Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ColonelS

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:ColonelS


Userspace improperly employed to host five year old personal attacks against me, user hasn't edited since 2006 Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Delete, oppose blanking WP:UP states: The first bullet point notes that statements "attacking or vilifying" other editors are not tolerated. The nominated page accuses the nominator of being a "Liberal POV pusher administrator, stalks conservatives", a "S-T-A-L-K-E-R". This is wholly inappropriate and should have been deleted five years ago. Harassment states: Some Wikipedians have been harassed and stalked in real life. This is clearly not the case here. To accuse Gamaliel of harassment and stalking is highly inappropriate. The second bullet point of WP:UP#POLEMIC notes that negative material about other users must be used in a "timely manner". has not edited since 1 March 2006. It is reasonable to assume that the collation of this material is not for preparation in the dispute resolution process. I oppose blanking of this offensive material per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Because this material is outdated and offensive, and because it violates WP:UP, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not simply blank the page?    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 17:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be improper for me to blank the page on my own. I have no objection to blanking instead of deleting if consensus deems the latter inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-- or blank, if you want. There's really no point in keeping this. --  E♴  (talk)  18:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - no objection to User:Gamaliel blanking, but these are not personal attacks. I am sure they are unreasonable, but they are objections to admin actions that also accuse you of being a wiki-stalker (which admins are capable) and liberal - which is of little relevance, used for emotion, but hopefully not considered a personal attack.  Complaints about admin actions should never be deleted; if for no other reason than it gives the appearance that we are protecting our own.  If the pages are blanked, they should include an edit summary referencing these discussions.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since these are subpages this discussion should reference the other one: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:ColonelS.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't record perceived flaws, it records a complaint about the admin's admin actions, and those are different. It clearly does not allege real life stalking or legally defined harassment, it provides diffs (one of which is, ironically, to a very long list of users the admin was tracking and had problems with - long since removed but it certainly doesn't support deletion on the basis of the improper use of userspace).  It is absolutely silly to think that an admin would be "distressed" by this.  Gamaliel is an admin for god's sake and needs to have a tough skin and we need to allow complaints against us, even irrational ones, to stay where everyone can see them, at least in a page history.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ColonelS' complaint to the admin noticeboard and the responses from myself and others are preserved permanently in the archives of that noticeboard, as they should be. That is the proper forum for this.  Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To preserve unfounded, ancient grievances on a user page is unacceptable. That such content is already preserved on the administrators' noticeboard is enough. There is no reason to preserve a page whose sole purpose is to attack Gamaliel. db-attack and the policy Attack page apply to this page. Cunard (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Grievances about others editors should be live only for a very limited time in preparation for a RFC/U or similar. Even if in good faith, the recording of perceived flaws is something so much more likely to be a net negative than anything else.  If you must record, do it offsite.  No opposition to blanking.  There is nothing especially offensive, and there are records elsewhere. Such things, especially where old and in the userspace of an inactive editor, should be boldly blanked on sight.  Come here to MfD if reverted or otherwise opposed.  Delete, now that we are here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is not speediable as G10. WP:ATTACK does not apply.  Criticism of the actions of an editor on the project do not fall under G10 because they serve the purpose of maintaining transparency of process and allowing validation of any editors perspective.  If the criticism were personal, or going beyond the bounds of the project, then that would be different, but this is not the case here.  However, I fully support WP:UP#POLEMIC, which I helped write.  Criticism of a specific editor, if negative, should not be maintained beyond the short term when the focus of the criticism is current.  Such non-current criticisms should be removed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have declined a G10 attack page speedy on this, because it is (a) over four years old, so a few more days won't hurt, (b) mild compared the abuse admins routinely get, and (c) already under discussion here, with no unanimity to delete. But my view is much the same as SmokeyJoe's - blanking would have been OK, but now we're here let's get rid of it. It certainly does no good. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Blank - It doesn't need to be on display, but I think that totally deleting it would be a bit much.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My opposition to blanking is rooted in the belief that user pages should not be used to host ancient grievances. The dispute between and  is already archived in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive77; there is no reason to preserve the page history of an attack page. Cunard (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointing to the archive defeats what I though was Gamaliel's intent, which was to move on from this long past event. How many people have now read what Gamaliel objected to?  It would be so much simpler and more discrete to blank such things on discovery.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assure you I will just blank it next time. :D I don't feel any need to move on, I just don't want a context-free attack preserved permanently like that.  The new readers are I assume mostly editors here, whom I'm sure will judge the incident in the appropriate context.  Gamaliel (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One could even add a comment with a link to the contextual/background matter first, then blank the page, thereby getting the link into history.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. per Cunard. -- Klein zach  02:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - This is a blatant violation of WP:NPA in addition to WP:UP. If this had been added to the talk page of the nominator, it would have been quickly reverted and the person adding the content warned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, in fact if I had been watching and it happened, I would have done it. But reverted and warned leaves the material in history. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - I have blanked the page (except for the MfD tag). I'm surprised it stayed up so long.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.