Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/5

Attack pages
Jimbo said, "I would recommend that a significant number of the attack pages be deleted". Please list below any pages that you view as attack pages. Start a new section for each and propose why the page should be deleted.

User:Centaur of attention - No consensus KEEP

 * Closing note - There was no real consensus to delete this. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been challenges to the charges made by "Centaur of attention" on this page. For example, see this request for evidence from "Centaur of attention" to support charges made against Moulton. See also this and this. --JWSchmidt 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Centaur of attention is now blocked and, therefore, can not edit the page to make any changes. --mikeu talk 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This page seems to fall under what Wikipedia would call "soapboxing". There is no equivalent policy here. However, I find that since this is a user page, and not a page that is standardized to allow for feed back, I don't know if I could accept it in this format. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Neutral I've switched from Strong delete to Strong Neutral, I agree with Ottava's comment - but Centaur of Attention will need to alter the entire userpage to make it more friendly, clean it up - do what other editors have done and place templates, userboxes or other texts - but don't make it like an attack page, which will cause problems for other editors and also this site as it'll give us a bad reputation like certain people think badly of wikipedia because of their problems. DarkMage  21:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: These accusations are countered on the talk page. --Swift 04:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic:Moulton Vs. Centaur of attention - DELETE

 * Closing note - There was a strong move to delete or remove. The page is defunct and serves no purpose. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was one of the earlier attempts to calm things down. I respect the original intent of its creator to facilitate a better atmosphere among editors, but as Moulton is now banned, the project is futile. In any case, I think it is uncivil to create learning projects on any user, regardless of their standing. --McCormack 08:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've posted to Donek's talk page (the main author) here: User talk:Donek. If he votes delete as the main author, then I'd suggest that's pretty much a lay down misere. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping the page and that we categorize it as part of the history of Wikiversity. There is a lesson to be learned from that page. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop enabling Moulton's attacking of others, you're not helping. All subpages of Moulton's 'project' should be deleted and any content forks located and deleted. Centaur of attention 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Centaur, the first aspect of this process is supposed to be acting politely. I would ask that you refrain from using terms like "enabling" when referring to "attacks". If you have a problem with a user's conduct, please take it to the appropriate place. This is for discussion of potential deletions. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you would also stop accusing others of attacking people without providing a diff it would be quite appreciated. Thank you. Emesee mobi 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to the Wikiversity namespace. Emesee mobi 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to the Wikiversity namespace, where it would be more at home; such "navel-gazing" is questionable in mainspace. Study of large, significant wiki projects like Wikipedia is a valid subject for educational resources, but study of minor controversies within this project itself is best done in its own meta-project space. Dtobias 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy for it to be deleted, moved or other. I was going to nominate it for deletion myself after I saw JWSchmidt's investigation into events. The project I created would probably have just duplicated that. I am happy to see that action has been taken with regard to the unpleasantness that has lingered here for far too long. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 11:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm not sure. DarkMage  20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at how the consensus is developing here (i.e. "keep but move"), I'd like to table a new suggestion which builds on some of the previous comments: move it to a subpage of Request custodian action. Thoughts? Keep the ideas coming, guys. --McCormack 06:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but how will other's voice his/her opinion if they don't know where the discussion is taking place - will a link be provided on the Custodian page to redirect others to the subpage instead of having to do constant searches for something like this. DarkMage  08:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about moving it as a subpage of the Wikipedia Ethics project, since there appears to be no consensus to delete that project? --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 14:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

''It has been moved out of the topic namespace to Wikiversity namespace. We can continue discussion, or archive it.'' Emesee 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A learning project about users is not an approriate topic of study.  Issues like this should be done within the scope of WV:CR or other community pages.  The page itself is little more than an outline, and never got past the planning stage, so there is really not much to learn from.  --mikeu talk 12:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (or move to project namespace): One party to this is blocked so this isn't going anywhere. --Swift 04:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies1 - No consensus KEEP

 * Closing note - no consensus formed on this topic towards any direction. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

REASON: Most of this page [Case Studies1] became redundant (split and moved to other pages), but this was still edited after attempted reorganization. The talk page was active, and the main reason it was kept. I nominate this one for deletion, and if there is wanted content then it should be split-out and moved. Dzonatas 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see Case Studies1 and Case Studies2 merged, or the parts of CaseStudies2 merged with the related subpages. Case Studies1 should probably be kept around as a summery of the various case studies that are taking place with links to each case study. The hypotheticals could be useful to either help summarize each case or used to help improve each case. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of what you suggested was already done on Wikipedia_Ethics/Case_Studies. The edit wars prevented them from being merged at least in some stable fashion. If you look through the DPL list, you'll notice the subpages they were split into. Consider this edit and you can see the "merged" and "alternate" style you suggest has been tried. Dzonatas 15:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that both their edit histories should be merged as well, rather than just incorporated both page's content and redirect pages. That way the edit histories are preserved, but the pages aren't needed. I think its worth trying again. I believe it should be possible to incorporate ideas from Case Studies 1, Case Studies 2 and Case Studies together on one page, since the focus of the page should probably now be about what rules should be followed for case studies and a brief summery of each case with a link to each case. I believe it also important to require contributors to engage in discussion and dispute resolution and discourage forking in this project, and require any conflicting views concerning the same case study to be included on the same page rather than separate pages. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 16:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Privatemusings did a good job with his case study on this page, so I would recommend keeping and merging it with other useful case studies, if that hasn't already been done. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see he has moved his here: User:Privatemusings/EthicsSandbox/casestudy. I hope he votes in DR to help confirm. Dzonatas 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies2 - No consensus KEEP

 * Closing note - no consensus to delete. If the page is moved later, that seems to be appropriate based on arguments. However, there is no consensus determined. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

REASON: This [Case Studies2] is a forked version of Case Studies1. I believe this page shows the type of hypotheticals that others are concerned about, and one can only get a full picture of the situation is to review Case Studies1. The need to look back at Case Studies1 defeats the purpose of hypotheticals. Proper hypotheticals should be presented as just facts without positive or negative assertions or (obvious) use of biased words. Dzonatas 02:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguments:


 * Merge Since both resources are the relatively the same any material added to Case2 should in my view be merge together - since this seems to be a duplicate page. DarkMage  10:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Biographies of Living People - KEEP

 * Closing notes - There was a small consensus to keep without any movement towards the other direction. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was tagged as a result of recent events with claims of it being an attack page, but it has been improved since the events. The content may not be broad enough for its title. I feel there is a more concise version, User:JWSchmidt/Blog/16_September_2008, that includes the basic presentation of this page and a few others. If someone wants to immediately save this content, feel free to move it to your userspace and subsequently remove the DR tag. Dzonatas 03:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this page just needs expansion or alternatively could be renamed to Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Rosalind Picard and the minor parts not related to Rosalind Picard removed. --dark[[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]]lama 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Moulton has placed an older version on his userspace. Dzonatas 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a valid topic for Wikipedia studies. I believe the original motivation for deleting this page came from a Wikipedian who does not want his past violations of Wikipedia policy to be discussed. Wikiversity should never submit to censorship aimed at trying to prevent Wikimedians from studying and correcting problems in WMF projects. --JWSchmidt 14:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics - No consensus KEEP

 * Closing note - There was no consensus formed to delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies/Concordances, Dossiers, Scathing Indictments, and Ethics page was originally split off from the Wikipedia Ethics/Case Studies1‎ page. I removed the duplicate text from that, but this really should just be deleted. It has none of the features of a case study, and instead is just Moulton arguing his position regarding old disputes. Even if we wanted to use those conflicts as case studies, they would need to be completely rewritten. As it stands, the page is completely outside the scope of Wikiversity. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 07:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * questions and comments. "just Moulton arguing his position" <-- I think there were more contributors to this content than just Moulton. Even if it were just Moulton, why is that a reason for deletion? "It has none of the features of a case study" <-- I dispute this claim. Wikiversity participants are exploring how to study wikis. If there is some technical problem of deficiency in the page, then the solution is editing, not deletion. "completely outside the scope of Wikiversity" <-- I do not agree. The issues raised on the page are valid topics for study within the general area of "Wikipedia studies". --JWSchmidt 14:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of contributors besides Moulton, but they both center around his account, nor do they fit the model of a case study, either.
 * Like Moulton, you dispute my claim that the "case study" is not one, but can you answer my specific reasons? (Moulton either couldn't or wouldn't. He preferred rules-lawyering.) "Exemplary case studies report the data in a way that transforms a complex issue into one that can be understood, allowing the reader to question and examine the study and reach an understanding independent of the researcher."  Can you argue that Moulton even attempted to neutrally word his "case study" ("Kristalnacht")?  Case studies are intended for each reader to examine the case from his/her own viewpoint, not for trying to convert them to your way of thinking.
 * Editing is often preferable over deletion, but not always. Sometimes things need to be rewritten from scratch if they are too far off-base. Other times, the base material is ultimately just not suitable.  Wikiversity is for educational material, and the page in question is far more appropriate to a blog.  What about it is remotely education-oriented? Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)