Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drolz09




 * 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 There seems to be somewhat of a consensus here to delete these pages. The arguements for delete which cite WP:UP and other policies seem compelling. The perception that the material had the sole purpose of recording the faults of another editor, as well as the general divisive nature of the content of the userpages in general, seemed compelling arguements presented here. If Drolz09 feels the need to keep this information handy, for his own use, he can do so on a Word document on his private computer, or elsewhere where it does not act to attack or insult or otherwise make other editors uncomfortable. Drolz09 is free to create a new userpage which is not divisive and which complies with Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration and collegiality. Jayron  32  18:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Drolz09
Also up for deletion:


 * User:Drolz09/Quotations
 * User:Drolz09/Subpage related to ClimateGate interactions

Userpage is being used to attack another user, calling them a liar. (diff of strike-through)I was wrong, it isn't calling out a user, but quoting them. Still, the userspace is not for stuff like this. This may be a borderline case, so I'm sending it here. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas has been engaged in a vendetta against me that has involved threats and personal attacks. My userpage was prepared with the eventuality of his pursuing formal action against me in mind. I have nonetheless avoided all reference to him on the page once he objected. Given the number of times he has invoked various wikipedia policies against me (which, upon my inspection, were manipulative and unwarranted) I am disinclined to delete my talk page based on his demand. There is nothing on my user page which could be construed to imply that anyone is a liar, let alone a particular individual. Drolz (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling a user purposely deceptive is the same as calling them a liar.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As is calling them dishonest. You also insult them by calling them disruptive.  If you have a problem with their behavior, take it to ANI, posting an attack page will not help you.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 12:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are all things he said about me. It's not an attack page. Drolz (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And how are users who are other than you to know this?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 12:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no way that page can be construed to be an attack on anyone. The person who says he's being attacked is not named on the page, or implicated in any way. Drolz (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's how you feel, but when you make quite a few statements, obviously addressing -someone-, it will be taken as an attack page. Maybe you should add a note, with diffs, so users know they are quotes and not slanderings.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it solve the problem if I cited the quotations? Drolz (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added citations to clarify the nature of the statements. I hope this helps. Drolz (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Once deleted, the editor can place neutral commentary on a subpage if they wish - however, the userpage is provided to enable the community to interact with the account and is not space intended for notes or work in progress (and especially opinions which can be referenced through the page history as being related to another editor). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As no direct mention is made of an editor. Were it a commentary with the name of another edoitor prominently displayed, it would be deletable in my opinion.  Collect (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look again. My name appears directly in every footnote after each selected quote, which in turn was taken out of context from where they first appeared. The original version is still in the edit history and makes the intent quite clear. Viriditas (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative Let's all keep in mind that Drolz is relatively new, under 300 edits, so doesn't yet have the full sense of how this place works. Let's also keep in mind that from the viewpoint of Drolz, attempts to imporve WP have been met with vigorous contention, bordering on hostility. It is easy to understand that such an editor might want to keep a record of certain items, in case there are attempts to ban or block him. I can sympathize with that reaction. I just reread User page and I don't see clear justification for removal of the material. That said, it isn't the type of material I'd expect to find on a user page, but again, someone relatively new is not likely to be completely familiar with the community norms. Is it possible this incident can be simply resolved by suggesting that material such as this belongs on a user subpage, as opposed to the main page? If Drolz agreed, would this incident go away?-- SPhilbrick  T  16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the user page seems like an attack page probably g 10--117.195.133.187 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do those calling the statements attacks appreciate that the statements are not Drolz writing about Viriditas, but Viriditas writing about Drolz? Drolz is documenting attacks leveled at him/her. (I haven't tracked down all of them but I did check the first three)-- SPhilbrick  T  19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty unreasonable to me that Viriditas obviously has no problem posting defamatory comments about me all over Wikipedia, but as soon as I quote a few of those comments on my user page (which he subsequently vandalizes, repeatedly), he thinks administrative punishment is warranted. Drolz (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Sphilbrick's suggestion, I would be happy to move the textual material to a subpage provided Viriditas agrees not to vandalize it or submit it to MfD. Drolz (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolution? (if Viriditas agrees) I've copied the relevant material to a user subpage and begun documenting it per User page suggestions. I did NOT remove the material per MfD instructions. I think we have a satisfactory agreement, although Viriditas should weigh in. If acceptable, the next step would be to remove the material from the user page, and the message, leaving only the link to the subpage. Anyone opposed?-- SPhilbrick  T  22:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I am opposed.  Unless he's compiling an RFC (and he has said nothing of the sort), lists of misdeeds by other editors are not an acceptable use of userspace.  Guettarda (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP. A collection of "misdeeds" by another editor is not an acceptable use for userspace unless it is directly linked to the construction of an RFC.  Guettarda (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank the nominated page and keep the subpage created by Sphilbrick, on the condition that WP:RfC/U or another means of dispute resolution is used. WP:UP #10 very clearly disallows "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." This compilation of factual evidence is therefore acceptable if, and only if, it is being used as a precursor to a RfC/U or to a different means of dispute resolution. If not, this can be perceived as attacking another editor and deletion is warranted. So, Drolz09, are you planning on pursuing dispute resolution? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The pattern seems to be at this point that it is unacceptable because it specifically mentions Viriditas. As you can see in this discussion, I only reinserted that information upon Daedalus's suggestion. As I have also said, this is not an attack page and I will therefore remove the attribution, while noting that these sentences are not directed at any editor, which should be in accordance with
 * "Keep As no direct mention is made of an editor. Were it a commentary with the name of another edoitor prominently displayed, it would be deletable in my opinion.  Collect (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)"
 * this position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drolz09 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Collect was mistaken. The problem isn't that it's about another named editor, the problem is that it's about other editors.  User space isn't for documenting the misdeeds of other editors unless you're actively compiling an RFC.  Guettarda (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm unclear on how the page as it stands can be understood to be "about" anyone, let alone a specific editor. It also does not seem to fall under the category of "documenting misdeeds," as no misdeed is alleged, and given that no diffs are included, it's not even a documentation. Drolz (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Daedalus's original concern was that the sentences could be perceived by other editors as being attacks against someone, but that issue seems to have been resolved. As it stands now, there is nothing on the page that can be construed as an attack on anyone. Drolz (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let me ask this another way - how does this page contribute to the encyclopaedia? Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy seems to offer leeway on that issue, and I really don't think I've exceeded it. If you can offer some suggestions of how I might improve things short of deleting the entire page, I am open to them. Drolz (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz, I believe you misunderstand the purpose of WP, or rather, the specific policy regarding userpage use. The userpage is meant to represent the editor who it belongs to, it is not meant to be a list of misdeeds of another, such lists are prohibited, unless of course the list will be used in a pending rfc against the editor who made the edits. Secondly, although I originally brought this here for the reason listed above, you seemed to have forgotten about the second part of that reasoning: It is a borderline case, a case which I think others should discuss in order to reach a conclusion.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 02:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only question that matters is "how is this being used to improve the encyclopaedia? Guettarda (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well like I said, I've been trying to bring it into compliance with policy. If you have any more suggestions I am open to them. Otherwise I don't know what to do except submit to whatever the conclusion is.  Drolz 09  03:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, hold on. I've got two questions for Drolz09, the answers to which will likely affect my vote.
 * One, does this mean you are not collecting evidence for dispute resolution, such as a RfC/U?
 * And two, if not, then why are you collecting these sentences? What is the purpose of the page?
 * Userpage guidelines grant wide latitude, but not limitless latitude. I think answers to these two questions are necessary if this page is to be kept. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to take any kind of administrative action against anyone. The only reason I have the quotes is because I like them and think they're funny, and I think the way they're arranged with no source or attribution is a fair balance. Like I said I will submit to whatever the decision is.  Drolz 09  03:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Really, who cares? Quoting someone saying silly things isn't really a reason to delete a Wikipedia article, nevermind someone's user page. Macai (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Break

 * Delete I have not considered the "who is right" issue because that is not relevant. The only question is whether a user page featuring "funny" comments made by another user is helpful to the encyclopedia. Since the answer is no, the page should be deleted. We now all know the source of the comments, so blanking the name of the victim of the attack is not a solution. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this standard mean that all user pages which are not overtly helpful to wikipedia would be deleted? I was under the impression that deference to user preference was usually the principle unless the page was obviously harmful.  Drolz 09  08:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blank The original accusation against Drolz09 is false: Drolz09 didn't call Viriditas a liar on his talk page, but simply quoted him. But collecting Viriditas' quotes still may violate the spirit of WP:NOT, unless Drolz09 can show a "very good reason" for it besides his originally intended preparation for a dispute which he seems to have been intimidated out of as an editor inexperienced with WP's rules.  Drolz09 should be allowed to keep the information he has collected, in case he changes his mind about the dispute, but not on his user page until he actually does intend to go forward with a dispute or shows some other very good reason.   As for helping the encyclopedia, anything that improves Viriditas' behavior as exhibited in the quotes would obviously be helpful to the encyclopedia. Flegelpuss (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Drolz09. By his/her own admission the page is not being used to gather evidence for RfC, neither is it there o "enhance the encyclopedia". Regards. Zunaid●for your great great grand-daughter 07:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused on this standard. Viriditis's own page, for example, would seem to violate it, as it is not enhancing the encyclopedia through any means I can see.  Drolz 09  08:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it is. It is telling other editors general information about Vir, so that they  may better understand/interact with them.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh okay I see what you mean. I've gone ahead and made some improvements to my page in order to fulfill this purpose.  Drolz 09  10:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated Page
I've made some very significant changes to the user page, and I believe that it is now in total compliance with all WP policies. Please have a look and let me know if there is anything I missed.  Drolz 09  10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More deception. You have simply moved the problematic page in question to User:Drolz09/Quotations, and you've linked to it from your user page.  Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a very difficult time believing that a user subpage with unattributed quotations can seriously be considered to be an attack on anyone.  Drolz 09  11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To recap: I asked you several times on the article talk page to stop taking my words out of context and to leave them be. Out of spite, you moved my words to your user page and in a large level 1 heading you wrote, "Amusing Viriditas Quotes".  Again, I asked you to stop, and in reply, you escalated the harassment, changing it slightly to continue the charade, and eventually moving it to a quotation subpage.  None of this has anything to do with building an encyclopedia, and everything to do with harassing me.  You're playing an extremely childish game that I could easily ignore, but I wish to nip it in the bud now, rather than later. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nipping editors "in the bud" does seem to be something of a hobby of yours... What with the stalking of new editors etc. Aside from the fact that to you, "in context" seems to mean "not juxtaposed with other, contradictory statements that I have made," the current situation is in no way using them against your or anything to that effect. The page they are now on has no history of your name on it, for one thing. For another the quotes are absent any construal that could put you in a negative light, even if you were named. I would also note that you show and have shown zero presumption of good faith, despite constantly demanding it of me.  Drolz 09  12:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I have repeatedly asked you to stop taking my words out of context, from thread to thread, and from page to page. Yet, you continue to do it.  That isn't the purpose of a user page. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it does not. Dro, every time someone askes you, you evade the question.  How is this page helping the encyclopedia?  Here, I'll answer for you: It doesn't.  Keeping a list of mis-deeds is not allowed, whether they are quotes or something else.  Secondly, good-faith does not fly here.  Vir asked you to remove it and you refused, over and over and over again.  Good faith does not apply here.  Remove the page.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 12:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that I think the current situation is a fair balance between what I want my user page to be and wikipedia guidelines, which I don't think I'm in contravention of. It's not an attack page, or a compilation of misdeeds. I said before that I would willingly submit to whatever the conclusion of this council is, but the "speedy deletion" seems totally unwarranted.  Drolz 09  13:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quotes of another user, and specifically these quotes, do not put the other user in a good light. That is not what the userspace is for.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 13:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Second of all, no, we can't, as you moved it to a sub-page. This MfD is on your userpage, not that sub-page.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 13:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. In any event it seems clear that my main page is fine now, so it would be nice to have the MfD here taken care of. For the other one I again submit it to the decision.  Drolz 09  13:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So this material is now on two subpages? Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is in total compliance. Time to take it off MfD, please.  Drolz 09  02:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. I asked you to remove the out of context quotes from me that you took from different discussions and placed on your user page.  You've now moved it to User:Drolz09/Quotations and linked to it. Please remove the link and blank the subpage and stop playing games. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the rule is against "attack pages," not "pages that another user doesn't like."  Drolz 09  03:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand Harassment and remove the page. User space is for building the encyclopedia, not for harassing other users.  I asked you to stop quoting me out of context on an article talk page.  You refused, and now you've moved it to user space.  Please stop. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought WP:Harrassment up, Viriditas -- it pretty much a list of the things you have done to me over the past few days:
 * Threats:
 * User Space Harrassment:    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drolz09 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those links show any harassment by me against you. I'm sorry that you feel that way.  In any case, you are always free to remove anything you dislike from your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This doesn't seem like a productive use of user space. Drolz09 should keep the information offline unless he's planning on using the statements in the very foreseeable future.  AniMate   04:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also up for deletion:
In violation of WP:NOT. Neither of these pages have anything to do with improving the encyclopedia, nor is the user seeking any kind of dispute resolution. The userspace is not for things like this, recording of perceived flaws.


 * User:Drolz09/Quotations
 * User:Drolz09/Subpage related to ClimateGate interactions(previous version before user blanked the page)

Please discuss.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted on your talkpage these are not the recordings of perceived flaws. They are not flaws of anyone, nor are they flaws relative to any norm. There is nothing on the page which could indicate that they are flaws, let alone a particular person's flaws.
 * This is a case of one editor, Viriditas, pursuing increasingly greater means of harassment against another user, me. He clearly believes that he has the right to control what I say and do not say, and has said as much while threatening and insulting me repeatedly. He has also deleted comments of mine in talkspace, always using "context" as an excuse, without any grasp of the word's meaning. He also lied to say that I had edited his comments , and falsely accused me of lying . Speciously invokes rules to prevent me from posting . Excuse me if I am not inclined to simply do as this abusive user tells me to.  Drolz  09  04:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There also seems to have been a history of bad faith in this MfD investigation, as the subpage was put up for speedy deletion without any justification, as the result shows .  Drolz  09  04:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And as I told you at your talk page, they are recordings of perceived flaws, as they are directly related to Vir, they could be perceived as uncivil communication, which is different from the norm of civil communication. Secondly your section headings for each quote may be interpreted as comments on the quotes themselves, and therefore, are recordings of perceived flaws.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondly, there was a justification posted. If you are going to cite the events, cite all of them, and not just the ones that support your opinion, such as this justification, which I posted.  I find it hard to believe, that while searching through diffs, you didn't see that.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dae: what section headings? The subpages have none that I know of.  Drolz 09  05:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just looked at the Climategate one for the first time, didn't realize it was formatted like that. I went ahead and blanked it.  Drolz 09  05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep main userpage, but Delete both subpages. The main userpage is now in total compliance with WP:UP, and therefore should not be deleted. However, the controversial material has been moved to not one but two subpages in the creator's userspace, bundled into the nomination above. I submit that these two should be deleted because they violate WP:UP #10, which very clearly disallows "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Obviously the quotes on these pages, while not there attributed to Viriditas, are perceived at the very least by Viriditas as attacking and/or the recording of perceived flaws. While Drolz09 apparently did not intend this as an attack page, that's unimportant; what is important is that Viriditas asked Drolz09 to remove the material and he refused. I suggest that Drolz09 should WP:Don't be inconsiderate. Drolz09's actions regarding this material have been generally inconsiderate, in my opinion. Because he's keeping the material on the page despite Viriditas's requests to remove it, and only because he thinks it's "funny" and not because he's compiling evidence for a RfC/U, deletion is appropriate. Oh, and it might be for the best if Drolz09 and Viriditas avoided interacting with one another for a while, just so things are kept civil. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Essentially the same content as in the original MFD. The same arguments that apply to the original page should, IMO, apply to these pages as well. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep . Really, it's someone's user page. If you can post pornography on your user page, you can post embarrassing comments by other editors. Macai (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * i have struck through "keep" as Macai has already registered a "keep". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As is stated on that sub-page, the user is not posting the porno just to post it, but to document the depth that wikipedia is not censored. Please, no straw man arguments, address the points made, please.  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid keep reason.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So wikipedia doesn't censor bondage porn, but it does censor unattributed quotations, is what you're saying? Or is it that it censors things which certain "established editors" agitate to have censored?  Drolz 09  05:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we have very specific rules, and attack pages are not allowed. Porn is not an attack page, this clearly is, as it targets a specific user.  It would be fine if you posted your opinions on others attacking you, just as long as you never directly quoted them, or referenced them.  However, you directly quoted, making a list of perceived flaws, and that isn't allowed unless you wish to pursue admin intervention.  If you don't like the rules here, then try to change them through discussion on the relevant pages, and really, stop with the strawman arguments.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 05:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you can say "targets a specific user," "directly quoted," etc. when there are no quotes or attributions whatsoever on that page.  Drolz 09  05:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If attack pages are not allowed, we need to get working on deleting Bushism. Also, these "very specific rules" seem to be ever shifting, and ever changing to suit a presupposed conclusion that what Drolz (or anyone else that proposes we have a neutrality in any of the global warming articles) is wrong. Macai (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That page looks borderline to me. It looks like a BLP issue, but it is well sourced.  I'll try to work with you on getting it deleted, even though I agree with the article, but, be fore-warned, you and I are probably going to get much flak for it.  Secondly, no, they aren't.  This mfd has nothing to do with that page, but the specific page that this mfd is about.  Drolz is probably right about his edits on the article you reference, and Vir is most assuredly wrong for her/his incivil comments.  Thirdly, Dro, to answer your question, your page references Vir in that these are direct quotes from him/her, although they were taken out of context, their origin is still her/his fingers.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus, man, I wasn't intending you to actually want to remove it. I just disagree with the logic of removing things on the basis that it pisses someone off, or it makes them look like an idiot. If they said it, then they said it. I'm of the opinion that if it's verifiable, then you can say it. I mean, imagine if Wikipedia had to exclude facts that made people look bad. We'd lose well over a third of the material on individuals in their articles, I speculate. Macai (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * However, it is wrong of you to do as you did. This is a discussion concerning attack pages regarding users, not articles which may be perceived as attack pages.  Two similar, but different topics.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's wrong of me to argue by analogy? Seriously, I'm presenting the perspective that something being insulting or rude does not automatically disqualify it from inclusion on someone's user page, or for that matter, anywhere else. Macai (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia, when you are being insulting to another editor, it does.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 06:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt such a policy is enforced with much veracity. I'm not even sure it exists. Macai (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 07:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Break Again
What if I were to add some other quotations, so that the page couldn't possibly be seen as an attack on a particular person? Would this solve the problem?  Drolz 09  06:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What if you were to remove them, like I originally asked? What is your purpose here?  To harass editors or to build an encyclopedia?  Are there any articles you are currently working on or are you just obsessed with me?  Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obsessed with defending myself in an administrative action you instigated, you mean?  Drolz 09  06:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are clearly obsessed with me. I asked you remove the quotes you took out of context many times now.  Please do so, and get back to writing an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you care so much about these quotes, anyway? Macai (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to do so (get back to writing Wikipedia, that is), if you would only withdraw this frivolous complaint against me. When I start haunting your userspace, and thinking up administrative complaints to make against you, you can accuse me of being obsessed with you. Seems like it's kind of the other way around right now.  Drolz 09  07:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Will you please remove all of the user pages and quotes you have created to "memorialize" me and get back to working on articles?  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, why do you care? This is the Internet. Really, just keep that in mind, and it'll be nearly impossible to get under your skin. Macai (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't "the internet", this is Wikipedia, and user pages aren't used to harass editors. I've asked the user multiple times to remove the out of context quotes intended to ridicule me, and he has refused.  That's why I care. Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that Wikipedia is located in a place other than the Internet? Macai (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "This isn't "the internet", this is Wikipedia." Someone should write this down.  Drolz 09  07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, man. If I quote this on my user page, he might feel inclined to try and get it deleted. Macai (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop changing the subject. I've asked Drolz to remove my quotes from his user subpage (currently linked to his main user page) as they are only designed to harass me.  I should not have to repeat myself. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the real issue here, isn't it? That I haven't just done what you've told me to?  Drolz 09  07:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is a matter of using your Wikipedia user space to harass users. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think the real issue here is one editor (you) trying to force another (me) off of Wikipedia.  Drolz 09  07:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dro, Vir just wants the quotes that they made gone, why is it so hard for you to comply? They obviously find offense in them, and they serve no other purpose than to disrupt WP.  They are now, as many peoples' time is wasted discussing something that you could solve in all of a minute or less.  That aside, I removed the NPA against Vir that use to be here.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 07:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some updates to the page; as you can see, it's not a Viriditas page at all.  Drolz 09  08:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop evading and address the question. However, it is still technically a vir page, as it is primarily quotes from that user.  As said, please stop evading and answer the question, what is achieved with quotes from Vir, other than harassment?—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 08:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I answered this question on my talk page:
 * The quotes give a sense of me to someone who views the page, and as more are added it will be even more useful.
 * Keeping the pages up sends a message to cabalists that they can't just force anyone they don't like off of Wikipedia. I don't give in to threats.  Drolz 09  08:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remove the page(s). We don't use user space to "send messages to cabalists", and I have not tried to force you off this site, rather just the opposite.  I have offered you helpful advice in at least half a dozen instances, and you have ignored all of them.  If you aren't here to help build an encyclopedia, then you shouldn't be using your user space to harass editors who are, and you should only be using your user space for constructive purposes related to promoting user interaction and collaboration. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain to me how my userspace is harassing you? Does it, for example, repeatedly vandalize your user page ?  Drolz 09  08:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I have a user page or subpage devoted to your words? No?  Then, please remove the one you have devoted to my words. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz09, the fact that Viriditas feels harassed by this collection of his quotes that you find funny should be reason enough for you to remove them. No one is trying to force you to leave Wikipedia, and there is no cabal, but right now you are acting rather inconsiderately. Again, I encourage you to read WP:Don't be inconsiderate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Outdent
The user page is now compliant and should be allowed to stay. The climategate subpage has been blanked, I'm presuming that that means the editor agrees with the deletion so it should be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means delete the Climate subpage.  Drolz 09  08:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Drolz09/Quotations is still active and has not been blanked. The user will obviously now create another page to distract away from this one. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a quotation page.  Drolz 09  09:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, quotations from me, that I've asked you to remove because I feel you are harassing me. Please remove the page. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice Drolz09, per your request to "by all means delete the Climate subpage" above, I've tagged it for speedy deletion with db-u1. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with User:Drolz09/Quotations. I guess that I do not understand the nomination.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you take any time to read any of the arguments presented at this AfD?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 13:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I took some time. But I value my time, and don't read all drivel.  I expect a decent nomination, and you didn't give one.  I'm sorry.  MfD is not RfC.  When I search for "quotations", I don't find anything worth worrying about, just pointless ramble.  The quotations do not present any reason to delete.  How they are used may be subject to an editor behavioural review.  For anyone feeling aggrieved, don't react, go elsewhere, and do something useful.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * None of this is drivel. If you are going to use your valuable time to insult those here, then take the time to read what they have to say.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 23:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this to be a horribly disorganised debate. For that, I largely blame the weak nomination.  If you come to MfD to ask for a page to be deleted, be concise and clear and say why.  I have now read it all.  Looking at the quotations page in isolation, I think someone is being oversensitive, and I think debates like this serve no productive purpose.  If someone's userpage offends you, don't read it.  If someone attacks, DefendEachOther.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, the basic issue is that Drolz09 has collected quotations from another editor in a way that that editor perceives as attacking him or documenting perceived flaws. These quotations are not being collected for a dispute resolution process. Per WP:UP, this is an inappropriate use of userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading some comments far below, I see more clearly that this debate is not about the content of the pages per se, but about a users behaviour connected to the content of these pages. This is not the intention of MfD, but given that we are here now, and nowhere else is better (Dispute resolution is too soft), how about: "Block the user until he requests deletion of the subpages".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to Drolz Please, just end this now and remove the material yourself. The existence of this material is obviously detrimental to the project, insofar that it's causing this big row, if you will not willingly remove it and tag the pages for, then I have to officially !vote this MfD close Delete, but I would hope that it would not come to that, and that you will put an end to this. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe's reaction indicates to me that a reasonable person would not consider the page to be an attack page.  Drolz 09  22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just silly. Many "reasonable" people have seen it as an attack page. You cannot just cherry-pick one opinion to hold up as gospel. At least not if you want to be taken seriously. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 22:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to imply that you agree that I am reasonable. That's nice of you.  Thank you.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per LessHeard and the general fact that the page is causing disruption. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 22:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the 'reasonable people' who say this is an attack page also sided with Viriditas in the CRU talkpage dispute. (Although I think Gigs may be an exception to this.) They're not exactly neutral observers.  Drolz 09  23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because they sided with Vir does not make them biased. Your rudeness seems to know no bounds.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 23:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not rude to assume that people might be invested in something they spent time arguing about. Also, it just goes to show that when people look at the page without knowing the background or seeing this page, they can't tell how it could be construed as an attack page. So, if this discussion was copied to the page, you might be right that it would be an attack page. But it just isn't as it stands now.  Drolz 09  23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is rude however, to cherry pick opinions just because you think the others are biased. It's rude to discount everyone else's opinion just because you disagree with them.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 23:47, December 12, 2009
 * That's not why I'm discounting their opinions. As I said, the page only looks like an attack page to people who know that Viriditas claims it is one.  Drolz 09  00:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't claim you know their reasoning, such is a bad-faith accusation, and a personal attack.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming to know their reasoning, and I think you should consider the implications of some of these accusations you are making, re bad faith. All I said was that people who don't read this page don't seem to think there's anything offensive about the Quotations page, which makes a great deal of sense to me, given that there is nothing on it which is facially offensive.  Drolz 09  02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Question What is the purpose of having Viriditas' quotes on the page?  AniMate   00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a page of quotations I like. Lots of people have userpages of things they like.  Drolz 09  02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Why do you like Vir's quotes?—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate a little honesty. You're in conflict with Viriditas and you don't like the quotes. What is the purpose of the page?  AniMate   05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go a little further. I have an older sibling. When we were kids he would pick on me relentlessly, occasionally poking or punching me. When our parents would tell him not to touch me, he'd often hold his hand right in front of my face. When I would complain, he'd argue he wasn't touching me. He was following the letter of their rules, but not the spirit of their rules. You've changed your page to comply with the letter of the rules here, but you're clearly not following the spirit. Just get rid of the page. Playing these kinds of childish games make your position in article space that much weaker.  AniMate   05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like them because they're funny. And I think a better analogy to your brother situation would be if he had a picture in his room that you didn't like, and after you went in yourself and took the picture and hid it several times, he didn't just immediately get rid of it when you demanded that he do so.  Drolz 09  07:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete I like them because they're funny. This isn't a good faith page.  AniMate   10:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The analogy is flawed because your parents don't set the same sort of rules for use of bedroom space. User space should be used for the benefit of the project.  This page isn't being used to improve the encyclopaedia and it generates unnecessary friction.  Guettarda (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, it's been brought to my awareness that the keeping of actual attack pages is actually quite common around here. See User:Raul654/GoRightUser:GoRight/Raul654. Now, these are clearly attack pages (one perhaps a "defense" page), and they are allowed, but my quotations page is not?  Drolz 09  07:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Guetturda... I suppose you believe the more apt analogy is the one in which his brother creates physical barriers to his motion and vision? That's just unreasonable. The one who's under attack here is me; I'm the one who Viriditas is trying to dominate.  Drolz 09  07:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You suppose that, do you? OK.  Nice random guess, but sadly unrelated to what I said.  Guettarda (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz, did you even bother to read the pages that you linked? Did you perchance see what it said at the header of each page?  This is evidence that is going to be used in a pending rfc.  They are not attack pages, and follow policy.  Again, stop with the straw-man arguments by arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  By the way, your page isn't remotely similar to those.  It isn't going to be used for any pending rfc, and is therefore not allowed.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 07:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dae, the pages are nearly a year old. The policy says that Arb needs to be imminent. If maintaining pages for possible RfC in the distant future is allowed, then I have a pretty good case for actually making such a page devoted to Viriditas, considering that he evidently has a history of harassing any editor who admits to a right of center POV, and that it took him less than a day or two to pursue frivolous admin action against me. (And vandalized my userpage, etc.)  Drolz 09  07:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dro, the big difference here is that you already said that you are not pursuing any kind of rfc or arbcom case, and thus, it is not allowed.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Second of all, what Vir did was not vandalism. For what vandalism is, see WP:VAND, or, in a nutshell: Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia.  Removing offensive material is not trying to disrupt the encyclopedia.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 08:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, those pages seem to support the keeping of material potentially useful in potential future disputes. And also like I said, it seems like I have excellent grounds for compiling such a page so as to defend myself against future attacks by Viriditas. Frankly, I believe that such a project is demonstrably helpful to the project, in that the lack of one will embolden Viriditas to pursue frivolous admin attacks against me in the future; "weakness is provocative," as they say. I am not going to show weakness in this proceeding, because backing down before a bully is never productive.  Drolz 09  08:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * However, when asked, you also said that you were not planning on pursuing anything like that, so you have no reason to keep the page there. Secondly, as stated numerous times, you may only compile such a page if you are actively seeking dispute resolution, however, as you yourself said, you are not.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you reconcile that claim with the manifest reality that pages kept for no actual "imminent" arb process are allowed?  Drolz 09  09:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say imminent, I said pending. That aside, if you want to question policy, then bring it up on the relevant talk page.  I don't need to defend WP policy, and you don't need an explanation in order to follow it.  You either do, or you may find yourself blocked, or your page deleted.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have told you, many times, I believe that I am in compliance with Wikipedia policy. I have stated my intention to conform with whatever the result of this proceeding is, but I will not delete the page before its conclusion.  Drolz 09  10:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And I, along with many others, have told you many times that you aren't. What is it going to take to get you to admit you're in the wrong here?—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 10:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz, once again I ask - if you think that you're in compliance with policy, please explain how the page furthers the goal of writing an encyclopaedia. That's the only reason userspace exists.  To facilitate the process of writing an encyclopaedia.  If you can't answer that question, you can't be in compliance with policy.  Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have already recommended deletion. I now see that Drolz09 has refactored and made a subpage, and continues to argue the case. I believe it is important that the community not be satisfied if Drolz09 reconsiders and blanks the material: it must be deleted to emphasize that the explanations presented in this discussion have some weight. There may be some feeling that the refactored pages do not violate the rules, and so should stay. However, that is not how Wikipedia works: this is not a bureaucracy where evading the letter of the law means you are free. Everyone in this discussion knows the origin of the quotations page, and it serves no purpose other than to irritate another user. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly; blanking is insufficient. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Drolz09, you've said multiple times during this discussion that you're keeping these quotes because you like them because you find them funny, although at other times you've said that you are compiling these quotes to use them as ammunition against Viriditas in future disputes. First of all, you should not assume that there will be future disputes, because that would just be setting yourself up for future WP:CIVIL violations. Second, as many users have told you, you cannot compile quotes in this way unless you plan on initiating a dispute resolution process. You've indicated multiple times that you do not plan on initiating such a process, so this is, quite frankly, an illegitimate use of your userspace. Third, as I wrote above, it doesn't matter if you don't like Viriditas; it is inconsiderate to refuse to remove a page of quotations from him that he feels constitutes a personal attack on him. It doesn't matter that you can't see how he would be upset by that – the point is, he does, so the considerate thing for you to do would be to remove the quotes. Instead, you keep insisting that you are not in the wrong, despite many uninvolved editors telling you otherwise. Fourth, your discounting of opinions with which you disagree is most certainly not appreciated. Some of the editors at this MfD may have been involved in the talk page dispute you refer to, but many were not. I know for a fact that I wasn't, so for you to discount my opinion and my citations of policies and guidelines is unfair. And finally, your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are completely invalid for obvious reasons. "Imminent" arbitration vs. "pending" arbitration...who cares? It's all irrelevant, as you've said you are not pursuing any dispute resolution process. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I often don't get along with Viriditas and think I've seen people quoting other wikipedians on their userpage before (not in a positive way) but agree with other comments that if Viriditas doesn't like it the it definitely should go Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is a larger issue, and how the author of the comments feels is not relevant. The point is that the pages in question (and that includes the history of User:Drolz09) contain information that is aimed in exactly the wrong direction; we need civil collegiality, not point scoring. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep userpage as it is now, and delete subpages, specifically User:Drolz09/Quotations, not because it is wrong in itself, but that it is being used for unnecessary escalation of drama, and all that follows is therefore disruptive. Too much Wikilawyering going on here, very little collegiality and too much pushing of boundaries for its own sake, and altogether, it diverts from the purpose we have here. If User:Drolz09 has a point to make about the way things are, he will find a willing audience at Wikipedia Review, where he can carp and make points to his heart's content; otherwise, I don't see this adding to our general mission. Rodhull  andemu  02:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you bolden your delete note?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs' 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep user page, delete subpages per WP:UP. I quote from the examples of things not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." Now stop this silly waste of time. Brilliantine (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Another break

 * Delete, obviously. Anyone who has spent a little while looking at the history of this page can see that it is part of a vendetta against a particular editor. There is no way this can conceivably be seen as part of constructing an encyclopedia. The arguments for "keep" come almost entirely from Drolz and Macai, who has put an enormous amount of effort into defending this. Also SmokeyJoe has not actually said "keep", but puts a good deal of effort into seeming to imply it. A number of editors have wasted a good deal of their time answering their points one by one. However, the arguments for "keep" don't really stand up to analysis. I have no intention of spending my time adding my answers point by point to every comment (they have already been answered), but I should like to add a few responses to a few of the central points.
 * A central point of the "keep" arguments seems to be "Really, who cares?" (quoted from one of Macai's posts, but the same idea comes up repeatedly in different words). Well, reading the above posts makes it clear that many people care. Macai then goes on to say "Quoting someone saying silly things isn't really a reason to delete a Wikipedia article, nevermind someone's user page". However, it is not just quoting silly things, but quoting things out of context with the unambiguous intention of ridiculing and belittling that person. That is known in Wikipedia as an "attack page", and yes it is a reason for deletion: in fact it is a reason for speedy deletion, as WP:CSD indicates.
 * Another one of Macai's "who cares" posts says "Dude, why do you care? This is the Internet. Really, just keep that in mind, and it'll be nearly impossible to get under your skin". This is an example of a very common belief that somehow anything on the internet is exempt from the normal standards of behaviour. There is no basis for such a belief: material published on the internet are subject to laws of libel etc just as much as material published elsewhere. Moreover, even if it were the case that the internet were exempt from rules, there would be nothing to stop Wikipedia from imposing its own rules, and it does so. Wikipedia has its own rules, and "no attack pages" is one of them.
 * So it goes on and on, but none of the arguments that these editors advance makes sense in accordance with Wikipedia policies.
 * A couple of editors have suggested a kind of compromise in the form of deleting subpages, but keeping (or in at least one case keeping and blanking) the main user page. This makes no sense at all: the offensive material would still be there int eh edit history, and, since it is unacceptable by Wikipedia policy, what is the justification for keeping it rather than deleting it? By Wikipedia policy attack pages should be deleted, not kept but hidden behind an edit history. The latest version of this suggestion (from Brilliantine) gives a clear reason for deletion, but does not explain why that reason applies only to subpages, not to the main page.
 * JamesBWatson (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, good point. I don't however feel that things being in the edit history are such a big deal unless they are sufficiently problematic as to warrant oversighting. With the material in question now gone from the main userpage, I don't see this case as being anywhere near that severe. Brilliantine (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is simply unacceptable (see WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS but mostly WP:COMMONSENSE) for a user page to be blanked to save it from deletion when we all know that the purpose of that page is to attack another user. If it is not deleted, the owner will feel their attack is vindicated, and the target will feel unsupported by the community. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just delete the page already. It clearly serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2009 (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.