Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
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 Keep Avicennasis @ 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff

edit

Serves no purpose other than to attack another editor. —Chowbok ☠ 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now editors are allowed to assemble material documenting the conduct of another editor in userspace for the purpose of filing a user conduct RFC or some other sort of dispute resolution process, provided they do so promptly (see WP:UP#POLEMIC). The material was only added today. If this isn't used as part of an RFC or similar shortly then yes it should be deleted. Hut 8.5 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This information was requested to be accumulated by administrators. They are being collected for a reason and should be used sometime tomorrow or as soon as she gets everything together as requested. It shouldn't be there for long. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    not sure I see where it was requested, though ;) Jack Merridew 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — as the subject of the attack. This would seem to be a good faith nomination, as the attacks are clear enough. I hope she pastes it to ANI soon, as it contain some useful diffs. One must read around all the guff, of course, but it's clear that she doing a lot of projecting of her own behaviour here. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC) struck as this is now old news. Jack Merridew 05:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This page has now been offered on ANI and the thread was later archived ;) Jack Merridew 05:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Just more disruption on Chowbok's part. WHL was told to gather these diffs and now that she does, she's drug through the mud even more. Mike Allen 18:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chowbok had exactly the same type of page in February about Wildhartlivie, which got deleted. ([1]) after he had requested time to complete his preparation for RFC.([2]) Chowbok seems way too interested in Wildhartlivie's activities and should try to remember that back in February he was given the benefit of the doubt by some editors, although he didn't follow through with the "just a day or two" he said he needed prior to submitting a RFC. It looks like a sour grapes nomination to me, and if it came from any other editor I'd assume good faith but Chowbok has too freely expressed his grudge towards Wildhartlivie. Wildhartlivie needs to submit this in a timely manner per WP:UP#POLEMIC which also says she is allowed to compile this information. Rossrs (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, exactly. I had the same type of page and it was deleted. I said I needed a couple of days to decide, after which I decided not to pursue the sockpuppet case and requested myself that the page be deleted. If WHL is going to submit this somewhere, then I don't see what the problem is with this MfD, as that will happen before this expires.—Chowbok ☠ 21:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Well, exactly. I had the same type of page and it was deleted." The direct definition of spite. This was requested at AN/I.
      • My point is that a couple of months ago you thought it was ok for an editor to compile this type of information, and today you don't. The only difference I see is that in February it was you, and today it's Wildhartlivie. I don't care if you asked for your page to be deleted in the long run. That's irrelevant. Initially you opened it and asked for it to be retained until you decided. There is no difference here. Rossrs (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, I thought it was okay, and apparently it isn't, so it was deleted. So since pages like this should be deleted, this one should be deleted as well. Are you seriously arguing that since I thought it was okay at one time, mine should be deleted and hers should be kept?—Chowbok ☠ 23:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm seriously not. I am saying two things. 1. Wildhartlivie is entitled to do this per WP:UP#POLEMIC for a short time and 2. I think there is bad faith and sour grapes in your nomination because you've been through this before and you know that it is permitted for a short time as a preparation for something like RFC. Rossrs (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the last time WHL had a page like this, she kept it open over a month and never did open an RFC. Hard to see why we're supposed to assume that won't happen again.—Chowbok ☠ 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Kept it open over a month". Well duh, dude. Accumulating spite takes time. Especially when doing the work is hampered by vision disabilities. I'd note that at this time, that page has only been open less than 10 hours. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Obvious sour grapes and the links provided by Rossrs indicate a lack of good faith by Chowbok. MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be quite honest WHL would be far better off getting this deleted herself. Most of the "incriminating evidence" on it is perfectly acceptable use of the public contributions list, and posting this on a conduct report against JM is more likely to reflect poorly on the reporter. That said, lists of this sort are typically allowed if there's a genuine likelihood that they'll be used for such a purpose and that seems likely here, so the deletion nom isn't valid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Um, it was clearly requested at AN/I for diffs to substantiate my claim that Jack Merridew wikistalks me: "That aside, can you please substantiate your accusations of wikistalking?" I clearly posted twice [3] [4] that I was working on it. I also noted it's far more extensive than even I remembered. I'm unaware that a page used to gather evidence to respond to a direct request for them at AN/I is any sort of an attack page. As Marnette said above, there is a lot of sour grapes behind this nomination. It's a telling thing that Chowbok posted this nomination. I mention on this page that he needs to have a report about his conduct filed in time, since his wikistalking habits are actually much more vitriolic that Jack's. Some days the first and only thing he does is post an attack about me on user talk pages. Direct spiteful attacks. It's been to administrators and he flatly refused to respond. I've reverted posts he has made in the past to content regarding me as reverting edits by a tendentious wikistalking editor, a habit he took during his affiliation with SkagitRiverQueen during her vendetta and just prior to her ban. This nomination supports that perception. The attack page Chowbok had deleted named everyone he could find who ever posted in support of me as a sock puppet, including editors who have responded here. Chowbok even jumped in to back up Jack regarding his removal of the filmography table head template to make the table sortable at Scarlett Johansson. This is a valid work page that is still being developed and it is directly from a request at AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk)
  • Keep - Though, if Chowbok had a page similar to this and it was decided that it should be deleted, it's understandable that Chowbok would feel this page should also be deleted; so, all the "sour grapes", etc., isn't really helpful, or constructive. This information was asked for, and it should be collected for administrators to be able to understand the claim. Then, regardless of the outcome of that, the page should (and I presume will) be deleted.  Chickenmonkey  01:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, well I made the first call of "sour grapes", so I'll reply. By Chowbok's own comment above, the page was deleted at his request, so I disgree that Chowbok's attitude is understandable. He asked for extra time, received agreement for that, and then chose to have it deleted. Totally different resolution, and he is not willing to extend the same time frame to Wildhartlivie that he asked for and was given. Calling it sour grapes may not be helpful, but looking at Chowbok's nomination along with various comments he's made such as thisand this, it's probably not too far off the mark. Good faith and fair play is a two-way street and it would be nice to see Chowbok extending some. It wasn't my intention to make this about Chowbok and it obviously needs to come back on track, but the nomination comes with a back-story. That's secondary to the point you made about it the information being compiled as requested and that it will deleted promptly. I'm going to butt out now as I've said more than enough on this subject. Rossrs (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Rossrs, I've been looking for that comment forever. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with this staying up for a brief time. WHL seems to indicate above that a month is reasonable, which I don't agree with.—Chowbok ☠ 13:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't interpret WHL's comment that way. You said that last time it was over a month, and her reply was essentially that it had at that point been up for 10 hours. WP:UP#POLEMIC says this "is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The unspecified nature of "in a timely manner" means that it depends on general agreement that this being done within an acceptable timeframe, and this will need to be watched with an attitude of good faith, common sense and flexibility, and an understanding that some people may need more time than others. For example, WHL has a vision problem, so if that's taken into account, perhaps it's a slower and more laborious task for her than it would be for someone who is not vision impaired. It's fair to take into account those circumstances that may impact on her ability to assemble her points within a particular timeframe. I agree with you that a month seems too long. WHL is responsible for completing this within a reasonable timeframe and she's said nothing to indicate any reluctance to do so. If the time starts stretching beyond what most people consider reasonable, we have a problem, but until then, we don't. What I don't understand is this : you say you have no problem with this staying up a for a brief time, but you nominated this for deletion before a suitable time had elapsed. I've questioned your motives from the beginning, and your comment about having no problem with this gives me further cause for doubt, unless you're having no problem is a concession to the otherwise (so far) unanimous support for a temporary keep. Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • 10 hours is longer than my page was allowed to stay up before someone slapped a speedy on it, not even a MfD notice. Nobody seemed to have a problem with my page being nominated or deleted right away, so I took that to mean that was how these things were handled. Now I know better; the rules only apply to people who are not WHL.—Chowbok ☠ 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That really gets to the heart of it. You've been carrying ill feeling all this time and if you think there are special rules for people that "are not WHL" you do take it personally. Well, I'm not the right person to make that sort of comment to. Remember you said you needed more time, and I asked you how much, you said a day or two, and my reply to you was that it sounded fair. You were the one that proposed the timeframe for yourself. That was backed up by another editor. It had nothing to do with you not being WHL, so you really need to stop that. Anyway, thanks. At least that explains where you're coming from, as does your comment below to Crohnie. Rossrs (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think things with Chowbok and WHL started here. I think this needs to be in this record. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's really getting far off topic, but no, that's not where things started. It has nothing to do with SRQ. It started, as things always do with WHL, when I made a good faith edit which took a lot of time and effort, was reverted on sight with no comment, and then was rudely bitten when I attempted to discuss it with her.—Chowbok ☠ 13:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It started, not because someone spent time and energy, but that what you did required consensus before your switch of citation methods was implemented. That's the bottom line and that is either a guideline or policy, don't remember which one, but the change back was supported by whichever it was and your changes were not returned. So I became an "enemy" and your attacks on me have continued ad nauseum ever since. That you aligned yourself with SRQ was more of a tactical thing. I find that there is clear evidence of a vendetta that sprang from there and has never relented. And by the way, if anyone wants diffs that supports that Chowbok follows me around and launches rather nasty personal attacks about me on the talk pages of editors he does not know, and also on article talk pages, I'd be quite happy to supply the diffs that support that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MikeAllen & Rossrs' comments. WHL, you know you're being followed so please take MikeAllen's very sound advise and do things of this nature offline. Pinkadelica♣ 03:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but it seemed to be something that is kosher to do since it was requested. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is "kosher to do" and should be strongly encouraged over private offline lists. The last thing we want is for people to be encouraged to keep lists of (alleged) misbehaviour by other editors offline, and that's typically frowned on unless there's a genuine reason for needing to (being subject to a fairly SNOWy MfD is not one of those). The last time an editor went collecting offline evidence against JM it didn't go well precisely because it looked like a grudge list kept around for the sake of retribution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no problem with this sort of page if it's being used to compile diffs for a discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2010 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff&oldid=1141910278"