Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch (2nd nomination)

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 delete.

I have speedily deleted this under WP:CSD#G4. The new page has the exact same problems that led the previous MFD's closing admin to delete the old version. Surturz, please re-read that close. The things that aren't there now (the lantern, the verbiage at the top) were not the reasons for the previous deletion, so their absence does not invalidate a G4 deletion. The last version of the previous page also did not have the admins' names in it, and it was still deleted, so the lack of specific admin names on the page does not invalidate a G4 deletion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Surturz/AdminWatch

First MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch - Result Delete - with no prejudice against recreation in different form.

This page flies in the face of WP:POLEMIC and has been previously deleted via MFD along those lines. It has also been twice speedied. I believe it needs to be re-deleted, salted and creator warned not to create similar pages of negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as userspace owner. Per WP:ADMINACCT I am allowed to scrutinise administrator actions. The previous two speedies were overturned at DRV, and the previous MfD was closed without prejudice and I was specifically allowed to recreate the page subject to the ruling, which, I believe, I am obeying. Furthermore, I believe this is disruptive retaliation by administrator Toddst1 for an article I am preparing for an upcoming discussion report for The Signpost, which reports his overturned administrative action. --Surturz (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Wikipedia:Village_stocks is a similar page that has been allowed to survive.

Delete per last MFD and warn user as to future conduct with regards keeping naughty lists. There is absolutely nothing positive that will come from this page. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire. This page was already deleted at MfD, as it violates WP:POLEMIC. The user should not have recreated the page. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G4. The page was previously deleted at MFD, and the reasons for deletion have not been addressed, in short, being divisive. Even the title is divisive. There are other ways of keeping administrators accountable for their own actions, short of keeping shit lists in userspace. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or even Speedy delete, based on Steven Zhang's points) - divisive, inflammatory, serves no apparent purpose other than to stir animosity. Walls of shame of this nature are never acceptable. Super Mario Man 00:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
per Surturz, the page is not Speediable under G4. Can someone please link to the previous discussions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_3 for the overturn of the prior two speedies. --Surturz (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but G4 is speedy deletion of a page which was deleted after a community discussion, and which has been re-created in substantially the same form. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - keep it offline - prepare your case and then present it on wiki, keeping it on wiki is always troublesome. Youreallycan 00:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see the previous version and I don't think this is any different. Different incidents, but the page is still a list of admins doing things Surturz disagrees with, or just plain making mistakes (he should start a page on me, he'd get 100kb just in typos). I would say this is speediable as a recreation of a deleted page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was you that G4'd it last time, and you were overturned at DRV. You had it wrong then, and you have it wrong now - there is zero content in common with the previous version of the page. Where's the lantern picture? Where is the rationale text? Where are admin names? Where is a single diff in common? You are misleading MfD participants when you say this page is not different to the old one. It is not at all verifiable that this page is identical to the previous version. It is, however, verifiable that your G4 speedy last time was incorrect. --Surturz (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2012 (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.