24 hours after his block expires. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense like this isn't going to help anyone or anything. You should work to cool disputes, not "celebrate" because someone you are in a dispute with gets blocked. Sarek did the job of an admin and made a block to prevent disruption - it is not a "vindication" of anyone or any idea. --B (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's just human nature for the victim to feel good when the perp gets a comeuppance. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kenatipo has copied the objectionable material from User:Kenatipo to User:Kenatipo/Sandbox MYOB. I don't know if that means both pages should be deleted or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone were to move an article in the middle of an AFD and the consensus was to delete, we would delete its new target when the AFD was finished. I see no reason an MFD should be different. --B (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I would say change the link to reflect the new location of the page. While WP:AFDEQ doesn't have a prohibition against moving pages while discussions are taking place, I feel it is bad form to do so. I also sense a bit of ownership with the MYOB business.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - the "Freudian" slip is still on the userpage. Also, whenever its deleted, shouldn't it also be deleted from the article history? _WM^O 21:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Freudian slip isn't even attributed to you. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the rules changing as this progresses? I was lead to believe that if I'm building a case against a malfeasor in one of my sandboxes, that that was acceptable:

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 it will be used in a timely manner.

I believe it might help your cause if you were to put something on the top of the page that says that. As it stands, all it is is a bunch of text copied from other places, and so it looks "hobbled" together. Plus, again - you are misusing the term "barnstar".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "cobbled" together, I think. Put a note at the top of Sandbox MYOB? OK. No one will mistake my use of "barnstar" on my user page for anything but an attempt at cheeky humor. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way I can create a sandbox that is hidden from stalkers and snoops? That way, nobody would be upset. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because of the open nature of Wikipedia, and also because no one owns any specific page of it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, do it in another project. (I don't mean that to be sarcastic, that's seriously what I do, internal links won't work but external ones will, and its wiki formatted...) _WM^O 00:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the policy: [1] "User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion." --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:UP#Polemic does not apply here. "Polemics" is listed in the box to the right of this description: "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing." My listing of wMo's shenanigans has everything to do with editing this encyclopedia. And, it isn't "very divisive or offensive" either. "Polemics" also does not apply because it refers to "Excessive unrelated content", that's the section heading it's under in the policy. My content is neither excessive nor unrelated. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, WP:UP#Polemic is a guideline, not a policy.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quibbling is for wikilawyers, Arc. Don't be one of them. You're better than that. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polemic applies to unrelated content. All my content is related to editing here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be polemic if I was filling up pages about how wMo is evil because he supports killing unborn babies. I am not doing that. You guys are trying to apply the wrong guideline. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is moot. I've removed anything WikiManOne could find offensive, from all my userpages (excepting my "Barnstars". They will be staying). --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nominator noting Kenatipo's comment above, it does look to me that the reasons for deleting this page have now been resolved. I think there are some unresolved issues regarding working well with others, but they won't be resolved here.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it should still be deleted to remove the history from the pages, and then recreated if necessary. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:26, 12 February 2011 (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.