Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/users that view the 9/11 attacks article as govement pov

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Delete As with every XfD involving the suggestion of "vote-stacking," the "numeric tally" of the comments becomes even less significant than usual: however, by my reckoning, this hovers around 64%. Given that several keep commenters expressed their opinions as "weak" and shared misgiving about the potential misuse of the page; and given that article discussion should occur always primarily on the article talk page; and given that the user in question has a history of controversial actions relating to "vote-stacking", which controversy has infected this very debate, I find that a consensus for deletion exists, and that such deletion best serves Wikipedia's policy and community in this case. Xoloz 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Striver/users that view the 9/11 attacks article as govement pov

This should be in article discussion pages, not in userspace. If this editor wants to try to solicit others to try to build a concensus for his POV, then he should find another way to do it.--MONGO 09:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That project was deleted since it had some personal attacks in it, it would never had been deleted otherwise. --Striver 11:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The personal attacks were ones you made against other editors, no less.--MONGO 11:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and i should not have done that. And it resulted in *that* project being deleted. What does *that* have to do with *this*?--Striver 11:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please stop trying to manipulate the votes on this Mfd by falsely stating the facts. If you would have looked at the Mfd you'd clearly see that most people voted delete on that for the reason that it was created to promote a POV on articles. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] All of those delete per the reason stated before.--Jersey Devil 11:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Two of the votes where there due to the personal attacks, one actualy changed from "delete" to "keep", but changed his mind back after seeing the personal attacks. If they had voted "keep", the project would have been keept. What is amusing is you claiming "please stop trying to manipulate the votes on this Mfd by falsely stating the facts", as if *that* mfd has anything to do with *this* mfd. The only reason i talk about that is since *you* brought it up and i didnt you to give a incorrect impresion. --Striver 11:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are soliciting sypathetic votes for this Mfd as well I see.[9], [10], [11], [12], [13] I knew this would happen, and that is why I already speedy deleted this twice.--MONGO 11:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Yes, discussion on how to structure articles should take place on article talk pages, but I'm not aware of any policy that forbids doing it elsewhere - as long as the result is not purported to reflect consensus. Yes, the contributors to the page at issue have a conspiracy theory POV, but they stop just short on organising how to push it on an article - they just discuss on how to structure the article (although in a way that would reflect their POV). To ward off censorship allegations, we should be very reluctant to delete project-type pages unless they are in clear violation of fundamental Wikipedia principles, and the page at issue (narrowly) is not. Violations of WP:Spam by Striver merit warnings and possibly blocks, but are not grounds for deletion of the page at issue. Sandstein 12:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam implies giving messages to people that dont want it. That is not happened. --Striver 12:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... they have changed the text on that policy. I did give notifications to Jersey Devil and MONGO a few times, but they rather wanted me to not to do that. Ill keep this in mind. --Striver 12:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have already pointed out the relevant policy. You attempted to sway consenus on this Mfd by informing people you believed would vote a certain way. Whether they "wanted the messages" is irrelevant. And you have given me "notification" one time not "a few times", which is irrelevant to this discussion anyway.--Jersey Devil 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concerns of meatpuppetry for vote stacking (or "swaying consensus" if you will), and a clandestine "policy" of pre-specified percentages of conspiracycuft in articles. Please let's not do that. Weregerbil 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the motivation of "Un-userfing"? What policy advocates that i cant have this poll on my userpage? If i can have a article on my User page, or even a RFC, why not this?--Striver 13:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Strong keep. I'd like it better if it were spelled correctly, but I'd like to see better reasons before deleting it. All right, a couple of eds are uneasy about it, and all right, Striver shouldn't have solicited opinion (he didn't solicit mine but I'm weighing in anyway!). If these are the only reasons to delete it though, I'd say keep it. What harm is it actually doing? --Guinnog 14:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This user is now actively vote-stacking (see WP:AN/I for more information) to save this page -- precisely the activity that this page will be used for if allowed to continue. This user has made it clear that they will resort to vote-stacking and should not be allowed the implements to do so. JDoorjam Talk 15:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JDoorjam. Mackensen (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--DCAnderson 15:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un-userfy or delete. Violates the policies on vote stacking and internal spamming. Striver has engaged in vote stacking in the past. Though this is not in the main or talk namespace but under his own userpage, it's clear that the purpose of this "project" is to gather a group of people with the same POV to (then) "move in" en masse and re-write an article according to that POV. Moreover, based on Striver's own opening "keep" vote, this is not a real, regular Wikipedia project: "Get of my user page, i'm collecting information!" (to MONGO). One user is rallying others to gather material with a certain POV, and refuses to accept input by other POVs. So this is "different than having a wide cross-talk page discussion between users". BTW, if this seems like I'm personally attacking Striver's work, it's because he's chosen to place himself there — no less than by having this "project" under his own userspace. Move it to the talk namespace where it belongs, let everybody participate, and the problem's solved. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to imply that i have disscouraged people to write there. The only thing i have done is geting uppset at MONGO's contant oposition of everything i do, speeding twice, even though a admin had restored it. That is what i objected to, MONGO's spirit. Otherwise, you are welcomed to write anything you want there. --Striver 15:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This isn't a properly formatted poll, but I have seen no evidence of any requirement that people aren't allowed to hold less formal polls. The arguments that Striver's trying to build a voting bloc this way are tenuous to ridiculous. Georgewilliamherbert 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or un-userfy per Flores. Clear attempt to circumvent wiki processes and rules. --Mmx1
  • KEEP It's Strivers page and he can ask all the questions he wants to. There is no rule against keeping a tally of the answers. Talk about a kneejerk reaction. SkeenaR 06:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it's acceptable for me to keep on my userspace a list of Republican editors? --Mmx1 06:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a policy against it. There's probably a userbox too. Isn't there a user box that will put you in a category? SkeenaR 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't been keeping track of the userbox debates. All political userboxes were deleted for exactly that reason - among other reasons, the category invited vote-spamming. --Mmx1
You're right, I haven't been following any of that. But I see that there are still dem and repub userboxes and categories though. So whats up with that? SkeenaR 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been peripherally watching it, but I did see on Deletion Review that the Republican, Democrat, and a few other userbox templates went up for review and were soundly kept deleted for those reasons. Those were the userbox templates, though (which could have been abused by the "what links here" page). I don't know if the categories themselves were up for deletion (though it should, I think, for the same reasons), and many people are simply substituting the code; I presume it's too much work and bother to police userpages if they write the box themselves. The templates were deleted for being divisive and contrary to the aims of wiki. --Mmx1 16:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see those userboxes are here.[20] But seriously, the people here are smart enough that if they really want to find their ideological peers they will whether they put together lists or not. It seems to me that it is delusional or pretentious thinking that keeping a list like this down is going to help do anything other than punish Striver. It also seems sadly maternalistic. It's not even policy that this page should go, it reminds me of a bunch of people grinding their axes or simply being wet-nurses. I think wikipedia is better than this. And if you were being attacked like this, I would vote in your favour too. SkeenaR 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination, and as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#First step: talk to the other parties involved: "use the talk page associated with the article in question". We have to be careful not to allow discussion and consensus building to descend into factionalism and campaigning. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton and others above. Tom Harrison Talk 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to regular space and make sure it is announced properly as a poll. And don';t assume bad faith. --LambiamTalk 16:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep After all, it's userspace and per WP:USER weakly (IMO) falls under "work in progress" (as the user admits it's "information that may or may not result in future actions"). Misza13 T C 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't "vote-stacking", because there's no vote here to stack. Striver is taking an informal poll on whether certain articles need to be restructured to place less emphasis on an "official" version of events and more emphasis on alterative theories (the balance, right now, being that the official version occupies the articles in their entirety and alternative theories get a single link: recent Zogby polling suggests that this is not in line with how the American public sees the issue). These are editors already involved in the editing processes of those articles, so there's no "internal spamming" going on, either. It's really just a discussion page that overarches several 9/11-related topics. It's unusual that it's in userspace, but I'm not sure which article's discussion page it would be de-userfied to. --Hyperbole 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The expression "vote stacking" is employed for convenience. There's a reason why this is invoked; check the discussions in AfD and you'll see that editors' opinions are referred to as "votes" and that they're routinely discounted when they're the result of this kind of behavior. This page is not just a forum; it's a plan to radically modify an article or articles. As such it belongs in the Talk namespace, if at all. Either that, or it should be deleted and further discussion conducted outside Wikipedia. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but perhaps take up the issue at hand on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. This page is not really the place to be determining how a certain article is to be handled. That's what the article talk pages are for. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 21:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as deletions have to be against a policy and this doesnt even state one is being broken. This users page is simply to keep a talley of sorts then the rest is just conjecture. Any of the users on this page complaining about their inclusion? I would think this would be a valid way of analyzing a users position, if concensus is being built, what people are complaining against in case of a question restructuring. This seems like valid research to understand the situation. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed my vote, partly on the basis of comments above. If any user engages in vote-stacking or cabal-building, there are established ways to pick it up. What Striver does in his user space is up to him as long as he keeps to Wiki policy. There's a silly situation ongoing in Talk:7 World Trade Center, where certain users have been and are still trying, not only to enforce their view of what the page can contain, but even to enforce not having a NPOV tag while a NPOV dispute is in progress. Striver's efforts here, in an ideal Wikipedia would not be necessary, but I would say it is a symptom of the way some of the discussion on talk pages has degenerated into 'holding the line' regardless of policy by certain admins. Keep, on principle. I still wish it was spelled right and that we could have proper discussions on talk pages. Maybe we need a Wikiproject on editorial policy on 9-11 related articles? --Guinnog 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page has no other purpose than building a "supporters' POV block", as expressly stated in the title; that is, something that, on the event of working, would stand a snowball's chance in hell. Having an editorial policy would be nice, but it'd only contribute to the problem if someone popped up a page e. g. User:Striver/users that view the editorial policy on 9/11 attacks as government pov. On the basis of this discussion, why not (ad infinitum)? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well yes indeed. Tell you what, start the project, and I'll not only help you with it but change my vote a second time (if that's allowed!) So, maybe, will Striver himself? --Guinnog 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A offcial wikiproject that is trying to enforece NPOV to the 9/11 articles?`Ill belive it when i see it. --Striver 07:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like another POV fork project for you Striver.--MONGO 07:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You hear it, a wiki*project* can be a WP:POVFORK, specialy when there is not a project to fork from to begin with. I rest my case. --Striver 08:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it...you won't believe what happens next, even while it's happening.--MONGO 08:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning?--Striver 10:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes mommy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SkeenaR (talk • contribs)

It just illustrates that I feel this deletion attempt is mostly contemptuous finger wagging. It has no place on wikipedia. SkeenaR 07:06, 6 June 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Striver/users_that_view_the_9/11_attacks_article_as_govement_pov&oldid=1138704888"