Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otheus/sandbox/dr with fmgt151 possie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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The result of the debate was Superseded by CSD author request. Additionally I would like to remind all parties (if does not apply, disregard) to remark about edits, not editors. Assumptions of an editors intent may be contrary to WP:AGF. Warm regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Otheus/sandbox/dr with fmgt151 possie[edit]

Otheus has a history of maintaining attack pages as subpages in his user space, all since deleted (just two weeks ago): Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otheus/sarfati. This page made creative use of a redirect to hide more "evidence" on a new subpage: [1] vs [2] FeloniousMonk 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another attack page from this editor. Guettarda 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this an attack page? The stated goal is: "I am opening this page in the hopes of creating a civil discussion between editors FeloniousMonk, Guettarda, 151.151 and others, in the hopes of heading off formal dispute resolution." I don't see how this is an attack on the above named editors. If someone can explain in more detail what the problem is, I am open to changing this vote. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For one, Otheus has been compiling attack pages listing "offenses" committed by various editors - this is just the latest incarnation. He says that he hopes to create a "civil discussion", but does so while engaging in personal attacks. He has also sent me on-wiki messages of "wikilove" while sending attacking email. How is compiling a list of alleged misbehaviour grounds for "discussion", especially when he made the page on the tail of attacking comments [3] against the very people he claims to want to want a constructive dialogue? Guettarda 04:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guettarda accurately describes the issue here. Otheus has an established history of using outwardly earnest attempts at discussion to smear those he's opposed to in various content and personal disputes, see the link to the MFD discussion on his three previous attack pages and the discussions on his talk page. FeloniousMonk 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Jim62sch 10:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment This deletion page is being used by FM and Guettarda to grossly mischaracterise my actions. Further, by removing this page, they are removing all traces of my attempts to make such a dialogue (see talk page). Finally, this nomination violates policy and I quote from [4]:
It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to formal good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior made in accord with policy.

--Otheus 11:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I told FeloniousMonk where he could find the page here. His claims that I used redirection to hide it are true, but disingenuous. Had I not hid it from public view, he could claim it is an attack page and disruptive. This way, only he and the most persistent and nosy and experienced editors would find it. --Otheus 11:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Otheus contacted me offsite to ask my opinion about this and I've advised him to do an about face and support deletion here. If I assume good faith and suppose he meant to defuse the situation through informal mediation, it's clearly had the opposite effect. It would be a gesture of good faith to say this didn't work, let's try to resolve things some other way. Durova^Charge! 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It had the opposite effect because Felonious Monk went poking around in Otheus's subpages in the first place and found a page where Otheus seems to have been putting together the statement he intended to make in informal mediation about exactly what behavior from Felonious and the others he considered problematic enough to be a subject for mediation in the first place. I ask you, who's the one that behaved poorly here? Otheus, who said "you know, this behavior of Felonious and his crew really bothers me, I want to resolve this, and as a step in resolving this, I want to document exactly what's bugging me?" Or Felonious, who said, "That damn Otheus, he's daring to suggest that my behavior could possibly have been in some way out of line! I'll show him! I'll destroy the pages where he's articulating his complaints before they're finished by nominating them as 'attack pages'!"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - "It had the opposite effect because Felonious Monk went poking around in Otheus's subpages" - so are you accusing Otheus of making false accusations (on this page, where he says he informed FM of the page's existence) or are you simply blaming FM without bothering to make even the most cursory examination of the situation? Guettarda 05:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I make my comments without prejudice. This particular MFD nomination is the mouth of a rather large rabbit and when I have time to complete the investigation the report will make interesting reading. To summarize very briefly, I believe the principal antagonist at this dispute isn't any of the named parties but a long term sneaky vandal who has disrupted Wikipedia for nearly two years. To everyone else, please shake cyberhands and set aside your differences. Durova^Charge! 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please, spare me. Otheus's response to any admin who's had the nerve to correct him publicly has been to attack them, either directly or indirectly, as his history of previously deleted attack pages attests. This is an all too common tactic of 'victim-bullies,' those who use claims of having been wronged to gain leverage over those who impeded their plans. Otheus uses accusations as weapons and ramp ups the accusations over time, viewing every attempt to get him to step back into line an opportunity to introduce accusations. For example, take his initial responses to my warning about his incivil edit summary: [5] So when the initial accusations were dismissed and deleted by the community, his next move was a sort of double-or-nothing, raising the absurdity and the stakes even more. FeloniousMonk 04:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is wholly ridiculous. The behavior of editors can and should be questioned when it is questionable, and there is all the difference in the world between an "attack page" and a page being used to record in a factual manner the basis for a complaint about the behavior of other editors. If Otheus brought these same complaints in the form of an RFC or an RFAr and Felonious Monk tried to use MfD to get the RFC/RFAr deleted as an "attack page", that would be obviously ludicrous. Is Felonious now saying that if one is to bring an RFC/RFAr/any other type of formal action, all the prepatory work must be done entirely off-wiki, because any stage of such a document short of the full thing is an "attack page"? Equally ludicrous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fine straw man of my reasoning and the situation you're tearing apart. And Otheus was neither preparing an RFC nor an RFAR, but rather an ad hoc attempt at "mediation." Since when is public "evidence" part of mediation, and WP:DR already provides several official channels for private mediation, so again, there's seems to be no legitimate need for evidence, much less some alternate form mediation for a contrived personal grievance. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fighting straw with straw? It's not even an "evidence" page. The only links are to the former articles for deletion and checkuser you filed on me, nothing of which were implicitly wrong. It's an opening for discussion apart from the talk page, so as to not further involve uninvolved parties. Gheez. All of my steps are in accordance with WP:DR[6]. Informal mediation is a step before formal mediation. --Otheus 11:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per author. This page is becoming an attack page and an end-to-run attempt at mediation. I will try a different around. Delete the page, archive this, and I will try again in a manner that FM can agree upon. --Otheus 11:10, 4 April 2007 (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.