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 deleted at user request. Bduke (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, where to begin. This destructive and inappropriate userpage may seem benign at first glance, but isn't. That it's in effect a private project is bad enough (see "the rules" at the top of the talk page - "Since this is my userspace, we use my rules. Don't like it? Use your own userspace. Invited editors, please." Indeed.) Worse, the raison d'etre of the undertaking is to protect and defend the inappropriate article Adult-child sex, a fork of Child sexual abuse. "Child sexual abuse", you see, notwithstanding that it's the clinical and universal term, is too judgmental and we need a article neutral in title and content. We don't want to imply that adult-child sex is somehow "wrong", you see. Anyway, there's lots more background here; I'd recommend you read it before commenting. At least let these people do their Wikipedia-subversive plotting on the their own bandwidth. NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: as you will see, these people are clever, numerous, determined, and well versed in Wiki terminology, policies, and argumentation. I request that you ignore numbers and focus on the overall good of the Wikipedia and whether this page enhances or detracts from that Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an attempt to push a point of view. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that Squeakbox, on his Crusade, would want to delete this. The simple fact is that I chose to use a user subpage and invite people who I know can be NPOV and constructive rather than destructive to edit. When it is in a condition that it can be brought to the general Wiki, it can be. There's nothing preventing anyone else from doing a similar project in their userspace.

Werostratus and SqueakBox have attacked, in some cases personally attacked, the edits, the articles, and in my case the editor (round and round already with that). Now this is bordering on harrassment.

Next, what is an "inappropriate article"? The article in question has already survived an AfD and yet the same person has reAfD-nominated it for the same reason. If this is not a crusade in an attempt to steamroll the process and other editors, I don't know what is. Yes, some of us are well-versed in Wikipedia policies, and we also can explain and follow them.

The entire nomination narrative of Herostratus is vile and aggressive, attacking and abusive. Herostratus assumes that he is obviously right and anyone who may even think to disagree cannot be listened to whatsoever. That much is clear in the narrative.

I consider this entire attack harrassment from a concerted and coordinated group that includes Herostratus, SqueakBox, Jack-a-Roe, and Pol64. I fully expect them to drop in and "vote" soon as a supporting part of Squeak's crusade.

I don't think any more even needs to be said. The situation is clearly evident and clearly bad faith against the collaborative effort and me personally. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Large-scale changes to articles should not take place in userspace; otherwise, two series of edits are being made which defeats collaboration. When it is deemed ready to be moved into mainspace, there will likely be no consensus for it. I have no opinion on the article itself; this is just bad practice. If you can't get consensus to do something, don't fork it elsewhere. –Pomte 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - While I appreciate Pomte's comments (and agree in principle), the project was started because of the severe and intentional disruptive efforts of a tiny number of editors that purposefully prevented any constructive editing from taking place. It literally took weeks and multiple admins to get it back to barely normal. So I agree that the practice probably is not a great one on articles that are edited somewhat regularly (works great for new articles or the "lost" kind!). I would like to point out that this workspace has allowed the improvement of sections at a time and these improvementss from this project area have been incorporated, and that's the whole point of having this here. Not only that, but it has helped the main article. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((db-userreq)) anyway. I yield to the superior firepower of Squeak's Crusades. And I'm tired. And most of it got incorporated anyway. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:43, 18 January 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.