Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The owner of all
- 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: Speedied. Attack page (i.e., a page that disparages or harasses another person and serves no other purpose; CSD G10). Based on the sequence of events, yesterday's addition to this page is clearly a nasty reference to a specific other editor's leaving the project. To the extent the page-owner denies that this was the intended meaning, I do not believe him. This type of "gravedancing" is a form of trolling and is disallowed. Although only a portion of the page is involved, deletion rather than reversion is required because the page-owner restored the attacking comment after it was removed previously; however, there is no objection to restoring the preexisting portion of the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
User:The owner of all[edit]
TOA recently added a painfully blatant bit of WP:GRAVEDANCING to their userpage celebrating the retirement of MjolnirPants, against whom they had pursued a vendetta for months. There is no other way to read their invocation of "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead", especially given that they have since attempted to tag OhForFuqsSake as a sock of MP, despite instructions at the relevant SPI to not do so
When Tryptofish inquired with TOA as to the meaning of this reference, they replied, I also have the right of privacy such that I am not required to explain events in my private life in order to satisfy your (and/or the unspecified "others") desire for information.
They're right. They're not required to explain themself. Likewise none of us is required to treat WP:AGF as a suicide pact and suffer such trolling. As TOA is apparently unwilling to remove the content, we should mandate its removal as a gravedancing WP:POLEMIC. Honestly I think this is borderline WP:G10. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Where is the SPI that contains an "instruction to not do so"? I apologize if it exists and I didn't see it. I only saw the ANI thread which does not contain any such instruction. 20:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
- @The owner of all: That would be this SPI. Its not an instruction to not tag the account, but as a CU I would have added tags when I made the block if I thought it was required. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I concede that my edit in that case was incorrect. However I still assert that it is unrelated to my userspace content. 20:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
- Comment. I agree with Tamzin that this was a deeply objectionable act of gravedancing, but I'm ambivalent about whether or not userpage deletion is the correct way to deal with it. As it happens, I was pinged here just as I was about to start an ANI complaint about the behavior, because it clearly is not something that we should allow. Seeing this, I am going to revert the gravedancing material, and see what that elicits. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I considered reverting myself, but didn't want to overstep since you'd already commented on the matter without reverting. Given that you've done that, I'm fine to withdraw this, unless you have any objection. I can re-open it if they revert you. If you do file at ANI, please do ping me. This goes well beyond one userpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, guess that's moot, as they've now reverted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- What are you referring to when you say "this goes well beyond one userpage"? 21:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
- Well, guess that's moot, as they've now reverted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I considered reverting myself, but didn't want to overstep since you'd already commented on the matter without reverting. Given that you've done that, I'm fine to withdraw this, unless you have any objection. I can re-open it if they revert you. If you do file at ANI, please do ping me. This goes well beyond one userpage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above assertions are incorrect. One should not assume that my user page is a reference to MPants, especially when most of my editing of articles has been to pages on which I do not interact with MPants.
The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants.
And as I have explained that the quote is not in reference to MPants, it should be permitted to remain on my user page.The quote below, clearly explains that I don't support the use of the quote "ding dong the witch is dead" in reference to actual deaths, so one would think that I also wouldn't apply it to the retirement of an editor from Wikipedia.20:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️ - Comment. Yes its gravedancing, but the nomination of deletion of an entire user page is pointy and escalatory - this would have been the more obvious and least dramatic thing to do. Why can't we seriously go and do something more constructive? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said to Tryptofish, I almost did that (in fact had the revert and talkpage note both drafted), but decided against it in deference to the fact that Tryptofish had engaged with the matter without reverting. Furthermore, the gravedancing material is just shy of 50% of the userpage. Given that TOA promptly reverted Tryptofish, I think I was right to take this here. Anything else would have just been more drama. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's unfair to Tamzin to find fault with opening this MfD, as it was done in good faith. As much as I agree that we should stop doing dramatic stuff, it was the gravedancing that was the drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- My disagreement is with it being the first port of call instead of asking the user to remove it, or doing as you did. I have little doubt it was done in good faith, I find Tamzin consistently acts with the betterment of the project in mind, but I must ask where does responding to drama with more drama end? It ends, as always, at WP:AN/I, and that is exhausting for everyone. You're welcome to continue to discuss this on my talk page if you wish. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's unfair to Tamzin to find fault with opening this MfD, as it was done in good faith. As much as I agree that we should stop doing dramatic stuff, it was the gravedancing that was the drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said to Tryptofish, I almost did that (in fact had the revert and talkpage note both drafted), but decided against it in deference to the fact that Tryptofish had engaged with the matter without reverting. Furthermore, the gravedancing material is just shy of 50% of the userpage. Given that TOA promptly reverted Tryptofish, I think I was right to take this here. Anything else would have just been more drama. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
For the record I only reverted it because the edit was done by Tryptofish and they have a history of disputing my edits. If the edit reflected a community consensus then I would treat it differently. 20:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
- 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.