Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Canoe1967/Monsanto and GMO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967/Monsanto and GMO[edit]

User:Canoe1967/Monsanto and GMO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

According to Wikipedia:USERPAGE#Excessive_unrelated_content, editors can have a "compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process" in their userspace. When I was initially notified that my username appeared on this page, along with the general conflicts that have been in play regarding the issues on the page, this was my assumption on this page and I monitored it but otherwise kept away.

Statements made today regarding the page imply that it's actually a list of editors he believes are being paid to push a point of view, mainly because "Policy won't allow [him to claim they are being paid to edit."] With this information put out there, it is now clear that this should be deleted as an attack page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What a joke this is. I was responding to a comment not related to the page in question but to an accusation that it is an attack page. Paid editors may fear pages like mine but not true Wikipedians.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment As one of the editors named on this page I am not going to place a !vote. Many editors are disagreeing with Canoe, because to be quite frank many of his edits are poor. Instead of recognising consensus is against him, this is instead all one big conspiracy[1]. I don't know what this page is, because in its current form it makes no sense as an attack page or an evidence page. AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I doubt I have ever used the term conspiracy but many keep trying to put that word in my mouth. I have used the term Wikipedia:GANG for editors that seem very adamant about censoring and whitewashing articles. If you think my 'edits are poor' because I want to retain deleted negative material then that is simply your opinion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would argue for keeping if there were a credible argument that this user page were to be used for legitimate dispute resolution purposes, but unfortunately this is not the case. Canoe has indicated here: [2] that he intends to pursue activities that might be considered dispute resolution, but to pursue them through avenues that are outside of the accepted dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia. I attempted to counsel Canoe about this here: [3], but his subsequent comments: [4] indicate that he has not changed his intentions, even though he recognizes that doing so is contrary to policy. There have previously been discussions at WP:ANI about accusations about paid editing without real evidence, and Canoe apologized then and promised that he would refrain from making such accusations in the future. Clearly, this user page breaks that promise. He lists editors in two categories ("A" and "B") that appear to correspond to "good guys" and "bad guys" in his view. In fact, there has previously been a careful investigation of the accusations by an oversighter, who has concluded that the accusations are without merit: [5], [6]. The creation of this user page now can only be for disruptive purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore: [7], [8], [9]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
That is another joke Tryptofish. A and B lists are not "good guys and bad guys". You seem to be putting words in my mouth as well about paid editors. I merely stated that some seem to be editing on company time/computers. Whether the companies are paying them or sanctioning their edits is not known. If some actually are being paid to censor Wikipedia then they indeed should fear my user page. I may also use this and other pages as easy links to off wiki people to look into article neutrality for themselves. My page is very neutral. The A and B could merely be those that have reverted sourced material and those that keep trying to add it back. If you don't like the page then feel free to just ignore it until it is used as evidence.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not joking. You are not a checkuser, so you have no way to know what computers other editors are using. We have existing procedures to examine concerns about conflicts of interest. And I just provided diffs to WP:COIN, where it was established that the accusations of COI are without merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not mention COI, you did. I merely noticed that editors that have full time jobs seem to be either editing on company time or they work very strange shifts and hours.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Why are you assuming that the editors work for a company. This just goes back to your inability to comprehend that people can hold a different point of view to you without being paid (directly or indirectly) to do so. The reason words are being put into your mouth is because you are not explaining yourself so we only have your actions to go on. Could you at least say why you have listed editors as A and B? AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Or why it matters what time of day other editors are editing? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: The explicit indexing in search engines that Canoe has insisted on adding further provides evidence to the point that this is not about accumulating information for anything on-Wiki, but rather attempting to attack other editors both on and off the project. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
How can you even consider it as an attack page. It is just a neutral list with no comments. If you don't like it then simply ignore it. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Google search will turn up the same pages and editors to regardless of what people search for.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If this is a neutral list with nothing to go along with, you should have no issue with users on the list asking for a noindex tag. This is an excellent opportunity for you to demonstrate that you're working in good faith here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It's normal practice to mark dispute resolution records in user space as "no index", for the very reason that such pages are not supposed to be used for influencing opinion off-wiki. But I think it's very clear at this point that no one is going to change Canoe's mind about any of this. As an MfD discussion, what matters is that an administrator is going to close it, and I trust that whoever that is will be able to evaluate whether or not the page in question is being used within policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - enemies lists are not permitted in userspace, and that's what this basically appears to be. Judging from Canoe1967's comments about the list, it could be considered an indirect personal attack on the editors listed. This would only be acceptable if it were being drawn up as preparation for Arbitration or some other Wikipedia dispute resolution process, but unfortunately there's little evidence of that here. Robofish (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you are confused. Wikipedia:Attack page and Wikipedia:No personal attacks don't mention neutral page lists. It is definitely not an enemies list. My comments here are replies to unrelated queries here. The page itself is neutral with no opinions, just a list.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Canoe isn't stupid. The page is there to wind everybody up, and it has obviously succeeded. If Canoe had important stuff to keep about wiki editors, heshe would not be keeping it on Wiki space, but on hisher own personal hard disk. I feel very meh about this. --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 19:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep and closing admin may wish to ignore all the irrelevant conjecture in this MfD. See it as a very neutral page which should avoid Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read that has happened before when these issues are taken to dispute process boards. This may yet make it to arbcom before we have any resolutions. I could expand it with diffs etc. but will wait until it is linked to board discussions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Insofar as I can tell, the potential dispute resolution that Canoe is seeking centers on conflict-of-interest. I've already linked to it above, but I'll re-emphasize that these COI accusations have already been refuted by an oversighter at WP:COIN, after the accused had to bring it up there themselves because Canoe showed no interest in pursuing it through in-policy channels. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stop Tryptofish! You keep accusing me and my page of using terms like 'COI' etc. I have asked you and others to stop putting words in my mouth. Most of your comments, and those of others, I consider very bad faith because of this. I don't know why you all don't have the patience to bring the same points up at dispute boards once this page is linked. That is the place for these attack comments and not here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I've provided diffs. The very fact that you are disowning your previous remarks suggests that you know that what you are doing is, in some way, not in keeping with what Wikipedia does. You keep talking about "once this page is linked". What does that even mean? Do you have any plans to pursue dispute resolution on Wikipedia, as opposed to some sort of outside process? If you have a real plan for using this page in accordance with policy, you have not explained what it is, despite an abundance of opportunities to do so during this MfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stop Tryptofish! I have explained numerous times the purpose of this page. I created it to be used as a link in dispute resolution processes to avoid Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read that has happened before in said processes. Closing admin should look at the page contents, not any attack conjecture or any words other editors keep trying to put in my mouth.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stop saying that you have explained that it is to be used as a link in dispute resolution, when you repeatedly refuse to explain what dispute resolution you are talking about. I've provided diffs where you have said that you intend to elicit involvement by persons offsite, and where you seemed to want to use the "index" label to further that aim. Most of the page is a list of editor names, divided into "A" and "B". The page has a section called "Off Wikipedia". You've said, in this MfD discussion, "I merely stated that some seem to be editing on company time/computers. Whether the companies are paying them or sanctioning their edits is not known. If some actually are being paid to censor Wikipedia then they indeed should fear my user page. I may also use this and other pages as easy links to off wiki people to look into article neutrality for themselves." and "I merely noticed that editors that have full time jobs seem to be either editing on company time or they work very strange shifts and hours." Those are your own words. Nobody put those words into your mouth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
"... for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted..." You still try to put the words in my mouth that editors that edit on company time are paid editors. They are not necessarily so. They may be editing on company time/computers but I have never claimed they are being specifically paid to do so. There seems to be a lack of editors on en:wp that have the same concerns as I do about censorship and whitewashing. I may still go off-wiki to find input regarding the neutrality of some articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think that says it all! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete This has all the hallmarks of a list used for WP:BATTLEGROUND purposes. If he wants to have an enemies list he can keep it off wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
"All the hallmarks and enemies list are simply your opinion of the page. If you had read any of the above you would find that it does have a purpose that falls well within policy. If you have a valid policy argument for deletion then please state that instead of the same rhetoric and conjecture.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2013 (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.