User talk:SlimVirgin/Poetgate

Update - WQ did eventually act. [1] --Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Scott. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and (s)he's confessed!

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-15/Poetlister ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 05:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appalling

I stumbled onto this mess tonight and though I knew most of the storyline, your further revelations were alarming. I cannot help but think that this nonsense has had a detrimental impact on your desire to contribute to Wikipedia. It has been an "unspeakable ugliness". Hiding from afar, this sick individual and the others he solicited, used their ability to attack you with impunity, fully knowing that the system could be compromised, so long as he and others lied enough.--MONGO 10:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page

Not commenting on the merits at all, but this page has no purpose to building an encyclopedia. Please delete it. You can save this as stationery and email it back to anybody who asks about these events. Publishing this sort of material on wiki only serves to bait individuals who may engages in further anti-social behaviors against other editors. I hope you will see the wisdom in this advice and avoid further steps needing to be taken. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 04:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't the same be said of this, and, oh, that, (both of which are indexed)?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about other things. See tu quoque. This page should be removed because it is not being used to prepare for an arbitration case. Frankly, it is just feeding the trolls. Maybe SV doesn't mind, but her actions have an impact on the rest of the project. This area belongs to Wikipedia, not SV. She can post whatever she wants on her own website, or on websites that welcome user generated content of a general nature. Wikipedia is not one of those sites. Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other things are relevant. You are suggesting that Wikipedia doesn't allow/encourage pages related to personalities and drama rather than directly to encyclopedia building. I'm questioning that assumption, since project space pages are used to record these very things. It seems to me that as long as we allow records of such drama in project space (with various users' personal opinions there) it isn't unreasonable to allow one of the parties to those actions a "right of reply". I suppose SV could remove this page - and post her summary of events instead on the Metawiki "RfC" page along with summaries offered by FT2 and others, but would that really be any better?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any page that serves to discourage or prevent disruptive editors from editing helps the rest of us to build the encyclopedia. We've all wasted enough time on Poetlister. If a page like this keeps him from creating new disruption then it is worth keeping. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the page for deletion. Let's see what the community says. Jehochman ^Talk 04:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and placed the nomination on hold since Scott MacDonald suggested that there is a possibility SV might agree to move the content to a more appropriate place, such as Blogger, or Thoughts.com. Jehochman ^Talk 04:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott MacDonald suggested that? I don't see Scott suggesting any such thing above—unless he's editing under the account name "Jehochman" now? I agree entirely with Scott and Giano, and fail to understand whence comes this interest of yours in SlimVirgin's userspace. The notion that all userpages not being used for preparing an arbitration case need to be deleted is... is... words fail me. No, let's see, they don't; it's unusual, that's what it is. Come on, Jonathan. Will you spend a minute or two meditating on the difference it would have made to your wikilife if you'd listened to me and Bishzilla on various issues before it was too late? Please? Bishonen | talk 14:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

All I suggested was that if he wished it deleted, it would be courtesy to await SV's response for a bit before running to MfD. I take no view on whether the page is appropriate or not. Maybe Jehochman could drop it, or maybe Sarah will decide to remove it, either solution would avoid pointless drama.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, can Bishzilla come out and play? Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not, she's primping for her imminent ArbCom candidacy. But I'll consider sending over Little Stupid on his tricycle, if you scare up... oh, say, one user who agrees with you on this page. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Oh goodie! See Dan Tobias' comments below. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Tobias? Right... that's what I call a triumph. Have you thought this through, Jonathan? Now try to figger why I'm sending Little Stupid to play with you. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm. Riddle me this: do the ends justify the means? Maybe I am too stupid by half. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, this page need to be prominent and seen. It explains a great deal, and will be a source of help when the next such situation occurs. Leave it exactly where it is. Giano (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am going to walk away from this situation. My advice to SlimVirgin is that this page is inviting trouble, and that no good will come of it, but you are free to ignore my advice. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some irony to seeing SlimVirgin become a critic of the Wikipedia establishment (arbcom, admins, etc.), and get accused of having unconstructive attack pages in her userspace, when in the past it's been her and her friends who have said that her enemies were unconstructive critics, made attack pages, and so on. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finding it very hard to differentiate this comment from simple trolling. Perhaps it's my lack of imagination.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Can somebody explain why this page needs to be protected? I do not see any history of recent edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 04:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your campaign here is drawing more attention and drama than if you just left it alone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it would be poor form to edit a userspace essay against the wishes of the user, what is the possible detriment of protection, and what is the point in objecting to it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Wikipedia:Protection policy authorizes this protection? Sysop tools are not toys to be used in furtherance of wikipolitical struggles. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Why is this worth a fight?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not worth a fight (very few things are), but it is a good question for people to consider. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I get really really bored I'll keep the question in mind, but I've got more important things to do first: sorting my books alphabetically by author and ordering paper-clips by length. ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could write a better DYK hook for Russian submarine K-152. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC) and 19:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]