Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Speedy Deleted per author request. Please, let's call it a day on this never ending feud and get back to editing the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Delicious carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC ban redux[edit]

Rehash of pre-Christmas AN/I drama. I see no legitimate purpose for this; it does not help the encyclopedia. Admins have asked both of us to disengage. It's best that we listen to the admins and put this mess behind us. Discussion at this MfD should be based on the consensus that we both should disengage, not the already settled issue that the page is about. --PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your way to disengage is to file a deletion discussion regarding a page of the person you're in conflict with? Seriously? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not interact whatsoever with DC until I noticed he recently created the page. I'm trying to get rid of this so that the heated debate will stay dead, and it won't come up in further issues regarding DC. In short, I prefer the issue be history; I'd rather the issue not be brought up beyond trivial mentions in disputes between DC and another user as I fear that it will revive the controversy for a never ending arguement. User:Delicious carbuncle is currently in a war with User:Neutralhomer, and the two users were both engaged in the AN/I drama. DC made this page "for his stalkers." I'd rather not be linked to DC and NH's drama at this time as the ongoing drama seems to have nothing to do with me. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that Neutralhomer's actions have much to do with anyone other than Neutralhomer. I am not in a war with Neutralhomer, although they clearly have a grudge against me, but that's a whole 'nother issue and is probably best just ignored here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, I'd just assume remain neutral stay out of your issues with User:Neutralhomer. Lets relax and disengage as the admins and non-admins alike suggested. It's a new year, let's put 2009 behind us. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd just as soon stay out of my issues with Neutralhomer too, but I don't see how they are in any way relevant here. You may wish to look for a reason to delete this page that is based on policy. I don't intend to make any further comments here, so feel free to ignore that advice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:User page? It's implied in my original basis for starting this discussion; I didn't point it out with a wikilink because I assumed anyone with experience at MfD would already be quite familiar with the policy just as it is commonly assumed that those working with WP:AIV should already be familiar with WP:Vandalism. Based on your edit summary when creating the page, I assumed that you created the page in attempt to demonize me for you own personal defense against NH, and I have indicated that I desire to stay out of your issues with NH. If that were the case, it'd be inappropriate use of your user space as it does not help the project. MfDs occur regularly where the helpfulness of pages in userspace is questioned. This is one of those MfDs. However, you have indicated your intent to rehash the ban discussion despite lack of support, making it a legitmate use of userspace by technicality, although probably a waste and will further make you appear obsessive. The horse is dead, move on. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The earlier topic ban discussion was not allowed to run its course due to the improper closure and archiving by non-admins. I had intended to start a new discussion today or tomorrow (when more editors were back from their holidays), and created that page to hold relevant material. Given the contentious attitude displayed toward the earlier proposal, I wanted to present the case as clearly as possible, so I began looking through PCHS-NJROTC's contribution history. I stopped looking very quickly. As of this moment, the page consists of two recent and relevant quotes made by PCHS-NJROTC which, with the recent unilateral "banning" of another editor, make very clear the need to topic ban them from vandalism related project activities. There is nothing improper, offensive, or against policy on the page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userspace is not required to be "useful." It is, moreover, rather non-productive to seek deletion from userspace when one has an active conflict with the other user. It only serves to draw the conflict into the open even more. In the interests of no drama, forget about deletion. Collect (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Full disclosure: I made a single edit to the ANI thread in question, advising Delicious carbuncle to let the issue drop and end the unnecessary drama. Several other editors did the same. DC apparently ignored that advice, however, and created this page in his userspace. I firmly disagree with Collect's assertion that PCHS-NJROTC is prolonging drama by taking this page to MfD. DC prolonged the drama and deliberately avoided disengaging by creating this page for no purpose other than "blowing on the dog's nose." Deleting this page ought to put an end to this drama, once and for all. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along" I think that deleting this page would represent a step towards putting the dispute in the past. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just for the record, I did not support ending the discussion. I gave up on it as there unfortunately did not seem to be sufficient interest in dealing with it. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, DGG's views on the issue differ, but he did admit that the discussion was a lost cause which is the basis of this MfD. Once again, this MfD should not be based on DC, me, or any other editors opinion on the issue, but rather the consensus that the discussion is dead and needs to stay dead. Nothing has changed since DC's last proposal. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the starting of this MfD, Delicious carbuncle has created User:Delicious carbuncle/work page, which is basically the same page recreated to survive this MfD. In my opinion, that's recreation of (soon to be) deleted material in anticipation of deletion, and that page should as well be subjected to whatever action that may stem from this discussion. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what part of this you fail to grasp - I am going to initiate a new discussion about a topic ban for you. I am working on that discussion in my userspace. This isn't the place to have that discussion, so be patient and you will be able to defend yourself very soon. This MfD will end in keep because there are no policies or guidelines being broken. It makes no difference because it is only a step toward the discussion which you are trying to avoid, but will occur before the MfD closes anyhow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haven't you heard of WP:IAR? MfDs are closed based on consensus, not when one person's cries "I'm not violating any policies here!!!!" I'm avoiding this because it's already been through WP:AN/I several times already, and it's already been agreed that we need to let this go. Why must I repeatedly defend myself over and over again? Here's an idea, try a self nom at WP:RfA, failing, then trying a second WP:RfA less than a month later. Same applies with ban proposals. If you open a discussion, it will be closed per WP:SNOW as absolutely nothing has changed since last time, and it's not like the discussion was closed unilaterally or anything, so why don't we stop fighting over this like elementary school students? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May I also add that this might get a little close to being an attack page since all of it's contents are negative towards me. Even if he's permitted to keep this and start another ban discussion, this needs to be speedy deleted after the case once again gets thrown out. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've asked for speedy deletion since the page was only ever intended as a prep page for the thread which is now at WP:AN. To be clear, I don't believe there is any way this MfD would have closed as delete, so please don't take this as an indication that there was anything at all wrong with the creation or content of the page. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 3 January 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:Delicious_carbuncle/PCHS-NJROTC_ban_redux&oldid=1140103580"