Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal

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 delete per U1. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal[edit]

User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is a copy of an old ban proposal. As you can see, the ban was strongly approved by consensus, and in fact expired some time ago. It's difficult to be sure what point there ever was in duplicating it in user space, it seems primarily to be so that the user in question can argue with the reasoning behind the ban at their leisure in a space where nobody is likely to contradict them. Part of a very long pattern of trying to whitewash their own past and ignore all criticism. Edited as recently as a few days ago despite the fact that this conversation was over in March. Seems to fall into the "shit list" type of page that we generally do not allow in userspace unless it is part of an ongoing dispute, which it clearly is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the contents near the bottom violate WP:UP#POLEMIC and mildly WP:NOTSOAPBOX. HurricaneFan25 18:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's totally beyond me as to what the purpose of rehashing this ban proposal is, especially as it was passed and has since expired. The parts of this page that are not just copies of edits made elsewhere, don't make it any clearer. Does not belong in userspace, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Although I can see more to this, I'm going to default to keep here, though I'd like to hear from Porchcorpter on this. I don't see a shit list, I see a user who was banned and unable to express himself at the time, trying to evaluate the comments. He has not edited the conversation at all, he is writing responses in a separate section, and that is relevant. He's not criticising the editors of that discussion, he's looking at their arguments. Maybe this would be better off wikipedia. Maybe there is an element of WP:NOTTHERAPY. I wouldn't be horribly upset if this was deleted, but I think that a little discussion would have gone a long way here, rather than moving straight to MfD and telling Porchcorpter that he can "take the high road"[1] by CSD#U1 the pages. WormTT · (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC, especially considering this. Worm, these "vents" aren't from March, these are recent, which makes me wonder his intentions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm primarily voting keep because I'm defaulting here and based on the the other two. I'd like to hear from PC here too, and may well be changing my vote on the matter. At the moment, I am hoping that it's looking at the comments made... but I'm going to wait and see. WormTT · (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly healthy that as recently as last week he posted this [2]. He was not blocked during the topic ban discussion and did participate in it. Then, three months later he made this copy of it. Four months later, he started making hostile responses to the points raised in the discussion, labeling them as "ALL WRONG" despite the fact that the ban had a strong consensus behind it and you and others worked hard to help him see where he had gone wrong. I don't know what it is you are waiting for Worm, I can't imagine any legitimate reason for such a page to exist, and it seems to fly in the face of the apparent progress he made while being mentored that he is still holding onto this stale conversation and trying to deny all of the perfectly valid points made during it's course. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I will happily switch to delete. If he has a reasonable plan for the comments, I'm willing to listen to it. I can think of at least 3-4 uses which I would argue a keep strongly, but I'm not going to mention them for BEANS reasons. I'll reserve judgement. WormTT · (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather wait for the consensus result than leaving my keep vote. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? This supposedly inappropriate ban proposal gained a strong consensus, was implemented, and expired some time ago. You seemed at one point to understand why it happened and to be responding to the efforts to guide you, but this remark gives me grave doubts as to whether you have learned anything at all from the experience. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't one of the 3-4 reasons. Delete WormTT · (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that line of argument is typical of the grasping-at-straws type of nonsense that experience has taught me to expect from this user. . This discussion is not about whether the ban was correct or not or the finer points of Wikipedia's license. It is about the fact that PC apparently made this copy of a discussion in userspace for the purpose of re-arguing a long decided issue. That he continues to make such nonsensical arguments to defend and has apparently not taken the time to try and understand the reasons for the nomination does him more harm than good. If I thought he would learn anything from it I would be tempted to open a user RFC to hash some of this out, but with responses like that I can't see any hope for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be best to be absolutely clear about this: Porchcorpter, if this discussion ends with the page being deleted, it does not mean that the original ban discussion may be deleted from the AN/I archives. The existence of the original text is not under discussion here, only the copy of it in your userspace. --bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates POLEMIC. Wikipedia does not provide free web hosting for people to add commentary contradicting outcomes of community discussions. The page does not even claim to be an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I know Wikipedia is not a webhost, and I perfectly accept it's an encyclopedia. And I DO NOT own any page in my userspace. Could you explain how this page comes under webhost? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain a legitimate reason to keep this subpage? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You have yet to explain why you feel the need to privately argue with a closed discussion from March. You challenged the arguments for topic banning you at the time, but a strong consensus that a topic ban was the right move developed. You served out the ban and worked with a mentor, as advised in my initial ban proposal. Instead of trying to wiki-lawyer about it, perhaps you could answer this:What possible purpose is served by this page? Ever heard of WP:STICK? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. I'm very happy to blank the page. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many !votes here for deletion, not merely blanking the page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking is similar to deleting. The closure was correct. Besides that I see no point in continuing this MFD after I blanked the page. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closure that you performed was correct according to you? Interesting. I also find it interesting that you requested deletion of one of the other subpages per U1, but blanked this one. Blanking is indeed similar to deleting, and since no one here has !voted that the subpage should be blanked, it should not only be blanked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Blanking is indeed similar to deleting, and since no one here has !voted that the subpage should be blanked, it should not only be blanked." confuses me (where you're saying that blanking is similar to deleting, but it should not be blanked because people !voted it to be deleted not blanked). Anyways, I'm more than happy to take this to DRV. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, no? DRV isn't for MfDs and you shouldn't have attempted to close this in the first place. And I was going to say that blanking is similar, but it is still not deletion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DRV most certainly does apply to MFDs. What DRV is for is "disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." Where did you see that DRVs don't apply to MFDs? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for an uninvolved editor to close this properly before worrying about DRV, shall we? 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep alright. Good idea 28bytes. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is my fault since I closed the other one. Of course the critical difference there was that the other page had already been deleted per user request, making the closure merely a matter of procedure requiring no judgement. If you don't care if the page is blanked, never to be restored, why do you object to deletion? You still have not even tried to explain what the purpose of this page is despite being asked several times. If it isn't what almost everyone here seems to think it is, now would be the time to clarify that, instead of being evasive about it. Or, as I suggested on your talk page, you could just take the high road and slap {{db-u1}} on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user page guidelines states: "You can freely blank any pages in your user space yourself (other than the few items that must not be removed) and request the deletion of your user page or subpages that have not had other significant contributors (by adding {{db-user}} to the top of the page). Alternatively, you might consider simply making the page redirect to your user page." (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now note what the MFD template says on that subpage: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. Why are you so fervently against the deletion of this subpage? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even your mentor now agrees with the deletion proposal. Because of your responses here, I might add. You may want to consider the possibility that all of us have a point. You may also want to consider the possibility that the attitude you are exhibiting right now is the same one that has caused you problems in the past. You claim to have matured so very much in the last few months but you still can't admit you have made a mistake even when it has been explained to you repeatedly. Part of being mature is to be able to admit when you are wrong. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to admit to and learn from one's mistakes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've struck of some comments. But note that when I created this page, I had no intentions of putting remarks of comments in the ban proposal, I was only intending to make a copy of it in my userspace. Hopefully striking out the comments satisfies your point that I am not learning from my mistakes. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 01:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so fervently against the deletion of this subpage? Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if it is deleted. If you'll can't stand this page, go ahead and delete it. However, I still wish to retain a copy of the ban proposal in my userspace. Because I still can copy this content to another wiki, where it won't be subjected to G4. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it would just be a copyright violation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright? How? (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 04:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think you will never answer this question, but again, why? What is to be accomplished by having a copy of this? If you want to look at it all you have to do is go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive679, which you already knew because you linked to it earlier in this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a quicker reference and shortcut. But for now I don't need a quicker reference or shortcut to the ban proposal. So okay, I will go to the proposal via the archive. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we are perfectly clear, are you now saying that you are dropping your objections to this deletion? If so, it would expedite matters greatly if you could simply tag the page with {{db-user}}. It can then be speedy deleted as nobody else here has argued to keep it, and this discussion can be closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Porchcorpter and project related. Userspace is well used for a user's reflective purposes. Keeping the page as a redirected to User:Porchcorpter is perfectly reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And perfectly pointless. The only reason to convert it to a redirect is.... wait.....looking for it....gotta be here somewhere...no there's no reason that makes any sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
“Pointless” is a bad reason to interfere with someone else’s userspace. It may serve some obscure point to him. Its value may lie in waiting for the day when he can move on. I’m not sure what you are trying to do to or for this user, but forcefully deleing this page against his wishes I don’t see as a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Converting it to a redirect with the history intact is not the same thing as deleting it. Sometimes that distinction is not important. This time I believe it is because some of the content of that page violates a specific portion of our userpage policy, and not in a vague way, in a very obvious way. There is no argument for converting it to a redirect that is based on any logical line of reasoning. Actually I haven't seen any reason at all presented by the page's creator other than "that's what I want." It's nonsensical to redirect a subpage to a user talk page. Especially when the content of the now redirected page was never on the user's talk page to begin with. It would make more sense to delete the page and re-create it as a redirect to the original text in the ANI archives. Not a lot of sense, just more. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what there specifically violates our userpage rules? I don’t see the unallowed grievance list against specific editors. Other things might make more sense, but I don’t feel that it is our job to decide and impose what we think makes best sense. I think that as long as the page does not acutely misrepresent, and doesn’t include personal attacks, we shouldn’t force him. On the other hand, I advise him to move it all off-line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guidelines are WP:UP#POLEMIC and the second paragraph of Wikipedia:User pages#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no problem keeping a copy of old discussions about you in your user space. If this deleted, I suggest to Porchcopter to just provide a link to the archived discussion. Buddy431 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless we wish to delete material which is archived from a noticeboard as well <g> it seems pointless to delete it here. If he interpolated comments about editors - that would be different, but that does not appear to be the case at hand. Collect (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not serve any purpose to improve the encyclopedia. A link to the original discussion (which will not be deleted under any circumstances) is sufficient if anyone wants to rehash it in the future (however useless that might be).  Frank  |  talk  20:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC—see the diff provided by Eagles247 (talk · contribs) and the diff provided by Beeblebrox (talk · contribs). Delete also per Wikipedia:User pages#Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages, which states:

    Userspace is also not a substitute for project space (Wikipedia:...), nor should a userspace page be used as primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or established concept.

    The documentation for a topic ban belongs not in Porchcorpter (talk · contribs)'s userspace but at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive679#Topic bans for Porchcrop. That the user is adding rebuttals to the "support topic ban" votes months after the topic ban expired strengthens the already cogent reasons for deletion.

    The comment by the user here—that the topic ban discussion would have to be deleted if this page were deleted—is completely without merit. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Since seven days of this MFD has passed and no one has yet closed it. Manually deleting. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:27, 11 December 2011 (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:Porchcorpter/Ban_proposal&oldid=1142500974"