Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Alakzi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Infobox removed by Alakzi, which resolves the original issue raised. I'm certainly involved, so feel free to revert if any editor disagrees, but I think it's clear this issue has been resolved. ~ Rob^Talk 21:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Alakzi

User talk:Alakzi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I read the guidelines that MfD is appropriate for Userboxes, apologies if I misunderstood. I am nominating the Asshole Group userbox for deletion. It violates WP:POLEMIC, it targets specific editors and groups of editors and is divisive to the community. It is not being used for dispute resolution and is asking for others to expand it basically making it a box for things they or others don't like. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal of userbox but I don't know that this is the appropriate venue for this discussion. MfD may be used to delete userboxes hosted on their own page, but I doubt it's intended to remove specific content from an otherwise appropriate page. ~ Rob^Talk 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, I just saw that it can be used for Userboxes, I'm open to a more appropriate venue, ANI just seems utterly wrong and more conflict driven then I intend. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• I would say it should just be removed under the existing no personal attacks policy. Chillum 16:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have zero interest in that shit storm I'm sure if I did or anyone else does kane will be raised. Maybe this way can be a positive example of discussion while disagreeing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that given the likely resistance such an action would meet it would make sense to get a clear consensus for it. I suppose this place is better than ANI. Chillum 16:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Procedural close both as the wrong venue, and as a bad faith nomination by someone whose interacitons with Alakzi are themselves deserving of scrutiny. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think real complaints have been brought up here so I see no "procedure" under which it might be closed, nor do I see bad faith. If you want the actions of another user scrutinized then just start another discussion. Chillum 16:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• If you think this is somehow not in line with policy and wish to take issue with recent behaviors I've invited you to several times start a WP:ANI, failing that I would request that you refrain from casting aspersions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Should I expect that you'll also be nominating WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus for deletion? Alakzi (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• That would be a topic for another discussion. Chillum 17:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why don't you answer the question? Alakzi (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) The answer to your question is that Wikipedia is not ran by precedent and that this page is for discussing the issue at hand. Frankly I think it is a dubious publication at best, but that is not relevant here. Chillum 17:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've drawn an analogy to test the premise of this very MfD. WP:OSE, which you've probably never read, has the following to say: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. ... this essay tries to stimulate people ... to consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency ... it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." Alakzi (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Unless you have some account I don't know about I read OSE about 8 years before you showed up here. The part that says "When used correctly" is relevant, I fail to see how your comparison justifies you using personal attacks. Chillum 17:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• In addition, if you'd ever as much as looked at WP:POLICY, you might've been aware that policies and guidelines are quite often the codification of precedent: "policy and guideline pages are seldom established without precedent". So, yes, Wikipedia is very much run on precedent. Alakzi (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I have read that one too. If you want to talk about what I have read you can go to my talk page. You still have not explained why you think it is okay to call people assholes, and how that other page in any way clarifies your position. Chillum 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Where is it that I have called people assholes? "Asshole" describes "groupthink". Alakzi (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• You list specific people as "exhibits". How about you depersonalize the info box to remove references to specific people/posts, or alternately remove "asshole" from it. The combination of the two together is a personal attack. You can express your grievances without insulting people. Chillum 18:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I list comments and events as exhibits. And I assume you've not read the Signpost op-ed which I've referenced, either. Or any of my several attempts to explain it on my talk page. Alakzi (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop insisting I am uninformed, I am not. I am taking a contrary point of view. Chillum 18:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• But you did not address my point of view, so it is impossible for me to know that you do - in fact - understand it; saying that they are my "grievances", for instance, leads me to think otherwise. The point I'm making is that there are certain aspects to Wikipedia that make people think and act like assholes in many situations; it's not a condemnation of any particular individual. Alakzi (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion only I don't see a lot of singling users or groups of users being pointed out like there is on the asshole box. I admit it's a big document so I haven't perused it all yet. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• User:Alakzi, would you think a reasonable compromise to use the asshole group think box to highlight the WP:ROPE essay rather then the discussions and singling out specific editors? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed it so we can all go back to doing something productive. Alakzi (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2015 (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.