Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Docmartincohen/Wikipropaganda and manipulation

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 debate was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Named specific people. Courtesy blanked once already. BLP issues. The project here is being used as a soapbox and a webspace provider/blog. This does not help the project. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is full of unfortunate insinuations about real people, and contributes nothing to the project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete more often than not in site discussions I find myself on a different side of the fence from the people named, but this page isn't fair play. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. nat.utoronto 20:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this page needs to be deleted because (a) it is inaccurate; and (b) it is potentially libelous. The inaccuracies are legion. For example, from the section "The Case Study of Baggini and Stangroom":

1. "This magazine they describe on Amazon [2] as 'one of the pre-eminent philosophy publications in the world'." No we didn't. This was written by the marketing people at Souvenir Press. Baggini had absolutely nothing to do with it, and I didn't know about it until I saw it sometime later.

2. "But the page. like Stangroom's, like Butterflies and Wheels the two 'philosophers' website, like individual promotional pages on the style of The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People are not intended as public information, but as publicity, promotional pages." This is complete nonsense. I didn't create my page, I don't know the person who created my page, I've never once altered my page, nor anything else to do with it. Baggini didn't create his page, does not know the person who did create it, and has only ever altered it to prevent libelous comments from being included on it (as is generally accepted by any Wiki editor who has ever looked at this issue). Butterflies and Wheels is not my web site. I originally founded it, but it's now run by Ophelia Benson. It appeared on Wiki after she had been interviewed on the Point of Enquiry podcast. Presumably that's the reason why. The same goes for the two books Why Truth Matters (which, incidentally, was a Prospect magazine book of the year, and easily meets the criteria for inclusion in Wiki, though you'll notice that this isn't mentioned on my Wiki entry, which is odd, given that it is supposedly there for publicity reasons) and The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense.

3. "That is why, on the 8 July 2008, the page contains the information that there is a website for for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining. That is why Stangroom's page contains an image for the cover of his latest book, Identity Crisis: Against Multiculturalism by Jeremy Stangroom, an image Chris etc. says 'created entirely by himself'." No, it's not. These pages were not created for publicity purposes, they haven't been used to that end, therefore, it cannot be the reason for Chris' activity. I don't know this Chris person. I don't know why he added that image (which is an odd thing, since I haven't yet written that book). But, as it stands, this is just an unsubstantiated assertion, which libels the user.

4. "Under an earlier ID (he has used many devious routes to hide his tracks, including 'adopting' disused IDs) we can see a not entirely creditable interest in the Great Philosophers". There is absolutely no evidence that Anonymous Dissident, who included the reference to the Great Philosophers book, is the same as the user Chris, or anybody else that has edited these entries. This again is just unsubantiated and libelous. I don't know why the references were added. It had nothing to do with me. But it could have been because The Great Philosophers was recently serialised over two weeks in The Independent newspaper (a leading broadsheet in the UK).

5. "Certainly SlimVirgin, apparently (to judge by all the 'brown nosing' by other editors that goes on the Bagging discussion page) a key figure in WIkipedia is deeply involved in all this." There is no 'this' for her to be involved in. I've never met SlimVirgin, I have no idea who she is, I've exchanged 2 emails with her to see whether she could do something about the fact that I'm being libeled on Wiki. That's it.

6. " User:Nick_Mallory, again curiously intimate with Stangroom and Baggini's publications, seems to have created vast numbers of mock' pages in an attempt it seems to become an administrator." I don't know Nick Mallory. There's no evidence that there is anything "curious" about his interest in our publications.

---Jeremy Stangroom

• Delete. The same goes for the Butterflies and Wheels entry, which has now been deleted. I didn't create that page or know it was being created or ask for it to be created. It was set up by Nick Mallory, on his own initiative. I don't know him either.

---Ophelia Benson

• Delete - Completely not encyclopedic. Why users post their anger towards the prject, I don't know. Please keep it to yourself and do not make personal attacks. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 23:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bunch of conspiracy stuff about how wikipedia is obviously controlled by an evel WP:CABAL, basically making unbased accusations against other editors of how evil they are, topped with what looks like a personal grudge, can be considered as falling under no personal attacks policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. BLP issues. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep No attempt made to bring it up with the user before MfD other thank blanking the page. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that I did not follow process does not preclude BLP. Additionally, a keep argument based on my failure to do the correct process makes no sense to me. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no need to bring up BLP violations before initiating an MFD. Horologium (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally speaking, one should go to the user and tell them "there's a problem with your page" rather than jump on deletion. It's certainly possible to make a version of this page without any BLP violations. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this page could be re written to be blp complaint. It seems the named people would be required to make the point. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (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.