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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. For those interested, the tally of keep/delete was about 50/50 each, with a slight favoring to keep. However, I do strongly urge the editor to take to heart the comments raised here about soapboxing. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 03:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

User:Anarcho-capitalism

I am concerned about the purpose of this page. The page is not a normal user page, as in it does not contain any personal information about the user(s) of this account whatsoever. The page is an extremely length article supporting a fringe POV, which is OK for personal uses, but it goes beyond this. To see what I mean, see this google.co.uk search for "anarcho-capitalism", where his user page is listed second in the results**. To be blunt, I am concerned that this user(s) is abusing the notablity of wikipedia and the google rankings system to push his/her/their viewpoints to the top of google rankings, by editing lots of pages and signing everything, so that lots of pages on wikipedia link to his/her/their page, pushing his/her/their viewpoints up the google rankings. In short, I am concerned that this user(s) is using his/her/their wikipedia user page to publish their own views. -- infinity 0 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

**google.com shows his page on the second page of results, I didn't realise that until just now. However, my points still stand.

See Wikipedia:User_page#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. ("Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.") The material on his page is not useful material for any articles, because it fails the WP:NPOV policy, and so is irrelevant to wikipedia.

Addenum: also for the few anarcho-capitalists who are accusing me of doing this because I feel "angst" towards the person, this is unreasonable and also a logical fallacy in keeping/deleting his page. Of course I feel a certain amount of tension towards the person/s, but this has no effect on the logical reasons of keeping/deleting his page. His page is just completely unfriendly and impersonal, and furthermore he acts almost in exactly the same way like RJII did, including phrases like "convicted edit warrior". I would suggest someone go submit a CheckUser request; I am far too busy to do this atm. -- infinity 0 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Addenum 2 I would like to re-iterate here (after some people's comments make it clear that they have missed the point of this MFD) that the issue is about SOAPBOXING and NOT freedom of expression. The username and the usercontent, *combined*, give off the wrong impression on wikipedia. -- infinity 0 12:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete - for reasons stated. -- infinity 0 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't see any problem with the googles. The Anarcho-capitalism article is the first link and the userpage of User:Anarcho-capitalism is as far behind as the second page of google's search. And first on his page it says this is not an article but a userpage. Lord Metroid 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Gives off the wrong impression for wikipedia. I'm sure you would object if User:Anarchism existed and basically dissed the complete shit out of anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-capitalists, and was listed as the first article in Google. -- infinity 0 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I wouldn't object at all if User:Anarchism had an essay that logicaly explained the basis of collectivistic "altruistic" anarchism and why it would be preferable to anarcho-capitalism. Lord Metroid 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment What if User:Anarchism was an essay which *wasn't* logically explained, and had massive gaps and flaws in? See where I'm going with this? -- infinity 0 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment If such an essay would not be adhereing to any logical explanation of the topic there would be two possibilities which I commonly express when I find something really annoying. Either I would ignore it with only the thaught of thinking what a stupid author or I would be highly aggrevated and shocked over the stupidity and have a feeling of angst and the will to strangle the deluded person which would probably result in a subtle but short debate and name-calling as I don't have much patience for arguing. Lord Metroid 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

And I don't know what your google settings are, but mine are the default, and it shows User:Anarcho-capitalism as the second entry after wikipdeia's actual article on Anarcho-capitalism. -- infinity 0 12:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Also hopefully now you will understand why I started this MFD. If it was really on the second page of google, I wouldn't be bothered to get off my ass and follow the whole MFD process to even create this page and write those above 4 paragraphs in the first place. -- infinity 0 12:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh I see, I used google.co.uk and you probably used google.com. Well that is weird - sorry for the confusion. But even then the potential for google-abuse remains, because of the way google handles links, so the page might rise up the ranks. Still, I think it at the very least, the page should be Moved to a more neutral username. Someone also mentioned POVFORK as an issue, but I don't think it's too much of a problem for userpages, even pages such as his, as long as my main points about soapboxing and google are taken into account. -- infinity 0 12:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep Wow, now that is real paranoia. I hadn't even though of this "google rankings system." I don't even know what is is. The first half of my page contains an article I wrote so Wikipedia editors could obtain a strong understanding of anarcho-capitalism, in order to assist them in their contributions to articles that have to do with anarcho-capitalism. I have a fundamental understanding of it, so I felt I was qualified to do this. And I think I've written the article pretty NPOV. The second half of my page contains a long list of sources that say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. I created this as a reference source for Wikipedia editors. There have been lengthy edit wars in the past over whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. The purpose of me creating this list was to stop the edit wars over this. And, I think it's worked. Ever since I did this the edit wars have stopped. That is, continual insertions and removals of the anarcho-capitalism section from the Anarchism article has stopped. Now there is no question that there are a tremendous number of scholarly sources that say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It's indisuptable now. For those who are unfamiliar, though a philosophy that calls itself a type of anarchism is of course considered a type of anarchism, POV pushers, typically anarcho-communists have been claiming that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Silly I know, but they've been causing edit wars over it. Anarcho-capitalism 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The "long list of sources" are specially selected ones by you. You have been refusing to allow sources contradicting yours to be used. Your page is extremely POV, as anyone who knows anything about anarchism will understand. Similarly, all the edit wars have been caused by you not allowing removal of such POV from articles. Also, please don't play the "I'm the good neutral guy here" game, your very account name gives you away. -- infinity 0 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

There are almost no sources that say that anarchist-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. That's the whole point. The objective is to show that there are an overwhelming number of sources that explicitly say it is a form of anarchism, in order to stop the edit wars. And, it's worked. I've noticed you've been deleting sources from the anarchism article which say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. I think I see what you're doing. You want sources removed so that you can later claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and delete it from the article, causing an edit war. Am I right? If the sources are removed from my user page, edit wars will definitely ensue. I'm confident of that. Anarcho-capitalism 02:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I provide plenty, including a Noam Chomsky source. You just brush them off as they don't exist. -- infinity 0 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I just found out that Infinity is a convicted edit warrior on probation: [1] Now it all makes sense. Anarcho-capitalism 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ahh the old smear-tactic. RJII used to do this. -- infinity 0 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, give me a break RJ. You didn't "just find out" anything. Quips like that make the act just that much more annoying. It doesn't even come out very naturally. It feels rather forced. Stick to laying low. Owen 09:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Another note, I see that Infinity is campaigning by leaving messages to people he knows so that they will vote to delete. Is that allowed? Anarcho-capitalism 02:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing to determine if his actions are in violation of wikpolicy. Lawyer2b 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep'" for reasons listed below,

• 1. I just clicked on Infinity0's google search link and the userpage he wants deleted doesn't even show up on the first page of links, at least on my computer.

Anyone can check the link for themselves. -- infinity 0 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You're right, we can. And this userpage does not show up on it. Rogue 9 10:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• B. his accusation of the user's motive for creating the page (unless he has some sort of evidence to back it up) is a blatant violation wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith.

AGF is not a policy, it is a guideline. I have assumed plenty of good faith with regards to his actions. -- infinity 0 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Third, I think the userpage contains information helpful to editing the article on Anarcho-capitalism and is, hence, relevant to wikipedia. Yes, it may or may not contain some POV that is not suitable for inclusion in an article but, it's on his userpage, and, in balance, it also contains many good sources for researching and editing the wikipedia article about anarcho-capitalism. Lawyer2b 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep, although it would probably be best to make it clearer that this is the user's opinion, and not intended to be neutral. I'd very much rather know his political viewpoints than not, if I was in a dispute with him over some anarchism article. - Amarkov moo! 03:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

DELETE. Are you kidding? "ANARCHO-CAPITALISM EXPLAINED FOR STUPID ANARCHISTS" is just the kind of attack page and attitude we don't need. Get rid of it. Anarcho-capitalism itself is a troll magnet and an extremely offensive "philosophy", sort of like Fascism with all the good parts taken out. Destroy this. Herostratus 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment Ehum, are you just being sarcastic? Lord Metroid 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Nope, he just has no felt need to be civil. I s'pose that I should be glad that I've not been dragged into the debate amongst anarchisms and pseudo-anarchisms which has evidently been running rather wild. — SlamDiego 09:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: I found these words on your user page, Herostratus: “This user is a Wikipedian and checks his opinions and ideologies at the door. He trusts that you do, too.” — SlamDiego 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. I strongly suspect that User:Anarcho-capitalism is a reincarnation of banned User:RJII. The edit summaries, the sentence structure and attitude conveyed, the areas of interest and nature of POV warring, the conflict with User:Infinity0, the specific objection to including "An Anarchist FAQ", the huge edit counts racked up... there are just too many similarities. Admittedly, I sometimes have trouble telling Randroids apart, but this seems pretty clear-cut to me. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment You can see the discussion regarding the user's alias on User talk:Anarcho-capitalism#Follow up about your username and if you don't have any evidence to back up your claim that User:Anarcho-capitalism is the same person as User:RJII I found your attitude despeciable! No assumed good faith at all. Lord Metroid 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I've held similar suspicions for some time. Besides the obvious similarities in attitude and sentence structure, his user page contains information on obscure individualist anarchists such as Clarence Lee Swartz and Henry Appleton, whose articles were written by RJII. Even more telling, he created an article on philosophical anarchism without categorizing the article, a staple of RJII's writing style that I've never witnessed in any other experienced editors. Perhaps it's time we start pursuing the matter more thoroughly. Owen 09:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment After further investigation by browseing the several links presented in this discussion, the claim that User:RJII and User:Anarcho-capitalism is the same person holds a less frivolous ground. But evidence of prose and article association is arbitrary at most and I will not judge neither User:RJII nor User:Anarcho-capitalism before I have some hard evidence that the claim is true. Until then I consider them to be seperate people. Lord Metroid 11:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well, Billy Ego is almost certainly not a fascist, but someone representing himself as such in an attempt to expose crypto-fascism. Even if that sort of use would serve the salutary purpose of forcing recognition of fascism, it more generally corrupts the relevant process for arriving at a best approximation of the truth. The other guys can misrepresent themselves, and will have a greater sense of license. (Of course, Billy Ego may himself or herself have felt licensed by such misrepresentations on the part of his or her opponents. I have no idea where the spiral began.) Given that Billy Ego is not a fascist, it becomes plausible that he is an anarchist of some sort. Certainly, some of his rhetoric has what could be read as an anarchistic flavor. But there are many anarchists out there. Billy Ego's “association” with User:Anarcho-capitalism could be no more than birds of a feather abiding together. — SlamDiego 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete or Merge with new user page. I think that the content is probably ok, even though very polemic, there are other polemic users around. The combination of the content and the username are incompatible. - Francis Tyers · 11:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete the treatise on anarcho-capitalism. POV is fine in a userpage, but this is excessive. The user, based on their name and userpage, appears to be using a role account. I also suspect them to be a sockpuppet of the banned RJII, an admitted role account. ~ Switch ( ? ? ?) 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. This ain't a user page, it's a content fork/polemic with "User:" pasted to the front of it as a figleaf. Geocities, MySpace, or Tripod are that-a-way if you're really bursting to tell the world what you think. -- Calton | Talk 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep. I do think this is relevant to work on Wikipedia, but maybe it could be pared down a bit. And that's coming from an anarcho-syndicalist! Ab e g92 contribs 14:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep. I have used his user page to check out sources, views, etc.. It's incredibly useful. Especially the sources. "Abusing Google rankings" seems a bit ridiculous to be an excuse to delete a page. Maybe violating user-page policy is a better excuse, but even then, I'd say it's too valuable a source to supercede this. If this was really a geocities-ish page, then User: Anarcho-capitalism would've had multiple user-pages, instead of one, straight run-through. Fephisto 15:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep there is no reasonable or compelling need to delete. A user can express his opinions on his userpages. Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment The issue is not freedom of expression, the issue is Soapboxing using an inappropriate account name. -- infinity 0 12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep per Wooyi; there's absolutely no reason to prevent users from expressing opinions on their userpage. Also, the comments above describing anarcho-capitalism as a "troll magnet" and an "offensive philosophy" hardly seem to be approaching this from an NPOV perspective. Wal ton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep It is a perfectly good userpage made by a person very dedicated to editing wikipedia containting an explanatory essay regarding anarcho-capitalism for people he has to deal with when trying to edit anarchy articles as well as various sources the user User:Anarcho-capitalism uses for his editing. This situation of his userpage being proposed for deletion have appeared several times in the recent past all done by users with contrary believes to User:Anarcho-capitalism. Where the proposal for deletion has been This page violates the "no substantial content" rule for user pages which have been reverted by other users. I am a majorly concerned that User:Infinity0 has angst towards User:Anarcho-capitalism as a part of the bigger problem of which I have asked for help to solve some time ago but the case has yet yet to be opened by the Meditation Cabal: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07 The anarchy battlefield. Lord Metroid 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I have supported deletion before, and anarcho-capitalism is far closer to my beliefs than anything else which has a name. It's also not constructive to declare that deletion nominations have been made by people who dislike anarcho-capitalism (even though this time it is made pretty clear that everyone who has said to delete does disagree with the philosophy). - Amarkov moo! 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with you and I hope you will agree that Infinity's accusation of User:Anarcho-capitialism manipulating google rankings is a clear violation of WP:AGF. Lawyer2b 02:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep I agree with Fephisto's comments. Caliban 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: The user who created this page has been identified by checkuser as an alternate account of User:Billy Ego, who appears likely to be banned from editing for one year by an Arbitration Committee decision. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Evidence#Evidence submitted by Mackensen; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Proposed decision. As a result, this discussion is likely to soon become moot. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment That is quite strange Billy Ego seems to have been holding a POV of Fascism and anti-capitalism according to User:Billy Ego totally opposit of User:Anarcho-capitalism, you sure it's the same person? Because User:Anarcho-capitalism is well read on anarchy and specificly anarcho-capitalism. Lord Metroid 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sure of nothing. I'm going by what an arbitrator/checkuser (I am neither) posted at the links I cited. Newyorkbrad 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It is rather unlikely, though, that they both stop editing for around 8 hours (presumably sleeping) at nearly exactly the same time, a quarter past 5 UTC, yet they have zero interspersed edits as far as I went back. - Amarkov moo! 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Checkuser whatever. I'm not Billy Ego. You should get your facts straight before throwing around accusations. Anyway, this vote is on my user page, so why would you say the vote is "moot"? If a person is blocked for a time he still has a user page. Anarcho-capitalism 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: If the decision is reached that your account is part of a set of abusive sockpuppets, then the account may be more than temporarily blocked, and its user page may be effectively taken from you. See, for example, Grazon. — SlamDiego 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• My faith in checkuser is now further diminished. — SlamDiego 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

When User:Newyorkbrad said, "The user who created this page," I thought he was referring to this page (this "Miscellany for deletion" page) and it was User:Infinity0 who he thought an alternate account of User:Billy Ego. Of course, I could be mistaken; perhaps he can clarify about whom was he talking. Lawyer2b 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

By "this page," I meant the page that is the subject of this discussion, not this MfD page itself. My apologies to Infinity0 and Lawyer2b for any inadvertent confusion. Newyorkbrad 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• The checkuser result to which he refers includes a claim that Anarcho-capitalism is Billy Ego. I cannot know for certain that Anarcho-capitalism is not Billy Ego, but checkuser seems to proceed on the assumption that no two editors can frequently share the same connection. And, instead of something such as a modest declaration that Wikipedia must go with the best protocol available to it, combined with a block that admits possible injustice, there is a monkey-dance of condemnation when two accounts are shown to share a connection. — SlamDiego 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• If an-cap is RJII, which I have often thought and said it likely is, then it might make sense. RJII was a role account that was supposedly run by several individuals (based on RJII's own admission). Perhaps one of them has a different viewpoint. Anways, the section does say itself that Billy Ego (and all the socks) was accused by others as being RJII. I also wouldn't put it past RJII to create various accounts that purposefully attempt to seem different (a la Wolfstar). Ungovernable Force ^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 08:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep, with strong encouragement to change a few things such as the reference to “STUPID ANARCHISTS”. — SlamDiego 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep. It may have alot of opinions etc... but that's what userpages are for. Gateman1997 04:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: This page is borderline inappropriate, but I'm not sure which side of the border it's on. A case could be made that it is helpful. After reading sections of it, I will say it is interesting and informative, even if I disagree with it. It does seem like a personal website more than a real userpage though. I would suggest An-cap move most of that stuff to a private page, or a user subpage at the least and add more info on themself with a link to the other stuff or something. Seems like a good compromise. I don't think it's the most important thing in the world though, and Infinity may have been a bit too early to assume it was a purposeful attempt on An-cap's part to gain easy visibility. I think it's possible, especially if An-cap is RJII, which like I said above, I think they might be. Well, that's my two-cents. Ungovernable Force ^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 08:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• The only problem I find with moving the essay to a subpage is that then it would look even MORE like User: Anarcho-capitalism is trying to make his Userpage have substantial content. That, and if it's O.K. for a subpage, I don't see why that wouldn't imply that it's O.K. for the main page. Fephisto 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: There is a lot of talk about the line ANARCHO-CAPITALISM EXPLAINED FOR STUPID ANARCHISTS. 1) Opinions can be expressed on User-pages, and 2) The main policy issue here is that you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia on the user-page, not 'this line is offensive', correct? So, what is the big deal about this line? Fephisto 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Reply: It is uncivil and will provoke outraged response without producing much in the way of offsetting benefit. — SlamDiego 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Alright. Fephisto 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: As another comment, the part that is unrelated to Wikipedia on the user-page is key here, is it not? I would argue that in terms of looking over articles involving Anarcho-Capitalism, there is very little that would be unrelated. Fephisto 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Contrary to much of the fulmination against the page, it seems that it can serve two legitimate purposes. First, it can be a reference to which discussion on various article talk pages is directed. Second, because anarcho-capitalism is a subject relevant to various articles, it is a reference to which editors may turn in trying to organize some of their thinking for those articles. — SlamDiego 18:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment on "STUPID ANARCHISTS" line. I removed it three hours after the nomination. Why did nobody notice? - Amarkov moo! 03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Some of us noticed, but it had been removed before, and restored before. The issue thus remains. — SlamDiego 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• I went in and changed "stupid anarchists" to "dummies." "Stupid anarchists" was just a play on the "For Dummies" books. Was not supposed to be insult, but a joke. I guess no one got it. Anarcho-capitalism 16:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete Despite the template warning placed irresponsibly on the page, whomever created this userpage has clearly intended it to be POV encyclopedic-style content. It's an evasion of wikipedia policy just like sockpuppet, and should be deleted. VanTucky 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. I fully support giving leeway for people to express political, philosophical and religious opinions on userpages, and I am OK with it going a little bit overboard sometimes (if it doesn't bother people too much some WP:IAR on the userpage policy and pretending we didn't see it is OK). But this userpage is HUGE, far beyond reasonable bounds. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not free webspace for you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete . Definite campaigning and using userpage as vehicle of un-academic, un-encyclopediac POV content that this user(s) can't seem to get into their target articles. Blatent ati-communsit and anti-anarchist. This latest wave of evangelical anarcho-capitalism/right-wing libertarian attacks on articles started as soon as the RJII issue was resolved. I believe RJII project was a far-right attempt to infiltrate anarchism to gain recruits and 'revise' what got in the way. I seem to recall anarchism.net as a similar project. Please delete and block sockpuppets. - maxrspct ping me 11:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment This user "maxrspct" is one of the users that Infinity recruited to vote here in his canvassing attempt. [2] Funny conspiracy theory by the way. This is as funny as Infinity's fantasy that I'm somehow trying to manipulate the "Google ranking system" or something. Is Wikipedia really that important? That's a little far-fetched. And what would these anarcho-capitalist "recruits" do? Stage a violent revolution and take over the world? This is ridiculous. It's just a philosophy. Relax. Anarcho-capitalism 12:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am throwing stones in a green-house as this deletion debate was brought to my attention by User:Fephisto on my own talk page. User:infinity0 have not only on the above user's talkpage made a canvassing attempt but also in association to the discussion Talk:Anarchism#Culling the source-spam published such information on Talk:Anarchism. This further strenghten the case that this is a personal conflict User:Infinity0 has with User:Anarcho-capitalism. I strongly would sugest that matter of User:Anarcho-capitalism being deleted is not decided upon at the moment but is resolved to a no consensus until the meditation, Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07_The_anarchy_battlefield that have now been opened is resolved. Lord Metroid 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The canvassing attempt was extremely minor; I asked three of my friends to comment. This MFD has no relation whatsoever to the anarchism discussion or towards my tensions with the user in question, and any attempts to invalidate this MFD based on this line of argument are themselves logically flawed, because it is of no relevant to the MFD. -- infinity 0 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment So you claim. Lord Metroid 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment - i've collaborated with Infinity0 in the past. I have already shown interst in having that userpage wiped. He has been undersiege from this anarcho-capitalism campaign. i see no problem with him telling me about this project. relax maxrspct ping me 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I was thinking about taking the essay portion of the user page soon anyway to finish it up offline and publish it. The references will definitely stay for the long term though because they prevent edit wars. Anarcho-capitalism 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I think that the information on the page is mostly just plain wrong (e.g. "In other words, it [anarcho-communism] does not allow for, and militates against, the Sovereignty of the Individual. (This applies to all forms of so-called 'social anarchism.')"). The sources list is fine, but the essay is going a bit over the top. I'm of the opinion that this user is, if not a troll, at least disruptive. That said, I don't know whether anything should happen or not. ~ AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think "disruptive" is a term thrown around Wikipedia too much. Any edit done to a political-type article is going to be "disruptive" to someone. Any political opinion is going to be "disruptive" in the eyes of someone. Any political opinion one states is going to upset somebody. I do think, though, that the essay itself is relatively NPOV - not that it has to be on my own userpage. I think everything in it is true. It doesn't say anarcho-captalism is good or the best system. It doesn't say anarcho-communism is bad. I think anarcho-communism comes out looking pretty undesirable though just by explaining what it is and contrasting it to anarcho-capitalism. If that's "disruptive" so what? I can see the slash through the anarcho-communist symbol and the caption, which is not part of the essay, maybe upsetting some people, but I've seen anti-capitalist things on people's user pages. I wouldn't try to censor them. I believe everyone should have a right to express their opinion. Let's not be so politically correct that we water down and/or hide our opinions on our own userpages just to avoiding upsetting someobdy. Allow a bit of freedom of speech. And let's not use the term "disruptive" so loosely. Anarcho-capitalism 15:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: First, I think you are disruptive because I disagree that many of your edits are factual, or NPOV. Secondly, I'm not trying to censor you. Thirdly, I'm not claiming that your essay on your user page is disruptive (I don't think it is), simply that it is factually wrong and not NPOV (and potentially confusing). For the record I'm not a communist, but I feel that your representation of it is wrong. I also think that your claim that all types of social anarchism do not allow for (etc.) "the Sovereignty of the Individual" is simply wrong as well. Anyway, if you want to continue this, I don't think this is the correct place for it. If you would like, I'll explain why I think you are wrong on your talk page. ~ AFA ^{Imagine I swore.} 16:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment And I totally disagree with you and think User:Anarcho-capitalism's edits are factual and NPOV. This is just a part of the Anarchy Battlefield between the "altruistic" collectivistic anarchist and the Anarcho-capitalists. Wouldn't it be more senseable by going to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07_The_anarchy_battlefield and get warfare between anarchists issue dealt with through meditation. Now immediately rather than keep bashing each other in this manner? Lord Metroid 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete As per all the reasons stated above. Blockader 16:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment The above vote comes from someone with an upside down American flag on his userpage. Anarcho-capitalism 16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Yeah, some are more equally bound by NPOV than others. Whatever this discussion ought to be about, it seems really to be about whether anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy to be treated with any respect (see the note above from Herostratus — an administrator), and whether it is to be alowed to call itself “anarcho”-something. — SlamDiego 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment I agree with your assesement of this discussion and all other discussion that has been spread out for a long time over many articles is just that! It is a ridiculus dicussion! It is not up to us to decide anything of such. The term Anarcho-capitalism is being used and we can't do anything about that! Lord Metroid 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment Lord Metriod, your edits/userpage also seem to point to a POV similiar to that of Anarcho-capitalism. Hhhm, is there a pattern here? Blockader 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: Sure The anarcho-capitalists want their self-image as anarchists defended. Their opponents want to shoved down the memory hole. Those outside of the group but with some sympathies have opinions. Others don't much care. Quite a shocking pattern, eh? — SlamDiego 20:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment User:SlamDiego took the word out of my mouth. I don't try to be NPOV because that is impossible. But I do try to be as impartial and objective as I can. Lord Metroid 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment Yes SlamDiego, you are infinately more NPOV in your support for Anarcho-capitalism and his userpage considering that your own userpage identifies you as being of a very similiar political standing (i.e. the austrian school userbox). How ridiculous. Blockader 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Reply: The arguments againt the Anarcho-capitalism user page — which arguments you say you endorse — turn around that page ostensibly being provocative and POV. His point is that your user page is provocative and POV. Neither he nor I has objected to POV user pages; he objected to a double-standard, as do I. (I also object to your inserting of your reply above another reply, and have corrected your faux pas.) — SlamDiego 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment: BTW, I have a userbox that identifies my political position, but it isn't the one that identifies me as a neo-Austrian economist. Economics bounds the possible, but doesn't tell us which possible thing to select. — SlamDiego 21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment What does that have to do with anything Mr. Ancap? we have worked together in the past and come up with some decent compromises and i am sad to see that you have sank to baiting. I am likely no more NPOV in actaul life than you are, and you know that that is not required by wikipedia. i do think i am more NPOV than you when it comes to editing articles but that is not why i voted to delete. After reading all the votes and comments I feel that, while you may not intend it, your userpage is innappropriate in the context of wikipedia. if you want a page to disseminate your POV than there are plenty of free website providers that will host your project. wikipedia is not a soapbox. the concerns many editors have regarding the possibility that you are RJIII is another concern and one which bears further investigation, though i personally hold that opinion myself. Blockader 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It has to do with double-standards. You have a provocative, POV user page, but you're here saying that his user page should be wiped because it is provocative and POV. — SlamDiego 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It's not double standards. His user page isn't a 20-screen rant about how the opposers are wrong and stupid. Anyway, I think all comments and accusations made in response to Blockader's vote are over-the-top. Chill people, I don't think either of you are being significantly biased towards your own viewpoints. SlamDiego, notice that Blockader doesn't rant about stuff on his userpage. Blockader, notice that SlamDiego suggested that User:Ancap's page be "significantly changed". -- infinity 0 13:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, you're absolutely right slamdiego and lord metriod, there is no difference between a userbox and an extensive polemical essay. i'm just a stupid anarchist so please forgive me for being so stupid. also, both of your repeated references to this being a sectarian attack (which i don't personally think it is) are made laughable by your own obvious sectarian bias which is nearly indistinguishable from mr. ancap's own bias. the wiki policy is positively clear on this, his user page is innappropriate. this dialogue and vote is not about expunging anarcho-capitalism from the anarchism article, as people seem to continously insinuate, but rather about removing material in clear violation of wiki guidelines. Blockader 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't see the attack of people kind of prose after the header have been taken care of which you obviously seem to sense from his userpage. I see an essay explaining questions opponents to anarcho-capitalism are unable to ask about the philosophy and answer themselves. Unable to ask the question because the question never occured to the person in the first place and asking the question and seek answers to it would rip the person's whole reality apart as further enlightenement are revealed to the person. I know having one's reality trashed due to previous ignorrance is very stressfull to one's psyche and so I do see why you would see the userpage to be so horrible and threatening. Lord Metroid 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment Your previous statement answers your own question. Because his page claims itself to be the truth; in reality there are many counterarguments against everything he says. However, it is presented as the truth, in such a way that there is no arguing with it (because of the unwritten rule that people don't edit others' user pages). Your comments about "reality trashed due to previous ignorrance is very stressfull to one's psyche" are similarly illogical and unevidential, yet you present it as if it were the truth. -- infinity 0 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment Indeed, I did present it as the truth because I percieve it to be the truth of human nature. I have personal experience with getting one's reality ripped apart from gaining knowledge. Further studies in philosophy and psychology I done also have further explained this phenomenon of the very subtle human nature. To understand how I experienced it I need to tell parts of my story in short: I started out as what I would call an unknowingly practicing marxistic socialist when my studies had yet to not extend beyond the various sciences of nature. But as I begun studying history of all kinds, European history, American history and Asian history. Some very interesting yet stressing and majorly depressing enlightenements came to my mind regarding the opression and violence in societies and how destructive all this violence is for persons even if they are not aware of it. I learned about the concept of freedom(YES... The very concept) and sovereignty among other things. For the first time in my life. I saw all of a sudden, clearly, without the delusions I have had stuffed into my mind by the indoctrination factories(Government School) diminishing my perception of reality. I saw how violent the reality is and people constantly living in fear and opression having the products of their efforts constalty stolen from us. I saw the reality without the various fictions usually stapled to it. It made me depressed and self-destructive, for a couple of month actually. I have walked the walk by studies in history, economics and philosophy that gave me answers to questions which never occured to me until I knew what to ask. Lord Metroid 18:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Reply: Blockader, your original statement in support said (and I quote): “As per all the reasons stated above.” (Underscore mine.) Since some of the discussants prior to you did not make an issue of length, you were treating length as irrelvant. If you now wish to withdraw from that line of argument, that would be fine, but you ought in any event to apologize for mispresenting attacks against the position that you actually took for attacks against some other position. — SlamDiego 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I think your original assertion, of double standards, is false. Blockader's user page is nothing like Anarcho-capitalism's page. Besides, this has nothing to do with the MFD so could both of you just drop this issue. -- infinity 0 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Even with the word “all” underlined, you ignore it and its implication. If blockader had originally said something more constrained, then User:Anarcho-capitalism's reply would have been fallacious (if made), and I wouldn't have sideed with him on this point. — SlamDiego 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, sorry, I don't understand what significance it has. Anyways, I can't be bothered arguing this tiny point so can we just drop it please, and please also drop it with Blockader, it's really a small point and I'm sure many other people have done it and you have not brought up these kinds of technicalities with them. -- infinity 0 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

If you don't understand what significance it has, then you aren't in good position to dismiss the point as tiny. In any event, when Blockader stops pretending that I said something quite different from what I did, I will stop correcting him. Perhaps, then, you should as him to drop the matter. — SlamDiego 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Attention, please! I got a response from the meditator for this anarchy conflict that has been going on now for a long time: I'm going to give a few days for interested parties to respond to the case having been reopened. If they don't, I'll actively seek out the current members of the dispute, and if they aren't interested, I suppose the case'll be closed. -- Moralis ( talk). I suspect that everyone that are partaking in this discussion right here is a party of the conflict and dispute that the meditation case is targeted towards. From my perspective meditation seems to be the only peaceful way out from this battle. I would suggest that everyone that has or are going about to participate in this discussion go to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07_The_anarchy_battlefield and make it clear that the meditator got our attention so we can get this conflict settled. Lord Metroid 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. Having no insight into the past discussion or interactions between these users, or the whatever led up to a mediation case, I think I can evaluate this as any other uninvolved user. I know a "this is me and my userpage and what I'm into" kind of page when I see it, and I know a WP:POVFORK when I see it. This is the latter. Wikipedia is not the place for hosting this kind of original research, and there is a limit to what you can do with your userpage. If you want free webhosting, there are plenty of places you can find it. If this user is making good contributions to the encyclopedia, then the user is encouraged to stop maintaining this novella and get back to work. If the user is not making other contributions to the encyclopedia, then they shouldn't be here anyway. Either way, this POV fork webpage is a great example of what Wikipedia is NOT, and detracts from the purposes of why we are here. — coel acan — 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: User:Anarcho-capitalism has represented this long essay as a consolidated response to claims that anarcho-capitalism is not an anarchism. I don't see why an unconsolidated response, distributed with a high degree of redundancy across many different discussion pages, would be more desirable, and less “original research”, nor do I see how such distributed discussion would (whatever its deficiencies) be in violation of Wikipedia policy. Like you, I've not followed the battles amongst these anarchists, and consequently I really don't know how fitting this essay has been to the closure or reduction of those battles; but it plainly might be. Both the nature of the attacks against it and the responses on the part of Lord Metroid (who keeps trying to get the left anarchists into mediation!) and Fephisto make me inclined to believe that this page has served as a useful benchmark. — SlamDiego 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

It's nothing that can't take place point by point on talk:anarchism, which I suspect it already has, in full. Or, heck, the user could get a geocities page and put this essay there and link to it (from talk pages, obviously it's not a reliable source for articles) when they want to reference a certain part. The consolidated user page is functioning as a POV fork, and is grabbing googlerank, while it cannot be edited and replied to on the same page as a normal article or talk page could. It's effectively a POV fork set in stone, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to host it. Let the user post it on their blog, or something like that, but Wikipedia is not a web host for personal essays that serve to supplement one side's POV in a content dispute, which is all that I really see here. — coel acan — 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

These battles amongst the anarchists appear to be taking place across multiple articles. Lord Metroid has tried to get everything consolidated by way of mediation, but there has been resistence to this. I agree that the essay can be hosted elsewhere, but I challenge the notion that it is wrongfully hosted here. (Almost anything on a user page could be hosted elsewhere. I could easily be persuaded to endorse a more restrictive protocol were it clear and consistently applied.) — SlamDiego 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

And as I said, I know a "this is me and my userpage and what I'm into" kind of page when I see it, and I know a WP:POVFORK when I see it. This is the latter. Wikipedia does not play host to POV forks. — coel acan — 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The policy that you cite refers to “articles”. Lots of user pages have essays (often expressing grievances about articles), but we don't ordinarily count these essays as articles. — SlamDiego 02:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

POV Forks are not permitted as user pages either.

For reference, see Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page?:

"Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include:

• Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
• Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.
• Polemical statements: "using userpages to ... campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea" - Jimbo Wales

... if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption."

This is disruptive (as evidenced by this discussion), it is not part of the encyclopedia, and it in fact exists solely to campaign for a polemical point of view (very recently including personal attacks). If you see other user pages that also need to be addressed, feel free to bring up those separate discussions, but in the meantime this one needs to be deleted. — coel acan — 02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Amen. The guideline is unequivocal. -- WGee 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I wish that were true. — SlamDiego 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

There has already been some discussion above of appropriate application of that rule. Rather than us reìnventing the wheel and the anti-wheel, I encourage you to reply more directly to those comments. — SlamDiego 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Or you could recognize that the fact that many editors have brought up the same concern independently means it is widely seen as obviously polemic. It keeps coming up because there's multiple independent analyses of this. Wikipedia does not host POV forks and polemical essays. The closing admin should be willing to undelete for a very short window of time, to allow the user to download their novella and repost it on another website. But this is the extent of what courtesy demands, and the userpage policy demands it no longer reside on this website. — coel acan — 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I already recognized that it was widely seen as polemic. There are many things, many places, that are widely seen yet with which you would surely disagree. (I know that, for my part, I often disagree with common perceptions.) (If the wide-seeing actually were at a level approaching consensus here, then (as per Wikipedia's reliance upon consensus), issues of actuality would be trumped; but there isn't consensus.) I could rehash the arguments already given against the notion that the page actually violates policy, but it seems to me that it would be better for to to comment directly to them above than for me to re•present them. — SlamDiego 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete " Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. . . . You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Anarcho-capitalism's essay neither explicitly nor implicitly pertains to any particular articles, WikiProjects, or policy issues; it is just a general political rant. If his essay were posted on Usenet, for example, not a single person would be able to trace it back to the Wikipedia project simply by reading it. In fact, they would think it was made for Usenet. -- WGee 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete as POV fork, soapbox and attack. Failing that, move it to a subpage. // Liftarn

Keep per Wooyi. Rogue 9 10:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment. This user's userboxes identify him as a member of Protest Warrior, a fervent anti-marxist, and a classical liberal. i assume mr. ancap, slamdiego, and lord metriod will also have a problem with the POV stance of his vote as they did mine. oh wait, nevermind, his vote is on their side. ahh, hypocracy, the foundation of the right. Blockader 15:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

As explicitly noted before, User:Anarcho-capitalism didn't object to your having a POV user page; he objected to your double-standard, and I joined him in that. The hyporisy here was certainly not mine. Also, I am not right-wing. Please avoid slurring me in that way. — SlamDiego 17:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Your vote of confidence is underwhelming. I carefully note my own biases on my user page so that people can take them into account when evaluating my work; it is my opinion that everyone should do this so we know where we're all coming from. At the same time, I do my best to not inject political biases into my article-space editing. All that said, here I'm standing on principle as a Wikipedian inclusionist; there is no compelling reason to delete, so it should stay. Show me a compelling reason (and "I don't like anarcho-capitalists" or anything else pertaining to your personal likes or dislikes is not compelling) and I might change my mind. As an aside, I think anarcho-capitalists, or anarcho-anything for that matter, are naive at best, but that is not my motivation for anything I do here, this least of all. And one last thing: I have a problem with anyone dismissing anyone's arguments on anything because of the person's beliefs; people's input should be weighed on merit alone. Rogue 9 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep Hard time seeing this MFD as good faithed, so keep for now. Intangible2.0 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Logical fallacy, see top. -- infinity 0 13:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Filing a MFD against a user which one has a content dispute with is not done. It hurts bringing the content dispute to an end, and is therefore damaging to the project as a whole. Intangible2.0 14:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I would like to repeat that I did not file this MFD because I have had a content dispute with him. I realise I should probably have waited, and that people are going to use this line of argument, however it is still invalid. -- infinity 0 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Intangible2.0, it doesn't matter. I want this page deleted, and I am not involved in the content dispute at all. The community gets to decide about whether we want this kept, and your call of bad faith on one user's part does not invalidate other my or other uninvolved users' decisions. — coel acan — 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete or change: I've been trying to avoid deciding on this issue, but after reading the discussion, I think I should. This page is a POV fork, even if it is hosted on a userpage. Whether An-cap intended it or not, this page is currently the 13th entry for anarcho-capitalism on google. It is a long political rant that has little to do with wikipedia. I think a good case can be made for keeping the quotes, but the essay should go. And because I know people will probably try to argue this, let me defend the rants on my userpage. The first one is clearly related to my wikiphilosophy, which is allowed. The second, although broader in focus, has clear relation to how I look at wikipedia and ties into what worldview wikipedia operates under, which is an important discussion we should be having on the encyclopedia. Let me also say, I have nothing against An-cap expressing their opinions on their page, but a long essay like the one they have is inappropriate. I would say the same if Infinity posted a long essay on why anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism on his page. Ungovernable Force ^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Attention, please! The next stage in the meditation has proceeded on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-07_The_anarchy_battlefield. I urge you... Nay plead to you, to go to this meditation and read the dicussion and start writing and establish how we would like the articles disputed over to be designed. I know it is quite demanding but please. Lord Metroid 16:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• That has nothing to do with this MFD. Please keep the discussion on topic. — coel acan — 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The prior dispute amongst the anarchists ought to have nothing to do with the MfD, but if it motivates some of those saying delete or some of those saying keep (and each claim has been made or insinuated here), then mediation could improve (or have imporved) the discussion and its results. — SlamDiego 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, that's a good point. Anybody already involved in that discussion may benefit from seeing the note here and going over there. I just hope that's the last "Attention!" I'd rather this MFD not become a noticeboard if possible. — coel acan — 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: Consensus is plainly not going to develop here. Normally, that would mean that the page would be left essentially intact. But, in the case against Billy Ego, the claim that User:Anarcho-capitalism is a sock-puppet of a blocked user (RJII) is being treated so much as a foregone conclusion that the clerk is writing as if the arbitrators must find thus. In the absense of a keep consensus, the page is almost surely doomed. But it would have been interesting to see what would have happened had consensus here been keep while the FoF were that User:Anarcho-capitalism were a sock-puppet. — SlamDiego 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Consensus, or "no consensus", does not get to override policy. Polemic essays as user pages are simply not permitted. The original page (when it was nominated for MFD) was actually a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G10. The cosmetic changes to this page do very little to mitigate that issue. Anyway, if the closing admin finds that the "keep" arguments have been ignoring Wikipedia:User page, and the "delete" arguments have been coming from Wikipedia:User page, then the page would be deleted even if the "deletes" are solidly in the minority (which, by my count, they aren't, anyway). — coel acan — 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Eh, part of what would be interesting, then, would be the fallout from invoking policy in the teeth of a consensus. — SlamDiego 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) Any policy itself isn't all-encompassing and is open to interpretation, and I think consensus is a good way to determine how to interpret a policy. Also to avoid Wikilawyering we need to look into the spirit of policy and not the letter. The spirit of userpage policy is that a userpage should facilitate the improvement of Wikipedia, and there are arguments here presented that the discussed page here does help the user improve Wikipedia. I might well disagree with that assertion, but I'll see how the consensus come out. Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 19:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I certainly grant that not everyone is interpreting the policy as I am. I was just trying to point out to SlamDiego that the priority in XFD is not upon numbers. Now, as to the arguments that it helps this user, I don't see how the user would be helped any less by having the same page hosted on an actual free webspace host (where the tools will be more versatile than wikimarkup anyway). But having the page hosted here is having the effect of giving false authority to the essay, in my opinion. I don't think most people stop at the first page of google results. This ends up being a set-in-stone page that shows up very high in google results, and set-in-stone pages are contrary to Wikipedia and indeed damaging to outsiders' understandings of what Wikipedia is about. If the user were ready to allow their opponents to freely edit the page as well, my opinion might be different, but this is an attempt at a static page, for one user's ownership. That's really much more suited to other websites, not wikis. I'm aware of proposals to the contrary, but at this time we don't protect Today's Featured Article because a wiki is supposed to be editable, and static pages send a damaging impression to new users. I believe this page has the same issues. It's not a big problem when a userpage is just "getting to know me", but when it's used to advance a position, that's a problem. We would not allow a page like this to exist in the mainspace and be editable by only one person, and there's no reason to extend that protection to polemics elsewhere. — coel acan — 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Minor point: Your reference to “this user” makes me concerned that you may be misreading Wooyi, whom I believed meant his “the user” to refer to generic editors. Now, the page in question could be nearly as helpful to generic editors even if it were on another server altogether. But the point is (and this is one of those arguments above to which I earlier referred) that if the content is helpful to other editors qua editors, then it isn't simply a polemic rant. One could argue, on various grounds, that it might be more helpful if it had different content or different management of its content, but one of the charges against it falls if it helps other editors to improve the articles in mainspace. — SlamDiego 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Non sequitur. I can write a polemic rant in my userspace, and it can be very useful to other editors who share my POV, and give them many resources to draw upon. That wouldn't make it any less of a polemic rant. If this content were freely editable by everyone (without the stigma of violating someone's userpage), then it would be twice as useful to the encyclopedia. If it were open to all, to add resources for and against the argument, then that would be useful to the community and the encyclopedia. As it is this is only useful to those pushing one POV in a content dispute. — coel acan — 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

No, it's not a non-sequitur, because I wasn't using “help” perversely in terms of objectives other than scholarly. The defense of the essay naturally must turn on whether it's content is helpful (optimally or otherwise) to editors who proceed from good faith, NPOV, &c. I don't guarantee that it is thus helpful, but its accusers should make a decent case that it does not, or withdraw one of their charges. — SlamDiego 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

(And bald declarations that it is not helpful are not a decent case.) — SlamDiego 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I wasn't using "help" in other ways than scholarly either, but we all know that references can be cherry-picked to support a POV. We appear to be talking at cross purposes. You seem to be saying that a polemic rant is acceptable if it has other redeemable features. I am noting that polemics in and of themselves are detrimental to Wikipedia, which is why wikipedia:user page specifically disallows them. Again, I don't doubt that this page helps those who share the user's POV. I don't believe that makes up for the fact that it is a divisive attack upon other editors and a misuse of Wikipedia's resources to advance one particular POV at the expense of the others that cannot edit freely that user's page and neutralize the POV. Neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:UP makes any allowance for POV forks, or polemics that are well-referenced. — coel acan — 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

If you were not using “help” differently, then you are simply not being appropriately analytical. The user page has been attacked on multiple grounds; a refutation of one of those attacks should not be treated as a non-sequitur because it does not address some different attack. Further, when I went to User:Anarcho-capitalism's talk page (about a different matter) some weeks ago, I did notice some left-anarchist thanking him for that essay, so the essay appears to be a resource of use to those on the other side of the anarchist playground. And, again, policy doesn't (and cannot) set minimum bar for the helpfulness of a page, beyond (in some contexts) that it should bring value. The fact that someone might think that a user page would be “twice” as useful with more cooks isn't relevant to deletion. — SlamDiego 01:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

STRONG KEEP - It's a user page. As a matter of free expression people should have what they want on their user pages. -- Freemarket 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, that's a nice sentiment, but no one is censoring anyone. The content can be posted on another website. Don't conflate this with a matter of "free expression", because indeed, Wikipedia is not a blog. See WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, WP:NOT#SOAP, and WP:USERPAGE. — coel acan — 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep If it bothers so much I suggest offering Google to fix their search engine. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Their search engine isn't broken, this page just exploits it. That's hardly the major issue here, which is that the page is in violation of wikipedia:user page. — coel acan — 23:30, 13 April 2007 (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.