Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Greg L/Delinking links
- 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 keep, "on the rocks."Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Greg L/Delinking links[edit]
This page serves no useful purpose and will cause needless Wiki-drama, especially given the ongoing incivility and unconstructive behavior of the owner of this page. Tennis expert (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) For more information about this problem, please refer to this. Tennis expert (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. No case made for deletion of a reasonable looking userpage. It does seem to have purpose, not that obvious purpose is required. Please elaborate on how this page causes drama. The more information link contains nothing that seems to add to a rationale to delete this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- See the last three sections of that subpage, which are inflammatory in light of the ongoing arbitration case and jealously guarded by Greg L and his self-professed "Wikifriends" to prevent anyone from posting there except them. Also, edits by third parties to that subpage are routinely tag-team deleted by the "Wikifriends" in violation of Wikipedia policy. I invite you to peruse the history of that subpage for more information about this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article history has no bearing on the utility of the article. It appears that the nom is the one creating all the drama by repeatedly putting his snout where it doesn't belong. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- User pages or subpages are not "owned". Tennis expert (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article history has no bearing on the utility of the article. It appears that the nom is the one creating all the drama by repeatedly putting his snout where it doesn't belong. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- See the last three sections of that subpage, which are inflammatory in light of the ongoing arbitration case and jealously guarded by Greg L and his self-professed "Wikifriends" to prevent anyone from posting there except them. Also, edits by third parties to that subpage are routinely tag-team deleted by the "Wikifriends" in violation of Wikipedia policy. I invite you to peruse the history of that subpage for more information about this. Tennis expert (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep—seems to contain valuable information to me. This appears to be an attempt to restart a feud. No thanks. Leave well alone. Tony (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep — Appears to be a bad faith nom and an attempt to extract revenge. "no useful purpose" and the user's "ongoing incivility and unconstructive behavior" are not valid rationales. It is clearly useful to certain editors of which nom does not appear to be one; we must ask what harm there will be by having this article in userspace? Nom doesn't have to read it if he doesn't find it useful, or he can write his own essay, as has been suggested by the owner. Or, if he's actually offended but didn't want to admit it, then perhaps he should fess up. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course the subpage is offensive. I have no problem admitting that fact. The subpage should be deleted per this. Tennis expert (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: The page is a list of links to items relevant to the current date dispute. This attempt to get it deleted is purely vexatious and has no merit whatsoever. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I smell canvassing. Colonies Chris, Ohconfucius, and Tony1 (all parties to the pending arbitration whose behavior is a front-and-center issue) suddenly appear here to express support for their Wikifriend Greg L. Tennis expert (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or could it just be that we find it a useful page and object to this vexatious attempt to delete it? Of course you'd prefer to nominate it for deletion without telling any of the people who use it. Go away and take your spiteful paranoid accusations with you. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You obviously didn't need my notification. You showed up here "on your own" amazingly quick! Tennis expert (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or could it just be that we find it a useful page and object to this vexatious attempt to delete it? Of course you'd prefer to nominate it for deletion without telling any of the people who use it. Go away and take your spiteful paranoid accusations with you. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I smell canvassing. Colonies Chris, Ohconfucius, and Tony1 (all parties to the pending arbitration whose behavior is a front-and-center issue) suddenly appear here to express support for their Wikifriend Greg L. Tennis expert (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Pointy and tendencious nomination. Wikipedia is not a battleground. This childishness brings nothing but ridicule to those who persist in throwing toys around their prams. Go do something useful. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to know that a third party can ignore Wikipedia policy and delete or revise an editor's posts on a discussion page. Or is that not what you meant? Tennis expert (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I don't understand that statement, I can't answer the question. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll rephrase. A major problem with the subpage targeted for deletion is the fact that it is used by Greg L and his self-proclaimed "Wikifriends" as a tool to be disruptive and unconstructive concerning the ongoing arbitration case. Without Greg L's permission, several of those Wikifriends violated this policy by deleting my contributions to that subpage while protecting their own contributions. This subpage is just the latest example of disruptive tactics by this group, which includes several subpages that the long-problematic Ohconfucius tried to create in the same vein that were recently deleted. Tennis expert (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I understand better now. The page we're discussing is not a talk page, but even if it were, and even if people had behaved abominably there, that's not a reason for deletion. It's reason to upbraid or even sanction people, but not delete the page. If anything appallingly offensive has been posted there, the edit or edits should be removed and perhaps oversighted, but again, the page itself kept. I see nothing disruptive per se about the page and have not yet heard a compelling reason for deletion. If the user welcomes contributions to his page from some, but not others, I see that as cliquey and childish, but again, not grounds for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I will delete the offensive information, and I invite you to look at the deletion to see exactly what I mean. But I it is highly likely that it will be reinstated and then we will be back to where we started. Tennis expert (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I understand better now. The page we're discussing is not a talk page, but even if it were, and even if people had behaved abominably there, that's not a reason for deletion. It's reason to upbraid or even sanction people, but not delete the page. If anything appallingly offensive has been posted there, the edit or edits should be removed and perhaps oversighted, but again, the page itself kept. I see nothing disruptive per se about the page and have not yet heard a compelling reason for deletion. If the user welcomes contributions to his page from some, but not others, I see that as cliquey and childish, but again, not grounds for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll rephrase. A major problem with the subpage targeted for deletion is the fact that it is used by Greg L and his self-proclaimed "Wikifriends" as a tool to be disruptive and unconstructive concerning the ongoing arbitration case. Without Greg L's permission, several of those Wikifriends violated this policy by deleting my contributions to that subpage while protecting their own contributions. This subpage is just the latest example of disruptive tactics by this group, which includes several subpages that the long-problematic Ohconfucius tried to create in the same vein that were recently deleted. Tennis expert (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- As I don't understand that statement, I can't answer the question. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nice to know that a third party can ignore Wikipedia policy and delete or revise an editor's posts on a discussion page. Or is that not what you meant? Tennis expert (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep another attempt to censor "disruptive" people. Change the record. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No valid grounds for deletion. And, last I checked, userspace pages (even talk pages in userspace) can have material deleted at will - there is no automatic right to have one's contributions in another's userspace to be kept. Collect (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I presume that means I could validly delete the offensive material on the subpage in question? Tennis expert (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't presume anything of the sort. The key is the word "valid". Your taking offense about something does not mean removing is justified, as WP is not censored. What you tried to remove were of record, and form an important part of the history of this whole sad and sorry dispute in our eyes. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I presume that means I could validly delete the offensive material on the subpage in question? Tennis expert (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep When this article is deleted, it will be by my chosing. Hey, Tennis Expert: Here is a copy of the page for you to also nominate for speedy deletion: User talk:Greg L's personal links where he doesn't want TE obsessing about what I have in my user space. I can do this all day. But I won’t. I just thought it useful to engage for a moment in the low-level, playground, childish level you operate at in order to illustrate a point. Wikipedia has ways to deal with purposely disruptive editors like you. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Tennis Expert: I’ve created a duplicate page in a place you will never, ever find. Only my Wikifriends know where to look for it. And they have all been instructed to not edit it unless logged out. It is unfortunate we have to go to these lengths to circumvent your vandalism and disruption to Wikipedia. I’ll be addressing this soon. I suggest you show some contrition at this point and apologize for being a pain in the ass and wasting other editor’s good-faith time trying to deal with your childishness.
And, for the record: YOU do not have permission to edit in my userspace. Only my Wikifriends have such privileges and you ain’t one of my Wikifriends. Comprender? Greg L (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Tennis Expert: I’ve created a duplicate page in a place you will never, ever find. Only my Wikifriends know where to look for it. And they have all been instructed to not edit it unless logged out. It is unfortunate we have to go to these lengths to circumvent your vandalism and disruption to Wikipedia. I’ll be addressing this soon. I suggest you show some contrition at this point and apologize for being a pain in the ass and wasting other editor’s good-faith time trying to deal with your childishness.
- 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.