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 delete. –xeno (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A completely inappropriate thing to store in userspace; userspace is not to be used for maintaining pages designed to slander other editors. Such a page never will be an appropriate thing to maintain despite the claim of the user on his userpage that 'some day, it will be necessary to name and shame editors who give every sign of deliberate cheating'. Maintaining such a 'laundry list' is inappropriate; the fact that it only contains a WP:SOAPBOXy complaint whining about accusations against him doesn't counter the fact that the purpose of the page is a clear violation of WP:ATTACK. Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As it says in WP:USERSPACE, and I quote the 'Things you shouldn't have in user space' section, Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.. That annother user has come across PR's page and started using it for such last october shows that it isn't harmless to just have lying around. Frankly much of his subpage system is riddled with sticking a middl finger up at the community, such as his Block History subpage, where he attacks various admin and people using diffs and basically shows that, despite the long block history, he hasn't learnt much. I am pleased to see he does admit at least one of his blocks was correct (though even that has attempts of justification). I have engaged withPR over the last couple of years and nothing in that has convinced me we should make exceptions to policy in this case. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And as the editor subjected to a legal threat for which PR received a block, as noted there a few days ago a) the victim noticed and b) the victim objected. Justin talk 14:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am in agreement that the page is inappropriate, and a violation of WP:ATP. However, it is also several months old, and has not received any new edits in quite some time. Did anyone consider perhaps, just, you know, asking PalestineRemembered to delete the page, rather than going to the trouble of an MfD? PR, if you'd like to speed things up here, just add ((db-owner)) to the top of the page, and we can get this speedy-closed. --Elonka 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought that asking would be an exercise in futility; however 'unwarranted' PR claims his numerous blocks have been he has a reputation as a stubborn and irascible editor. Ironholds (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Net cost to you of asking? Collect (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unwarranted attack page, although if the editor wishes to delete it themselves that would be just as good. Skinny87 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PR first thoughts - I'm startled by the attempt to turn this minor page, that almost nobody has ever noticed and that I'd forgotten about, into a drama, wasting the time of other editors by bringing it to MfD. I started on it after discovering that an earlier version of this was deleted and then re-created under a different name since it has (presumably) been deemed perfectly acceptable. From which I took it that keeping accurate clips of what other people have posted in a public page is proper. PR^talk 18:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't an 'attempt to create drama'; I'd have no reason for doing so, as far as I am aware I've never directly worked with you before. Keeping accurate clips is borderline, keeping accurate clips of what people did wrong as a sort of dirty laundry list is not. We are not Wikipedia Review. Ironholds (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of mine appear at this other page in order to make it appear that, for instance, I support and (presumably) reference/quote David Irving in articles. This is a total fabrication, and in context it is abundantly clear that I'm using David Irving as a universally agreed example of references that people would never use/quote. If falsehoods (not to say, serious personal smears) are acceptable in these UserPags, then I'm confident anything I might say (but haven't done yet) will be acceptable too. (Thankyou Elonka for contributing sensibly. You almost tempt me into being bullied into acquiescing). PR^talk 19:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making no direct response to my comment. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Being under the incorrect impression that this sort of content is acceptable is one thing; now that you are fully aware it is not pointing to other examples as reasons why you thought it was alright is a moot point. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if you think GHCool's content was wrong, the correct response was to nominate it for deletion or take it down. Without supporting GHCool's page (I do not think it is appropiate as its only use is to bait. If he wants to keep that info, God invented .txt files), there are some subtle differences, namely that what you accuse pople off isn't two facedness, but of breaches of wikipedia rules (Hence 'cheating', I assume) notably the use of meat puppets and canvassing. As you say, you yourself forgot about the page (Indeed, your last edit was in August) then this shouldn't be a huge problem for you, it is clearly not serving a purpose. However other users do seem to be using it for the purpose of storing diffs for things without going into complaints or dispute resolutions in a timely manner, which I'm sure you will agree is not ideal. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks GHCool's page is next then; completely unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Thanks to PR for bringing it to my attention. Ironholds (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete serves no use in building the encyclopedia and appears to be an attack page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an attack page. NoCal100 (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a blatant attack page, but fails WP:UP#NOT/10 "Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Um, for a page such as this to be considered an "attack page", shouldn't it contain a list of editors that are, y'know, being attacked? A page pretty much devoid of entries other than one made by another user, and one link to GHCool's own very critical-of-others page that actually does name names does not seem to be attacking anyone. Ironholds already boldly declared his intentional to violation of WP:AGF (e.g. "I thought that asking would be an exercise in futility"), but perhaps redemption is not too late if he would withdraw this nomination and simply bring his concerns about this on PR's talk page. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't put words in my mouth. Also please read WP:AGF; "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence". I'd say repeated blocks for edit warring and conflict with other editors provides evidence that a nice pretty request with flowers on top is unlikely to be responded to politely or usefully. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yet this has nothing really do to with blocks or even article editing. Kind of a feeble excuse for not even taking the time to post one "hey, this page doesn't seem to serve a purpose, and is unused, would you consider taking it down?" or bringing it up to a non-involved admin such as Elonka, or many others, to make the request. Instead, you went down this route, which has really served more as a venue for eDrama than an actual MfD discussion. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but it is indicative of the editors temperament. If the editor has been blocked/had issues for arguing over article content and failing to resolve problems and reach consensus, it indicates he is stubborn. If he is stubborn he is unlikely to consider any request for "please let me delete something you made". Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Still, we need to at least attempt ways of addressing disputes that de-escalate things, rather than escalate. An MfD draws in multiple other editors, and uses up hours of time which most could have spent in other pursuits on the encyclopedia. Now granted, it's possible that a polite request to PR's talkpage might or might not have worked, but out of respect to everyone else here in the MfD, who has either participated or has spent time reading this page, it would have saved everyone's time if the more direct method would have been at least tried first. --Elonka 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Violates WP:UP#NOT Justin talk 14:35, 10 February 2009 (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.