Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to gray goo (2nd nomination)

 __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:  keep. ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 03:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to gray goo
– (View MfD) This is a hit list compiled by now-blocked user.

As explained in the previous MfD, this is a collection of edits that is holding a grudge over.

WP:POLEMIC is clear on this: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

Other than deleting the page in July of 2018 to avoid scrutiny during an ANI discussion and recreating it in January of 2019‎ after the attention was off him, Ihardlythinkso has not edited this page since June of 2017‎ so it clearly will not be imminently used.

This page is used by Ihardlythinkso to support the personal attacks that he has been blocked for again and again. -- Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. This seems like a "to-do" list.  It's all chess-related articles.  They're all terribly old, probably most or all of them are obsolete (I sampled a few).  I don't know why he wouldn't have gotten rid of them by now, but, really, what do I care?  I don't normally look into how other people manage their to-do lists.  Bruce leverett (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this was on the userpage of any other user I would agree. But look at . This toxic user had already caused me (and most likely some number of other users) to completely avoid any pages related to chess just to avoid the personal attacks and battlefield mentality, but that wasn't enough for him; he had to follow me around and insult me on unrelated pages. After two and a half years it isn't a "to do list". Seeing him delete the page when he ANI was looking at his behavior and then quietly recreate it seven months later, all without updating the list or improving the pages on it, it became clear that it was a way for him to keep track of who was on his shit list so he can insult them. This is not a good-faith contributor. He is a serial abuser, In my opinion, the arguments for deletion during the last RfC still apply and his subsequent behavior have made them stronger. -Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I was going to stay out of this, but after Guy's most recent post, and on reflection, this nomination is grave dancing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Not my vendetta either. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't strike me as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks vindictive and unnecessary. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fits the hit list definition. These are from 2014-2017, so the editor has had plenty of time to fix these, if that was actually the purpose of the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I sympathise with Guy, honestly, I do, and I understand the heightened level of concern he may have with IHTS's pages (i.e. if it's gravedancing then unintentionally so). But I honestly can't see how a list of articles—however old—constitutes a hitlist. A list of articles is not the same as evidence for AN/I which is what the nomination is premised on.  ——  SN  54129  14:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure I know (nor do I want to) about the circumstances behind this page. As it stands now, though, I see no encyclopedic purpose for this page and no arguement to the effect it is otherwise. It certainly is no draft article, and I don't think it is a to-do list. It doesn't have to be WP:POLEMIC for it to be worth deleting. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Side note: This page wasn't transcluded properly, but this has now been done. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:15, 18 November 2019 (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.