Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Orkney

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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, after discounting sockpuppets. Improv's argument for regional portals is interesting, but a portal this controversial is not the best test case for expanding portal coverage generally. Xoloz 14:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Orkney

Delete - This portal on a council area of Scotland has just been started as part of a growing WP:POINT campaign. As far as I am aware we are not intending on creating portals for every local authority in the UK (please no!). As it stands at present, apart from being of low quality, it is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:Content forking, but I would argue that its very existence at all is highly POV.

The same Mallimak (talk · contribs) who created this portal has also recently created:

• Wikipedia:Wekepedians' notice board (deleted: MFD)
• Category:Wekepedians (deleted: CFD)
• Orcadian (redirected: AFD)
• Category:Orkney people stubs (deleted: SFD)
• Template:Orkney-bio-stub (upmerged: SFD)
• Orkney Beekeepers' Association (deleted: AFD)
• Category:Defunct_Orkney_organisations (deleted: CFD)
• Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board (this probably ought to be run by Miscellany for deletion too, because it is basically being used as a 2nd User page, and is one long personal attack.) [update: this has now been tagged for discussion here too. --Mais oui! 08:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]

and used, to our knowledge, at least 16 IP addresses to attempt evasion as he removes all references to Scotland from every Orkney-related article he can, including removing the correct categories and stub categories, eg. --Mais oui! 07:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Portal:Orkney and Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board.--cj | talk 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Following your lead: Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board has now been MfD tagged too. I also vote Delete for the notice board too. --Mais oui! 08:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: User:Mais oui! and User:Mallimak have been involved in a fairly long edit war about Orkney-related topics. The admin who closes this discussion should bear than in mind. --RFBailey 09:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am sorry, but I consider that comment to be very unfair, and really quite hurtful. Mallimak has made a long, long series of clearly bad faith edits using his own account and at least 16 IP addresses (and we are keeping our eye on the Orkadian (talk · contribs) account too). I do not consider countering systematic bias and POV-campaigning here at Wikipedia to be the same thing at all as partaking in an "edit war". I politely request that you re-phrase your comment in a more civilised and fair-minded manner. --Mais oui! 09:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Mais oui! accusing me of "systematic bias and POV-campaigning" - don't make me laugh! Consider the beam that is in thine own eye, buddy. And as for the 16 IP addresses, we have been down this road before. There are a few IP addresses that I have accidentally edited under becuase I thought I was logged in when I wasn't (but not making any of the bad faith edits Mais oui! is accusing me of). I don't want to be paranoid, but I am almost beginning to wonder if Mais oui! hasn't been setting up sockpuppets of himself in order to engineer a campaign against me. I'm sure he wants me out of the way because I have inadvertantly shown up his own POV agenda. It all seems very convenient ... and very fishy ... and very sad ... Mallimak 17:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Both editors have their own POV on this topic. I'm not interested in which is right, or which has been better-behaved, but it's something that the admin who has to sort this out needs to be aware of. --RFBailey 14:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've personally got no problem with small and well focussed portals, after all ones already exist for towns and cities. The portal in question should probably be retagged as a portal under development and left for a while to see if it comes together (although I find it unlikely). However, saying that there does seem to be a explosion of Orkney related internal WP pages by Mallimak, and he does seem to be the only one interested in these pages... Perhaps a better approach would have been to contact interested editors prior to setting these up and perhaps start with an Orkney WikiProject to work on getting related articles up to a higher standard. Thanks/wangi 10:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The topic seems a bit small for a noticeboard. As for the portal, it could be a good idea, but currently appears to be a POV fork (intro quite different from that of Orkney etc). Delete unless expanded into full and NPOV portal, Kusma (討論) 12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dear Kusma, the intro is adapted from another Wikipedia page (a page nothing to do with me): Nordic countries. Is there anything wrong with that? Mallimak 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the first thing to be said about Orkney that it is a part of Scotland? I would expect a portal about Orkney to be similar to the article about Orkney, not to the one about Nordic countries. Kusma (討論) 16:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Kusma, note that in my into to the Orkney portal it is clearly stated that: "... ownership defaulted to the crown of Scotland in 1472 ...", this is hardly the statement of some sort of POV denial of Orkney's relationship to Scotland. Please read what TruthbringerToronto says below. Mallimak 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This slightly grudging acknowledgement compares poorly with the opening section of Portal:Scotland which states its relationship to the UK before briefly mentioning past history of independence and union. Attitudes should be clarified in a linked article, but not allowed to unduly colour this introduction. ..dave souza, talk 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It is hardly a surprise to me that User:Mais oui! has nominated this page for deletion. First he has tried to vandalise it, and then, because I have reverted several times, he is taking revenge by trying to get it deleted. I started contributing Orkney-related articles to Wikipedia in good faith because this is an area in which I have great knowledge. Soon, every article I wrote was being attacked by Mais oui! who is well-known for his own POV agenda. Quite frankly, I no longer care if this portal gets deleted, because I am fast losing patience with constantly having to revert Mais oui!'s destructive editing to articles I have taken the trouble to write. As far as an "edit war" is concerned, Mais oui! attacks and I try to defend - but I am not willing to do this for much longer as I have better things to with my life. It is a shame, as I originally thought that the Wikipedia project was a good one, and I was willing to put time and effort into it. Cornwall has its own portal, by the way. Mallimak 12:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do try to avoid assuming bad faith. This nomination was brought on my advice after outside input on the portal was sought. Also, please do not so casually label other users vandals, lest it be construed a personal attack.--cj | talk 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and cover the materials under Portal:Scotland. The only sub-sovereign entities that get portals are world cities. bd2412 T 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not true, Cornwall has its own portal and its material is not covered under Portal:England.Mallimak 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I won't say there couldn't be a sensibly-run Portal on Orkney, but as it stands this is just abuse of the project space (to go with earlier abuse of the article space, the category space, and template space by the same user). The description of an edit that adds "The Orkney archipelago is a council area of Scotland." as "vandalism", and reverting it with summary "Mais oui! Why are you interfering here? Can t you just bugger off?" basically sums up the problem with Mallimak's behaviour: a determination to have his "own" content in some niche of wikipedia, regardless of encyclopaedic value, and independent of other editors' input. If this keeps up, an RFC would be indicated. Alai 17:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~Comment: What you are failing to see, Alai, is Mais oui!'s obsession with subordinating everything he can under Scotland. Just take a look at his edits throughout Wikipedia (e.g. “Comment- Mais_oui! has a history of going through articles changing "British" to "Scottish"- so it isn't very surprising he is opposing the changes you made. Astrotrain 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)“. ) Orkney is indeed a council area of Scotland (just as Scotland is an administrative area of the UK), but it is not JUST a council area of Scotland, which is what Mais oui! is trying to make out. Incidentally, it was Mais oui! who set up the Portal:Scotland. Was this to peddle his own agenda? Is he tarring me with his own brush? Mallimak 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And strong delete of the notice board, without prejudice to later creation by someone other than Mallimak (or sock thereof), as something other than a personal soapbox. Alai 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Whose soapbox is the[reply]
• Delete That Notice board has no place on Wikipedia--Whytecypress 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not this notice board, then why others? Mallimak 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While Orkney is a council area of Scotland, it is more than that. Its past isolation and now-extinct Norn language creates a stronger sense of local identity than individual mainland areas of Scotland. In a North American context, consider Newfoundland and Labrador -- a province of Canada, but a separate country until 1949: in short, significantly more that just another province. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no strong opinion to keep or delete the portal, but I think that if it has potential, it should perhaps be kept for now at least. If it fails to develop in a significant enough manner, perhaps then its deletion could be reconsidered. orudge 01:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep to both the Portal:Orkney and the Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board.

I had been warned that Wikipedia can be a bit of a “bear pit” at times! I have been exploring the various links to talk pages and find that I have been accused of being a “sock puppet” and am being watched, and I have come across some pretty nasty comments about User:Mallimak. I get the impression that the calls for the deletion of the Orkney Portal and the Orcadian Wikipedians’ notice board are part of a vendetta, principally aimed at Mallimak, the originator of both these pages.

As an Orcadian myself, I feel I must stand up for what Mallimak appears to be trying to do. If the aim of Wikipedia is to become a comprehensive on-line encyclopaedia, it surely needs informative articles about Orkney, its history, dialect, people, etc., just as it needs such articles about other places. What better way for this to be achieved than to have articles supplied by an Orcadian who (as far as I can see) knows what s/he is talking about.

The articles Mallimak writes are “encyclopaedic” and the information in them corresponds precisely to what one will read when browsing the shelves of new Orkney books in the Orcadian Bookshop in Kirkwall or when searching the archives of the Orkney Library. Mallimak’s insistence on the use of the term “Orcadian”, for example, is entirely correct and conforms to standard usage.

I can understand Mallimak’s frustration at having his/her work constantly altered by inappropriate edits by User:Mais oui! (I have spent some time looking, and they certainly seem inappropriate to me, and solely designed to make a point.)

As a resolution to this “edit war”, I humbly suggest a “cease fire” whereby Mais oui! agrees not to edit any article originated by Mallimak, and Mallimak agrees not to edit any article originated by Mais oui!

I hope when I come to make more contributions about Orkney myself that they receive better treatment than other Orcadian articles have up until now.

Orkadian 17:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. --Mais oui! 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep to both the Portal:Orkney and the Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board. It's great to see an Orkney Portal. It has encouraged me to add an article! So please don't delete it. Don't delete the Orcadians' notice board either. Why shouldn't we have our own notice board? Gruelliebelkie 11:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak. --Mais oui! 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep to Portal:Orkney. I find it encouraging to see that there are at least a few Wikipedians who support the Orkney Portal. I will be happy to continue with it provided I don't constantly have to fight a rearguard action against inappropriate edits. I think Orkadian's suggestion of "cease fire" is a fair one, and I hope that Mais oui! will agree not to edit any article originated by me, and in return I will agree not to edit any article originated by Mais oui! Mallimak 13:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep to the Portal:Orkney the Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board. Why the urge to destroy this useful form of communication between Orcadian Wikipedians? Mallimak 13:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Note the dual vote from the user. feydey 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - sorry, mistake, I actually meant only to vote once for each page up for deletion Mallimak 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Are regional portals actually a bad idea? I can't see how. I see some bad reasoning to support, e.g. things that are in essense "We deserve it", and some bad reasons to delete "the existence of this is itself POV", but in the end, for me it comes down to what the appropriate scope is for a portal, and I'm presently inclined to say that the bar doesn't need to be that high. --Improv 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, portals are for presenting high quality articles about something, Portal:Orkney doesn't contain currently such. The mfd was perhaps too quick, but if the portal will not improve, it will be nominated for deletion again. feydey 08:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Other narrow projects and portals exist. It is at least more helpful than harmful. Inge 09:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- obviously a bad faith nomination as part of an edit war between two users. Astrotrain 14:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both the portal and the Orcadians' notice board need improvement and development, and given this can perform a useful function in encouraging and coordinating work on articles about a significant locality with a strong identity. It will be good if those working on both can overcome any tendencies to narrow chauvinism or lingering resentment of the Earls, and instead give a neutral and balanced explanation of Orkney's part in both Scotland and the UK. ..dave souza, talk 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see the point of it, as per above, and it does seem to be part of WP:POINT. Globaltraveller 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename. Keep the portal (as per dave souza's well written response). And rename the notice board to Wikipedia:WikiProject Orkney Islands, which I presume would be a subordinate project to one of those listed atWikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects#Europe. I suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices should be read prior to the rename. I would also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions (Scotland) (the obvious parent WIkiProject) is apparently inactive. - Jc37 22:16, 17 August 2006 (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.