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 Speedy Delete as WP:CSD#U1 by Spartaz. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stormie/DRV notes[edit]

As of time of nomination, this page ONLY lists DRVs that I started and omits the many others the users participated in that I did not start. Thus, the page appears to be some kind of evidence page against me or some way of monitoring just my DRVs, which the user almost if not always opposes. We should not be keeping evidence pages on other users in our userspace. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The page does not even indirectly attack anyone, excepting that intimate investigation would reveal that the same user was responsible for all such DRV requests. Evidence pages have been upheld to be legitimate in the past, assuming that their purpose is for use in process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference there was that Abd was keeping a page against someone who was proven to be a sock account. Would you like if I kept a page only of AfDs you started and then used it to monitor your AfD activity? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming the intent were process-related, and not evidently an attack page, I wouldn't be in a position to argue, given precedent. Again, this is not outwardly disparaging, and would appear to relate to very current project discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given precedent, you argued to delete the page you link to above that wound up being against an account who correctly proved to be a sock account, but you're okay with this one... If he kept a page on all the DRVs he was in or all the DRVs that went his way, okay, but keeping a page only on DRVs started by one particular editor and making a point to oppose that editor in every single one of those DRVs seems a bit stalkerish and calls into question whether the opposition in those DRVs is actually against said user than the user's arguments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume you are aware of the direction in which time flows? I disagreed with the purpose of that one. This one comes after the resolution of that one, in which it turns out that I was wrong. I learned from my lesson. The situation is little different, except that the deletionist/inclusionist roles in the protagonist/antagonist are reversed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't people always say "consensus can change" around here? As you know, I agreed with Abd's suspicions about that user; however, I did not argue to keep that page. Again, though, what would you think if someone who almost if not always opposed you in any deletion thread you started kept a page tracking your deletion discussions? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would depend on the purpose of said tracking page, as I've already indicated. If it's for the purpose of making a case about your DRVs, it wouldn't appear to be inappropriate right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it is kept by someone who only argues in opposition of the user, then that strikes one as being used as a means to "stalk" or oppose that user regardless of the individual merits of arguments. You and I disagree in AfDs (go figure, this is the first of those you argue to keep in...), but I don't and wouldn't keep a page charting your AfDs while making it a point to oppose you in all of them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Wikipedia userspace is not intended to be used to disparage other users, imply that other users may be subject to requests for arbitration, or otherwise create a disharmonious editing environment. If you absolutely must collect evidence against other users, outside of the context of legitimate dispute resolution processes, please do so off-wiki. John254 02:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I further note that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Laundry_lists_of_grievances provides a solid precedent roundly condemning this sort of user subpage. John254 02:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This sort of pages should only be allowed as temporal storage for preparing evidence for RfCUs and arb cases, and not for keeping permanently on userspace laundry lists about other users. Stormie should clarify if he is planning to start a RfC with that evidence. Also, per John254's comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (god I hate replying to everything) this page was 43 hours old as of nom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonetheless, it does not appear that Stormie has articulated any pending use for this page. John254 03:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He specifies below that it was a temporal page, that it already served its purpose, and that he doesn't mind if it's deleted now. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what purpose the page is supposed to serve, but it's bad enough per this thread, "Somerandomadmin" admits, "One of the problems is that you have some rabid inclusionists (Le Grand Roi de whatever springs to mind) whose arguments at AFD and DRV are so frankly ludicrous (see this for an example) that they actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose their stupidity. Personally, when I see such inane crap at AfD, it spurs me to close those AFDs as delete regardless." Thus given this userpace page and that off-wiki remark by someone claiming to be an admin, I am starting to be curious if some are actually showing up at DRVs I start just because I started them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting point. The use of this user subpage as a means by which to solicit vote-stacking against Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' deletion reviews would be highly disruptive to the project. John254 03:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi all! My purpose with this page was just to quickly tally up how many of LGRdC's DRV requests actually led anywhere. It's only on a subpage because I wasn't sure if I was going to finish tallying them in one session or if I'd need to finish off later. Now that I have finished, I have no objection whatsoever to its deletion. I would like to point out, though, that it does not mention LGRdC's name, nor is it linked to anywhere other than where LGRdC has linked it, because it is not meant to disparage him, solicit votes, or anything else. Enric, I'm not planning to start an RfC against LGRdC but frankly I wouldn't be surprised if one were to eventuate, and if so, I would offer my input. --Stormie (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I would never look at or respect any RfC against me as it would assuredly be flooded by bad faith, dishonest, and hypocritical edits from those on the extreme deletion side, which would make it impossible to take seriously. And the funny part is that it would mean time those spent posting in such a thing I would never even acknowledge that at least they would not be spending trying to delete others' volunteer work (I always look at the bright side!). In any event, given the acknowledgement on Wikipedia Review that certain editors come to DRVs I start just to oppose me (i.e. ignoring the actual nomination reasons) or that alleged admin's claim that he/she closes discussions I am in just to oppose me, I have to wonder how many of those DRVs would have had different results if started by someone else, i.e. if the actual outcomes are really illegitimate for the reasons he/she alleged? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • you've said this now more than once. I'm going to formally take this to mean that we would "...[try] and [fail] to resolve the dispute" should an RfC be filed by a 'deletionist'. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Stormie. I was going to leave a note on your talk page to ask you to explain the reasons so that people would no start to make wild speculations. I hadn't noticed that the page was only a pair of days old, lol. One advice, when I make a page on userpage I always add at the top a short explanation like ((notice|I make this page for this reason or for this article, and will delete after xxx days or after I finish doing yyy.)), as it helps a lot to prevent future problems when you accidentally hit controversial stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On face value, is not disparaging, or attacking, or negative towards User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Is a listing of information activities a prominent DRV & AFD participant, but is not information on the person himself. Is a private page, not linked from users top level page. The author, or other users, can use this information to decide on whether LGRdC's perspectives on these things is consistent/robust/worth a second look/or whatever. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could also use it, as the Wikipedia Review comments suggest and whether Stormie personally is or is not, to stalk my DRVs and disrupt them again (a tremendous number of comments in my DRVs can't possibly be serious/honest) if we are to believe "Somerandomadmin" on that site. What about something like this, which is obviously being used to disparage or mock other users? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take the high ground and don't rise to such trivial offences. Tolerance breeds tolerance. You did agree that all your contributions can be edited mercilessly and copied indefinately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really care what anyone says about me specifically (no one could say anything here that is worse than some of what I have actually experienced in the real world, would never post online, and wouldn't wish on the worst of my opposition), but if anyone uses something like this as the poster on the Wikipedia review suggests as a means of monitoring my DRVs to disrupt them, i.e. not necessarily frustrating my efforts but the work of others who worked on the articles or ignoring the arguments made by others just to oppose me. Stormie says he isn't doing that, but a page like this does make it that much easier for whatever others "Somerandomadmin" refers to who are. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep I don't see much difference between this and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. It's not an 'evidence page' per se, as it doesn't record any misconduct. It isn't an attack page as it doesn't allege any misconduct. I don't really see pages like this as made in the spirit of wikipedia (I thought Abd's page was in exceedingly poor form as well, regardless of the culpability of the subject). I also recognize that the page creator has expressed ambivalence as to the outcome of the page. BUT, the assumption of bad faith motivating this MfD has already been roundly rejected by the community at AN/I. I don't think it is appropriate to seek an alternate venue. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please note that Protonk claims he wants nothing to do with me and for me to avoid him (see [1]). Although I keep trying to avoid him, he keeps posting in whatever DRVs I start (see [2], [3] and [4]) as well as now in the MfD I start. And drags my name into another discussion (see [5]). If someone wants nothing to do with me as he claimed, then he can refrain from commenting antagonistically in my DRVs and MFDs and discussing me elsewhere when I am not doing the same to him. Also, there is a big difference between my keeping a page on discussions that I participated in regardless of who nominated the articles and for which I clearly state at its top what purpose the page serves versus a page kept by someone else on ones started by one specific editor. The so-called community at ANI did not represent anything. As expected those on the extreme deletion side made hypocritical and dishonest statements and a few on the inclusion or neutral side did not jump in on the hyperbole bandwagon and the discussion was correctly closed to prevent further unproductiveness. But the bottom line is that someone should not demand that someone avoid him and say he wants nothing to do with him but keep showing up in discussions he started or commenting on him elsewhere when he is not doing the same to him. Making overly dramatic delete "votes" in AfDs I have participated in does not make much sense either: "Here we go again," "Uh. I don't know where the keep votes above are coming from," "taking the ad hominem approach rather than focusing only on the article under discussion, etc. Back in June, he tried a Wikiquette report on me which was deleted, then tried a 3RR claim against me which was also proven to be bogus as I did not violate that rule, then tried a RfC which Spartaz deleted, etc. and in all three was cautioned against filing frivolous reports and venue shopping. I tried to make peace offerings to him, but they did apparently did not accomplish much and so if he wants nothing to do with me, fine. I am more than happy to engage with anyone in a civil and respectful manner, but this one sided escalation is baffling. Notice I, who usually engage many editors in Afds, am actually by and large avoiding responding to his posts in the various rash of AfDs he has commented in after me and am deliberately not commenting in AfDs that he commented in first (such as for Hoverbike and Pinoy), and yet these hostile comments against me keep showing up in threads I start or even threads I did not start. Wikipedia is a big place. There is no need to fixate on any one editor. If you want nothing to do with me, please stop having something to do with me. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I'll never post on your talk page. Ever. I promise. but I have no need to avoid posting in community discussion that you start. I also don't see anything wrong with making delete votes in deletion discussions. Also, if you think that the results in AN/I, DRV and now here don't represent some community consensus about your increasingly disruptive and tendentious actions, you need to sit down and think about things. My WQA against you has NOTHING to do with any of this, but I find it funny that you (as usual) seek to bring up the dirty laundry of anyone who raises questions about you publicly. Don't make this about me and you. this has nothing to do with me. the result at AfD (a RESOUNDING rejection of your complaints and a warning to you, BTW) had nothing to do with me. This MfD has nothing to do with me. Your continued gainsaying, wikilwayering, disruption, stonewalling, and pointed badgering have nothing to do with me.

As for your "peace offerings", they are meaningless if you refuse to treat editors whose views differ from yours with respect. If your peace offering consists of making some jokes about articles and making side chatter while continuing to lecture and deride other editors, it is a false one. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The results in ANI merely exposed which editors on the deletion side who actually do engage in disruptive and tendentious gainsaying, wikilawering, stonewalling, and pointed bagering will post whatever dishonest or hypocritical ad hominem nonsense they can to squelch their opposition by ganging up. All the good faith and neutral editors saw right through that and now I know who is actually approaching AfDs and DRVs objectively and open-mindedly and who is not. So, here it is for the community to see, I am asking you to please stop harassing and stalking me by venue shopping with rejected claims against me, demanding that you want nothing to do with me but showing up in AfD after AfD after me and particular in DRVs/MFDs I start, commenting about me in other threads, etc., while I have and will continue to avoid/ignore you. Adieu. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the nominator's comments -- it serves no practical or positive purpose. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:32, 16 August 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.