Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ohconfucius/WikiDiva Awards


 * 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 deleted, user request. –Juliancolton Talk  ·  Review  13:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/WikiDiva Awards
This page serves no useful purpose and will cause needless Wiki-drama, especially given the past incivility of the owner of this page. -- Tennis expert (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Only serves to feed the flames. –Juliancolton Talk  ·  Review  21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I've half a mind to speedy delete this as an attack page. This isn't at all a laugh-with-us type page such as WP:EFD. – xeno  ( talk ) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's humorous, not an attack page. When it is populated with quite a few examples, people will have a smile and move on. I see this in the vein of movie production bloopers. Perhaps a notice at the top making explicit the humorous intent of the page is required. Tony   (talk)  04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the nominator found it humorous. I think the nominator considered it to be an attack. If some people think its humorous to attack other people, then they should congregate somewhere else. – xeno  ( talk ) 12:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - with extreme prejudice. Not acceptable and only divisive. // roux   00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not like WP:EFD at all, appears to be designed to hold editors up to ridicule. Attack page. Creator has a history of sarcastic and belittling comments directed toward other editors. Franamax (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course - how come I'm not surprised this has been put up for deletion ? As I tagged the article, it is under construction and is far from complete. The purpose of this page is to provide amusement for wikipedia editors, who will be free to nominate examples of 'Divaness' (sic) with few limitations. We can have a page on WP:LAME and WP:BJAODN, there is every reason not to delete this. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LAME doesn't single out specific editors for attack. // roux   02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Names have now been removed to protect the innocent. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * False. Take a look at the footnotes.  Tennis expert (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)  Are you also being dishonest about who nominated the only quotation currently on your disruptive subpage?  The user you're blaming for that quotation shows nothing on his user contribution history about this.  Wonder why?  Tennis expert (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohc, I assume then that I'm free to add whatever examples of divaness I wish onto the page? Like, say, maybe yourself? Or are you the sole arbiter of divaness? Franamax (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – I would have no problem if I appeared on these pages, because – for once – they allow us to take negativity out of context and make us see it in a humorous light. There's not enough of this on WP, and rather than causing "needless" drama, I think it's more likely to be a good thing for community harmony. Let people smile and sit back and go on with their lives. Tony   (talk)  02:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or they could be viewed as a personal attack, which seems far more likely to me. –Juliancolton Talk  ·  Review  02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: As I am only really interested in the quotes themselves, and also to comply with WP:V, names have been removed to protect the innocent. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * False. Take a look at the footnotes.  Tennis expert (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * '''See WP:UP. Tennis expert (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, with reservations - I appreciate the humorous aspects of Wikipedia and would like to see this page stay, IF the anonymity of posters is kept. Any identifiers should be removed, as these are much more capable of being attacks and personal in nature. Alonsornunez  Comments  03:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing, the author themself would recognize their post. And if it's not linked, how do you know it's real? This is not the same thing as WP:LAME, where the discussion is being shown as humorous and is linked to in full context. Also not the same as EFD, which is largely editors nominating themself or nominating others for evidently frivolous reasons. Instead, it's a page for holding up the editor as a person for ridicule (humour if you will, if you derive pleasure from laughing at others' edits presented sans context). It's in fact spillover from an arbitration case resulting from a lengthy debate on date-delinking where one side seems to stop at nothing to ridicule and belittle their opponents. It's not funny, it's just mean. Franamax (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Now don't get me wrong, I hate you all, but this isn't going to help us play nicely together. Singling out individual editors is the fastest way to destroy harmony I can think of.  And I think what we all want is more great editors feeling singled out and leaving.  Flying  Toaster  04:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Humour is great, this is not. This page does nothing to ease tensions, and is in fact guaranteed to perpetuate bad feelings. --Ckatz chat spy  04:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does this page have the potential to be filled with humorous content? Yes. Are people capable of reacting well to receiving a WikiDiva Award? Not likely... (if they were capable, then they wouldn't be divas, now would they?) Ckatz is correct that, regardless of intent, this page has the potential to perpetuate tensions and ill will. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Observation. This page is a joke only in the sense that it is the latest chapter of unconstructive Wikipedia disruption by Ohconfucius.  Have a look at the history of this page and his history of incivility, unconstructive behavior, and block evasion (sockpuppetry). The sooner this page is deleted, the better.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the page hasn't got any nominations yet, there's no way we can be certain how people will react to receiving such a nomination. Let's not be paranoid and wait for actual evidence to surface before deleting it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's factually incorrect. I have been nominated, and I have strenuously objected because it is insulting and part of his longstanding pattern of incivility towards myself.  But Ohconfucius keeps re-adding the quotation and then lies to everyone when he says that he has "removed" all identifying information to "protect the innocent".  All he has done is hide that information.  He also has lied about who nominated that quotation to appear on the page.  No one nominated it - the nomination was a figment of Ohconfucius's imagination and a cover-up of his own decision to be insulting (repeatedly) to me.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not delete, no need to suppress a bad project idea, but blank, or blank and protect if subsequently necessary so as to clearly inform that this page is not OK. As humour, it is humour in bad taste.  We have WP:TROUT and WP:STOCKS, but we don't want too many of these things.  This one is too provovative.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand why blanking and protecting is better than deleting? If it were simply blanked the offensive material would still be accessible in the history. – xeno  ( talk ) 12:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:NPA. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep without referencing In reality, how much we enjoy knowing annual recipients of Golden Raspberry Award. This "user page" is very humorous in this context and of course not an attack page. I'm somewhat surprised by this sharp contrast with comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MZMcBride/Don't be a whiny bitch. In fact, Wikipedia has quite many Wiki Divas who desperately crave "Wiki love" and "Wiki attention" with their grand diva shows. I don't see any difference between "winny bitches" and "Wiki divas". In the case, the subpage of MZMcBride was just deleted by the owner voluntarily, so as long as Ohconfucius wants to keep it, then keep it as not directly referring to pertinent users for courtesy. --Caspian blue 12:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So by the same token then Caspian, you're OK with me trawling through your own edits and deciding which ones should be posted here? Franamax (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't I say that "Keep without referencing"...for courtesy? I want you to re-read my comment :D --Caspian blue 13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, more poor behavior from a participant in the Date delinking arbitration. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:26, 26 March 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.