Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner

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 Delete. This is quite clearly a violation: it qualifies as an attack page and does not appear in any way to be a reasonable draft for, for instance, an WP:RFC/U; that, as Tomwsulcer says, Banner may have caused "fuss and attention" is not in itself a reason to keep this page with this content. I don't rightly know what is meant by "man up", but it's sexist and already a personal attack, and sentences like "If the idea of me taking a prepared package of his malicious actions to the administration makes him feel threatened, good" are a clear attempt at creating a chilling effect. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner[edit]

On big personal attack of an editor following me around and harassing me. The Banner talk 00:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:POLEMIC violation. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My sense of what has been going on is that Banner proposed numerous (20+) articles about beauty pageant contestants for deletion; Trackinfo and others, including myself, have called Banner on failing to do the requisite WP:BEFORE analysis for each article. None of these articles was deleted (see table); it caused the community much (in my view) needless fuss and attention. Banner responded consistently by accusing Trackinfo of "attacking" him personally which is not the case; rather it is a case of other Wikipedians calling Banner for rapid-fire AfD-ing articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The top of the page explains in detail why I am keeping this page. Everything there comes from the history of The Banner's talk page. At the point of this nomination, I've gone back a little over a year. In that time period I have discovered he has been blocked three times and has been taken to ANI, plus this litany of complaints about his abusive nature. He has deleted all of these comments that reflect negatively on his character, so to the casual reader, perhaps anybody without administrative tools and maybe not even that, they would not see what a detrimental character this individual is to wikipedia. At this point in time, all this otherwise unlisted page is doing is collecting what might become evidence of a bad apple in our midst. Only he (by auto notification) knew about the page until he made it public by bringing this action for deletion. Is it threatening? Yes. If the idea of me taking a prepared package of his malicious actions to the administration makes him feel threatened, good. I hope it keeps him walking the straight and narrow. But this is just documentation of what he has done, only recently (out of an 8 year history). It is truth. It provides forensics for administrators to go more quickly through the volume of problems he is creating. They don't want to be bothered going through half the legwork I have had to go through, merely scanning his history. I don't want to make trouble. I just want him to behave. Stop abusing and scaring off new editors. Stop making unnecessary AFDs. Follow WP:BEFORE, so you criticize articles from an informed position. And stop lying. He does make useful contributions. I don't want to take him to a situation that might actually get him banned. Banner, would you like to expedite this? Should I just use this nom as an excuse to pull the trigger? Man up. Say the word. If you win, if the administration thinks you are behaving properly, I will voluntarily remove this from my user space. Trackinfo (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you not stop with the personal attacks and start assuming good faith? I am trying to do maintenance work on Wikipedia, including weeding out unfit articles. And that alone triggers your WP:IDONTLIKETHAT-attitude. Just stop harassing me and following me around. The Banner talk 08:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Banner, your proven actions go well beyond good faith, so I have to stop assuming. You sometimes do good work, I do not deny that. You behave irresponsibly when you repeatedly nominate articles for deletion without doing a WP:BEFORE. When you harass and drive away new editors, you hurt our image. Your actions are causing me to play defense on behalf of the little people. I have found a vandal and I am trying to clean up their damage. Stop causing trouble and you won't see my presence. Trackinfo (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact your are the one causing trouble. The Banner talk 10:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This falls under what is not allowed per WP:POLEMIC, for the following reasons:
- It is indiscriminate- it is only a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V dump of every disagreement Banner has been in for X amount of time. There is no coherent structure to it, and no attempt to present a cogent case for this user being problematic, except possibly through sheer volume.
- There is no indication that this is going to be used in a specific dispute resolution forum, or in a timely manner. There is no indication what Trackinfo wants as a result of this page. Trackinfo's lengthy keep vote seems to suggest it's going to be left lying around as "forensics" indefinitely.
Keeping "shit lists" around indefinitely is prohibited by WP:POLEMIC, so this page should be deleted. Reyk _YO! 11:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negative information on others should not be kept live. Keep it offsite if anywhere. Don't introduce negative information on others except in WP:DR, and even then, a list of negative information on another reflects poorly on yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2014 (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.