Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pedant

User:Pedant

User:Pedant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

The "Funny" section of this user page is in blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC, as it contains "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing [such as] Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia." I removed it directly, but it was restored by the user, hence this nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I'm only suggesting the removal by blanking of the offending section, not the deletion of the entire page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious misuse of Wikipedia for advocacy of fringe POV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete I said I would take it to MFD if he put it back, and here we are. All other reasonable options have been exhausted (request, 2x BOLD removal, ANI) No opposition to keeping if and only if it is removed. Dronebogus (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Also note that user personally attacked me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedant&diff=1120280719&oldid=1119647637 not taking this immediately back to ANI but that seems like pretty bad behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

and also the consensus from ANI was that you are a nuisance editor doing this kind of thing repeatedly, and I feel that you are attacking me rather than the other way around, and it is your personal interpretation that I am attacking you, rather than the reality, that I am resisting your unwanted attention and not agreeing with you on matters of fact. You should have tagged any assertions of fact that had no citations, and go on with your day, but instead you take it on yourself to create a big issue for a dozen editors, I consider this whole thing to be an objectionable waste of time. User:Pedant (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As for the personal attack, there must be some kind of sanction because of that. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  There was no personal attack. User:Pedant (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yes there was, this was a personal attack. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  There was no personal attack there. User:Pedant (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  That was an obvious personal attack. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  You need more than that. Tell me exactly what words were the attack and by what reasoning you call them an attack?User:Pedant (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Shaggy defense. Dronebogus (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  And comparing me with child molesters is not an attack?.User:Pedant (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's set aside the ANI thread, because nobody comes out of that smelling like roses, and instead let's focus on the content of the userpage. I don't know if I'd go to the point of deleting the whole page, but since he's not allowing the offending sections to be blanked, I don't know what other options exist. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • An additional option is a block for BATTLE that includes an inability to edit their own talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

    That's even further out there, in my opinion. We're already risking alienating and potentially losing a contributor with the current process. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Blank: The one problematic section, and haul the user for sanction if he restores it after this MfD. Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  He will inevitably restore it. It’s been blanked multiple times already, he either needs to accept it, apologize for misbehaving, and move on (unlikely) or we need to delete it and sanction him. Dronebogus (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: Block per WP:IDNHT and problem solved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm not overly in favour of any editors combing over userpages, looking to delete something they don't like. But, since this has already been done & the page owner has refused to delete section-in-question? It will have to be deleted against that editor's wishes. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm open to whatever legitimate process you want to put my content through, including my user page but this already went through one process. This is an editor focusing attention on my content and going to war about it, it's not legitimate. The first step per ACTUAL process is to tag the offending uncited content to give me an opportunity to provide citations. None of what Dronebogus is doing is Wikipedian or focused on providing content or editing services toward the goal of making the internet not suck, which is a foundational pillar of Wikipedia. User:Pedant (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  No process is (in your opinion) going to be “legitimate”. Dronebogus (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  No. Blanking the whole section is illegitimate. Requesting some procedure first is just the way things are done. But let's see some actual discussion of what content you think is deletable and why I think it isn't first, because that's an old stable edit that you came hunting for, not some sort of new offense demanding a whole bunch of everyone's time... and it seems to me that this is what you do, that you have done this recently and enough that it would come to people's attention. It certainly has come to mine, and I am simply demanding that you follow accepted procedure here, rather than just go hog wild on my user page.

  User:Pedant (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  And pushing 9/11 “truther” claptrap isn’t “making the Internet not suck” either. Quite the opposite in fact. Dronebogus (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Pedant:, Had I came across your 'funny section', I wouldn't have bothered to nominate it for deletion. It's your usepage & I'm not one to go looking for such things. But now that it's been nominated by someone for deletion? Your best move would be to delete the section yourself. PS - If the result here is to delete? For goodness sake, don't reinstate it or replace it with any other similiar content. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - How is that conspiracy theory acceptable on a user page? You reverted deletion of that section twice and then said "if you want to remove something from my user page, go through a process and do it legitimately", so here we are. Don't complain. Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

If the result of this discussion is to delete only the "Funny" section, that'd be fine. But if it is brought back, then I support blocking Pedant and deleting the entire page. We're not being unreasonable; we just don't have enough time to spend on this. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 01:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

and still nothing was tagged on that page, just summarily removed... including content that has citations. All I am asking for is legitimate process rather than malicious vandalism. User:Pedant (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No amount of tagging and adding references to the unreliable sources that promote this garbage will improve the situation. You are misusing Wikipedia to advocate fringe ideas, conspiracy theories, and fake news. That is not allowed here. This is not your private website, and you do not own your userspace. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I second that opinion, which summarize this user's activities quite well. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The process isn't "oh well that's ridiculous and I want it gone" it's tag the offending uncited material. I can provide sources for any of it.

User:Pedant (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Then where is it? Dronebogus (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @Pedant: What is the huge issue here? Just delete the "funny" section and the rest of your userpage is fine. Talk about the "funny" stuff on social media. Sorry, but this seems like you are making something small into a big deal here as this isn't worth all the hassle. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Blank: The one problematic section, if this user restores it again then per WP:IDNHT I suggest a block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Already been done. Twice. Dronebogus (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Then what is stopping them from re-creating their userpage? It would also lead to a block the same way restoring the section for a 3rd time would be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Speedy and salt. And yeah also block. Dronebogus (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The thing is you don't just delete a whole section because there are parts you don't like in it. You point out what is wrong with it, or correct it or whatever, but you just went in and hamhandedly deleted a whole bunch of stuff, not all of which you will get support for deleting, but at any rate there is a process, and some scrutiny, not just you rollicking around deleting stuff. As far as I am concerned, this has alerted me to the problem you seem to be, the threat that editors like you represent to the encyclopedia. You're stalking me.

  User:Pedant (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Do you know or even care how many procedures I’ve gone through here, at which you have repeatedly stonewalled any attempt at rational discussion? Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure this is the right venue; this seems more of a behavioral issue. The user should be taken back to ANI and if they continue to restore the offending section, they should be partially-blocked from their user page.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  If it's a behavioral issue, the behavior happened a decade ago. It was just fine for ten years or more.User:Pedant (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, the behavioral issue is recent - your refusal to abide by the consensus to remove the section in this ANI thread. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete the 'funny' section does not belong - if that section is not deleted, then the whole page needs to be. Llwyld (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pedant#sucks gives a little insight into where that section came from... to make a long story short (the record is there to see) I was topic-banned from '9/11' articles for insisting on citations in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the main 9/11 article. I was browbeaten and shouted down, and I rescued some of the facts (there are citations for all of them except one) removed from the 9/11 article by main force -- the process was very patriotic and shutthefuckup-ist, but I'm an inclusionist and at the time I was determined to fight back, but controversy on wikipedia is bad for my health so mostly I have only anon edits from that point forward. The domineering way the process was badly implemented affected my ability to Assume Good Faith. At this point sanity requires that I not just stand for it to be deleted, if there is something that needs deletion ON MY USER PAGE OR TALK PAGE, I AM GOING TO INSIST ON PEDANTICALLY PROPER PROCEDURE. I'll permanently and vociferously battle any other way. For EVERY thing removed I will want a valid reason, or fight it until there is one provided. I won't take simply dismissing it as a monolithic block of nonsense. If it had been nonsense it wouldn't have gotten there in the first place. User:Pedant (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Pedant, before you comment any further I suggest you read WP:BATTLEFIELD -- you aren't going to "permanently and vociferously battle" anything. On the other hand, discussions should be civil. Since you "want a valid reason", let's go through some of the contents of the "Funny" section together:
  "It's funny how may of the so-called "moslem" (sic) terrorists who hijacked the planes are alive and well and deny any involvement. Funny how their names were not on the passenger manifests, but the FBI had their names within hours."
  What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to indicate that they didn't actually hijack the airplanes and there's some sort of cover up and somebody is hiding the actual perpetrators? Please read WP:POLEMIC (which has probably been suggested to you multiple times) and stop asking for "sources" because this is simply your own speculation and synthesis.
  "Funny how those who hold to the 'official report' are glad to believe a few blurry photos as proof, but that they are unwilling to do the math on the physics involved"
  Ah, the conspiracy theory that claims the planes were just part of a plan where the buildings were actually blown up -- is that what you mean by "physics?"
  "funny that they didn't scurry him off to a safe location, if it were actually true the US was under attack by foreign terrorists."
  See how blatantly speculative this is? By this logic, George Bush wasn't evacuated from the school, therefore the attackers weren't foreign? Even though you know they were???
  I'm skipping over the rest, it's just more imaginative speculation. But I want to add one thing: that elephant GIF to the left of the "Funny" section has an interesting comment, which ends with "Despite its popularity in zoos, and cuddly portrayal as a "gentle giant" in fiction, this symbol of the Republican Party is potentially deadly, and can crush or kill any other land animal, even non-partizans." -- I'm sorry, what reason would you have to, from nowhere, mention the elephant being the symbol of the Republican Party and then immediately follow that comment with "can crush or kill any other land animal, even non-partizans"? This is unnaceptable language, and if the Funny section is removed, I am asking the closer to remove the elephant comment as well.
  Also, if you were going to, please don't say you didn't actually arrive at any conclusion and that you were just speculating. Then read WP:USERPAGEBLOG, which states "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so -- such content is only permitted with the consent of the community" and if you refuse (you did refuse), it states "if corrective action is needed and not undertaken, the inappropriate content will eventually be removed ... by community discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion." Thank you for reading this. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 06:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah the claim that the Hijackers in the September 11 attacks are somehow still alive is especially… “interesting” and I’d love to see evidence for that that trumps the official account. Dronebogus (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  That aren’t baseless claims like “my son didn’t do that he’s in Afghanistan”, cases of mistaken identity, or hypotheses that have since been refuted. Dronebogus (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're that determined to end up site-banned? So be it. GoodDay (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Having in mind this discussion, and Pedant's overall behavior and battleground mentality, it may be wise to start thinking about them being site-banned, IMHO. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, which is why ANI may be a better venue. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: Of course. ANI is certainly a better venue to deal with this user's general behavior. But the "Funny" section issue should be resolved here, as this MfD nomination is already opened, and should have its proper conclusion. That being said, I agree that a separate ANI report should be started as well. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it's highly likely that the 'funny section' will be deleted. If Pedant restores it or replaces it with something else that breaches WP:POLEMIC? Then ANI would be the next step. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say it's highly unlikely that Pedant's general attitude and battleground mentality would change, according to everything that preceded this MfD nomination, and what they presented here. ANI would be quite logical and appropriate step at this point, and it should run simultaneously with the discussion here (which will be closed in very near future anyway). — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of, is there a consensus to delete? Dronebogus (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that we're quite close to such a consensus, if it isn't achieved already. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, but Blank the polemic section. There is nothing on it other than WP:FRINGE speculations. If the user restores it again, then at least a partial block from their user page may be appropriate. However, any ban proposals (including site bans) should probably occur at WP:AN, not here. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete to get rid of the conspiracy theory that is otherwise sometimes in the text and sometimes in the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's my line of thinking as well. If we only blank the the "Funny" section, without deleting the whole userpage and expunging its history, the controversial text could be easily brought back by the user, having in mind their recent refusal to abide by the consensus to remove the section. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see 'recent refusal there, I see a bunch of people expressing agreement with the same opinions I expressed in what you characterize as a personal attack, vis Dronebogus and his deletionist sprees. User:Pedant (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  That wasn’t a good example, but looking at this page tells a different story— pretty much every single person is suggesting deletion or section blanking. Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)