Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Z80Spectrum

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: keep. It's snowing! (non-admin closure) ^Queen of _Hearts 23:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z80Spectrum

This user page is a diatribe against Wikipedia, and is not likely to be useful. The user page guideline states:

In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute,

This user page is a battleground statement, and Wikipedia is not a battleground.

My involvement is that I tried to mediate a dispute about removal of talk page content at DRN, which is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far. This diatribe was posted after the mediation began. A few hours ago, I failed the mediation after there were conduct allegations on the user talk page of admin User:Ritchie333. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted everyone to know that I'll be watching this discussion. It is interesting to me. I might or might not post some arguments. I just want to see how it all plays out.

Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to explicitly say that I'm against deletion. So, we need to have a discussion about it.

Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Within the realms of reasonable discourse about Wikipedia, and the freedom we give to users to indicate their beliefs in their user space. User seems to have not had the best experience on wikipedia, and their criticisms here are perhaps stated more stridently and with more straw-man arguments than might be most useful. However, we don't delete user pages for feeling they could be worded better. And while the text of the page is critical of Wikipedia, I'd hardly say it will bring WP into disrepute, in the way using one's userspace to publicize grossly offensive ideas about society might. Martinp (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no serious violation of our policies. Z80Spectrum is an editor in good standing who contributes to the project. Our user pages guideline allows editors considerable latitude in what they do with their user pages. As for the harsh criticism of Wikipedia, I think we should be big enough to take it. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Userspace diatribes about Wikipedia are given extreme tolerance. The perception of censorship of criticism is much more a problem than hosting criticism on a users internal page. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - also (if it's not obvious) I am certainly an invested party, and I suspect much of the page is directed at me, especially Consensus is a Scam and the DRN link. However, I see it more as a frustrated rant and although it does come fairly close to Robert's interpretation, userpages - IMO - are generally used to give the reader in inclination as to the other editors modus operandi and an insight into their views. In that respect, I think the page should stay. Some editors fill their userpage with barnstars and boxes - this editor thinks differently about consensus, and isn't shy about declaring their views, but hey - I'm cool with that, so long as they stop short of outright attacks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "bring the project into disrepute" doesn't mean "criticize the project". Using real examples which, IIRC, are what led to that rule, it's for things like advocating for pedophilia and violence on one's user page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a harmless rant. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Criticism is fine. This one is quite ranty but is still within reasonable bounds. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:36, 23 January 2024 (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.