The result of the discussion was userfy to User:CFCF/Verbage. The consensus here is that the page on its face is not polemic. If it is being misused in a manner to personally attack someone, that kind of conduct is best for WP:AN or other mechanisms not here. The redirects are going to be redirected to the new page which I believe is the typical result. They can then be discussed at RFD. Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete along with its numerous redirects and sandbox, per WP:POLICIES#Essays, WP:POLEMIC, WP:ASPERSIONS (and WP:CIVIL, etc., behind it), WP:SANCTIONGAMING, and WP:NONSENSE. This micro-essay on incoherence is itself completely incoherent, and was created and is maintained as a WP:ARBAE-connected dirtlist against one editor, with over a dozen accusations in it that the author, CFCF, cannot prove. To the extent any sense can be made of it, it is completely redundant with Wikipedia:Wall of text and Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read (which should probably merge, but that's another discussion), and if the polemic material were removed there would be essentially nothing left. CFCF's attempt inject the gist of the page into WP:GAMING [1] was rapidly rejected as WP:CREEP [2]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
In more detail:
"Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." WP:ESSAYS in turn notes that MfD may userspace or delete anti-consensus essays.
"Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws."The fact that this is a one-editor attack piece being updated on-the-fly to needle a specific other editor by "recording perceived flaws" is easily proved with diffs. For example, the page's author added the "changing your position" invective at 10:36, 28 February 2016, only minutes after stating outright that the entire "essay" is about [his idiosyncratic perceptions of] me personally, at 10:02, 28 February 2016, and falsely accusing me of shifting my position in that discussion in some kind of untoward way that CFCF cannot articulate (note also that in the same post, CFCF goes all the way to back to 2007 in an attempt to find "dirt" on me with which to perpetuate the personal dispute he was trying to inject into an unrelated guideline wording discussion for no apparent reason). The number of aspersions cast in the "essay" are almost too many to catalogue; virtually every sentence of it has more than one:
At least 13 accusations CFCF cannot back up
|
---|
|
As an unrelated WP:POLEMIC point, the piece's first sentence leads with a verbal slight against Republicans [in the sense of the US political party]; just because someone somewhere used this neologism that way doesn't make it appropriate to enshrine that usage in a WP: essay as if it's exemplary; political sniping is a WP:SOAPBOX matter.
The author "cites" the essay in ways that are even less cogent than the essay. E.g., here, giving the essay as a rationale for opposing a "pointless" proposal by a third party at WT:MEDRS (with whom CFCF is also frequently in conflict, over both WP:ARBEC and WP:ARBGMO matters, among others). I suspect CFCF thought it was my proposal, or was objecting on the basis that it was proposed in response to my having raised the issue initially; CFCF is very sore at me personally for going against him at WP:ARBEC and a strange proposal).
I believe this should simply be deleted (not userspaced) as unsalvageable nonsense, and because Wikipedia essays are not a magical safe-haven for behavior and content that transgresses WP:ASPERSIONS / WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA / WP:AGF / WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the deliberately unveiled attacks and aspersions were removed, nothing usable would be left, for further development or for merging. Given that on 1 April 2015 the community imposed general sanctions on the subject area of ARBEC which ArbCom upgraded to discretionary sanctions to encourage more enforcement, I considered taking this to WP:ARCA or WP:AE for action, since it's clearly WP:SANCTIONGAMING the remedies in ARBEC by perpetuating ad hominem disputation related to that case. But I believe MfDing this page will send a strong enough signal.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
A third one in the same vein appears to be in the works at User:CFCF/sandbox/Fool, with shortcuts like WP:CALLOUT, and content thus far of "don't feed the amateur" (which is ironic for a reason that's obvious from reading CFCF's user page). It's time to bring to a close this misuse of WP resources for the nonencyclopedic pursuit of damning other editors with idiosyncratic complaints. (Someone else should probably MfD these two.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was userfy to User:CFCF/Verbage. The consensus here is that the page on its face is not polemic. If it is being misused in a manner to personally attack someone, that kind of conduct is best for WP:AN or other mechanisms not here. The redirects are going to be redirected to the new page which I believe is the typical result. They can then be discussed at RFD. Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete along with its numerous redirects and sandbox, per WP:POLICIES#Essays, WP:POLEMIC, WP:ASPERSIONS (and WP:CIVIL, etc., behind it), WP:SANCTIONGAMING, and WP:NONSENSE. This micro-essay on incoherence is itself completely incoherent, and was created and is maintained as a WP:ARBAE-connected dirtlist against one editor, with over a dozen accusations in it that the author, CFCF, cannot prove. To the extent any sense can be made of it, it is completely redundant with Wikipedia:Wall of text and Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read (which should probably merge, but that's another discussion), and if the polemic material were removed there would be essentially nothing left. CFCF's attempt inject the gist of the page into WP:GAMING [1] was rapidly rejected as WP:CREEP [2]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
In more detail:
"Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." WP:ESSAYS in turn notes that MfD may userspace or delete anti-consensus essays.
"Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws."The fact that this is a one-editor attack piece being updated on-the-fly to needle a specific other editor by "recording perceived flaws" is easily proved with diffs. For example, the page's author added the "changing your position" invective at 10:36, 28 February 2016, only minutes after stating outright that the entire "essay" is about [his idiosyncratic perceptions of] me personally, at 10:02, 28 February 2016, and falsely accusing me of shifting my position in that discussion in some kind of untoward way that CFCF cannot articulate (note also that in the same post, CFCF goes all the way to back to 2007 in an attempt to find "dirt" on me with which to perpetuate the personal dispute he was trying to inject into an unrelated guideline wording discussion for no apparent reason). The number of aspersions cast in the "essay" are almost too many to catalogue; virtually every sentence of it has more than one:
At least 13 accusations CFCF cannot back up
|
---|
|
As an unrelated WP:POLEMIC point, the piece's first sentence leads with a verbal slight against Republicans [in the sense of the US political party]; just because someone somewhere used this neologism that way doesn't make it appropriate to enshrine that usage in a WP: essay as if it's exemplary; political sniping is a WP:SOAPBOX matter.
The author "cites" the essay in ways that are even less cogent than the essay. E.g., here, giving the essay as a rationale for opposing a "pointless" proposal by a third party at WT:MEDRS (with whom CFCF is also frequently in conflict, over both WP:ARBEC and WP:ARBGMO matters, among others). I suspect CFCF thought it was my proposal, or was objecting on the basis that it was proposed in response to my having raised the issue initially; CFCF is very sore at me personally for going against him at WP:ARBEC and a strange proposal).
I believe this should simply be deleted (not userspaced) as unsalvageable nonsense, and because Wikipedia essays are not a magical safe-haven for behavior and content that transgresses WP:ASPERSIONS / WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA / WP:AGF / WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the deliberately unveiled attacks and aspersions were removed, nothing usable would be left, for further development or for merging. Given that on 1 April 2015 the community imposed general sanctions on the subject area of ARBEC which ArbCom upgraded to discretionary sanctions to encourage more enforcement, I considered taking this to WP:ARCA or WP:AE for action, since it's clearly WP:SANCTIONGAMING the remedies in ARBEC by perpetuating ad hominem disputation related to that case. But I believe MfDing this page will send a strong enough signal.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
A third one in the same vein appears to be in the works at User:CFCF/sandbox/Fool, with shortcuts like WP:CALLOUT, and content thus far of "don't feed the amateur" (which is ironic for a reason that's obvious from reading CFCF's user page). It's time to bring to a close this misuse of WP resources for the nonencyclopedic pursuit of damning other editors with idiosyncratic complaints. (Someone else should probably MfD these two.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)