Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing

This personal essay is being used to justify tendentious editing. Invitations to discuss its content by User:Coppertwig have been disruptive and caused offense. -- Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• weak keep. I also keep some rants in my userspace, and I would hate to see the emergence of a thought-police who make it their task to decide whether it is permissible to voice criticism of Wikipedia procedure. That said, this essay certainly doesn't look like it is going to do any good. But imho it should be enough to tag it with {{tl|userpage}}. The problem is with user behaviour, not with userspace essays. If this user really turns out to be unamenable to reason, they will end up banned, and their userspace rants can be blanked then. While they are considered a Wikipedian in good standing, even if that requires a stretch of AGF, they should be permitted some venting of spleen in userspace. --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is appropriate use of userspace. As to the merits of the essay (although this is really off-topic): In its present form it is obviously too focused on cold fusion while pretending to be about a general principle, but the general problem is a real one. (To be convincing, our articles on fringe topics must have depth and explain their subjects in more or less the same detail as if they were legitimate. Otherwise the message to readers sympathetic with the subject will be: "Wikipedia doesn't like it, but this seems to be based on ignorance." Of course there is a problem here, because in general it's the believers who are most likely to know enough about the details, putting the supporters of a mainstream position at a disadvantage.) On 30 May admin Coppertwig has invited a number of editors who one could reasonably expect to help make this essay neutral, including MastCell, Verbal, Enric Naval and Mathsci. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (edited 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC))

::Thanks, Hans. The essay was written when the topic was right before me, and I believe in beginning with the concrete before proceeding to the abstract, it's a sound legal principle, and where our guidelines sometimes go astray is where they are crafted in the abstract. It's not necessary to agree with me about the example, nor, indeed, about the intention. This essay will probably become a WP essay, which requires consensus, in my opinion, though rejected WP essays are normally kept if they have more than one regular user behind them; a rejected essay will be so marked. The cold fusion stuff would, I presume, be removed before that. I'm not actually working on the essay, I simply started it, but I'm reviewing what happens there and can serve as a kind of "essay chair" if needed, or I might supply a few ideas from time to time. (If the community of those working on the essay doesn't want me to serve that way, I'd not object to a decision by a majority to move it elsewhere. This is a wiki, still.)--Abd (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:Comment It was Abd who drew my username into the discussion of the essay here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd/Majority_POV-pushing&diff=prev&oldid=290694807] when he started the talk page. Coppertwig posted invitations two days ago. I saw no point in wasting my time on discussing how to improve what Dbachmann accurately calls a personal rant. To me it is unsalvageable. I agree that Hans might see it as useful in other contexts, such as homeopathy or alternative medicine articles, where he edits on what might be seen by some as the minority side. Mathsci (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

::I don't see what your diff is supposed to prove. Not wasting your time is a good principle, but I am not sure why you insist on following it in such a confrontational way. This nomination also seems to be a bit inconsistent with it. Regarding your last sentence, I think you got that wrong and will comment on your talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't believe the "disruptive" allegation is substantive, and without it there is no reason to delete. Userspace need not be NPOV. In fact, it is a place to declare personal POV. Treat the essay as a window to the thought processes of its author. If it bothers you, go elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and ignore: There is nothing wrong with users ranting on user sub-pages. To some extent that is what user sub-pages are for. That said, such pages should never be used to justify anything in article or talk space. They are nothing more than personal opinions, and should have NO weight in article discussions or disputes. As to this particular essay... There is no way in hell that it will fly as a policy or guideline, or even as an accepted essay. If it is moved out of user space it should be resoundingly shouted down and deleted. But as long as it stays on a user sub-page there is no reason to delete it. Just ignore it. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Very very weak keep agree with Dab and Blueboar. As long as this is in user-space its ok because it doesn't justify anything. I do agree that there is a possibility that new-comers might be fooled - that applies to all user essays--Cailil ^talk 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. It's my essay, originally, but it's now being worked on by others, and Mathsci was invited to participate, not by me, but with my permission, and, instead of a polite decline, the invitation was met with incivility. If this essay were some personal pet peeve project, those invitations wouldn't have been sent. The goal, as with everything I do on Wikipedia, is consensus, the broader the better; indeed, that's part of the purpose of the essay. I'd have appreciated a notice of this MfD, I frequently don't see things in my watchlist, especially if I'm away from the computer for half a day. In the end, the essay won't be about cold fusion, I'm sure, for what I wrote was just a seed, a specific example that was before me at the time. This MfD is a silly waste of time, since the substance would come back in WP space, by consensus of those working on it, and deleting such things is very much against our traditions. But it wouldn't be the first time I've seen such wastes of time. The last ones led to an ArbComm case, for two recent examples, where my position was confirmed, and Mathsci was roundly ignored by the Committee. Maybe they weren't wastes of time after all.... --Abd (talk) 15s:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:Coppertwig actually apologized to me, so I don't know why Abd mentions incivility (this, like his statements about the ArbCom case, is one of Abd's many non-sequiturs). Having seen what Dbachmann, Blueboar and Cailil have written, I agree now that there is no problem if the essay stays in Abd's user space as a personal rant, as long as it is never used to argue about edits in project space. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This is acceptable in userspace. I don't think I'd like to see it in project space, but it's not in project space, and we allow plenty of leeway in userspace. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks, Gavia. I agree that in its present form it is not appropriate for WP space, it's like raw testimony before a committee, not to be put on the main floor without committee consensus. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It's in userspace, there's absolutely no justification for deleting, and comment on its contents is irrelevant here. Greenman (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Absolutely no grounds to interfere with user's legitimate expression of his views in his own userspace. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Even wrong opinions are allowed in essays. And people can mention their own opinions in mainspace, but others are welcome to assign it weight as purely opinion. Collect (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Acceptable use of userspace. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.