Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Personal attack warning

 __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 speedy deleted per user request. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Porchcorpter/Personal attack warning


More userspace weirdness from this problematic user. This time, he at least gave a clear indication of what the page was for: ''I will copy this entire thread as a warning to anyone that gives me personal attacks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)''. So, apparently he intends to use the arguments copied here from some other forum as his own personal warning to those he feels are attacking him, having added this somewhat nonsensical statement to the end to indicate the purpose. Makes little to no sense, and I don't believe it to be an appropriate use of user space. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * delete What part of "facilitating interaction and sharing between users" is this page aiding? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even your diff is linked here btw. . (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep  I'm neutral on this - I don't see that it's doing any harm. It seems clear to me that Porchcorpter sees this as evidence that the comments made about him in the RfAs could be seen as personal attacks, which seems reasonable. Of course, we let people get away with it at RfA, because they are submitting themselves to it, but that's not the point. I think this could be deleted and replaced with a link for Porchcorpter's reference which looks something like "this" in case he needs to be reminded, but I don't think there's any reason that anyone but Porchcorpter should be having to do that. It's effectively an archive of one thread - I don't see the issue.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - If only for Porchcorpter's own good.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That one I won't disagree with   WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yet another bizarre piece of behaviour from this editor. I'm afraid Worm's "weak keep" is missing the point: it's not just "an archive of one thread": it's an archive of one thread which is kept for the sole purpose of copying it to the talk pages of other users who Porchcorpter thinks have made personal attacks, and for that purpose it is totally inappropriate. Posting this discussion relating to talk pages of users not involved in it, simply because they have made what Porchcorpter thinks they have made personal attacks, would serve no useful purpose whatsoever, and might well confuse and bewilder editors, particularly inexperienced editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * James makes a good point, as does Eagles. It seems to me that it has been well established that PC does not have the necessary maturity and judgement to differentiate between personal attacks and valid criticism, or the difference between RFA and the rest of the project. Not to put too fine a point on it, but as recently as four days ago he still seemed unable to comprehend the meaning of fairly common words and how the applied to him. If a user can't even grasp it when they are being praised, it's not a good idea for them to be creating customized warnings that call for carefully considered judgement on their part. There is very little chance this page will ever be helpful to anyone, and a good chance it will get Porch into trouble down the line. Best for all involved to be rid of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I cannot argue that there's little chance that it will be helpful and more chance that it will get Porchcorpter into trouble. If we'd had a discussion on his talk page, I'd recommend he delete it. I don't see that it's so problematic that we should be deleting it for him.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 22:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because experience with him has shown that he won't do it. His remarks at these MFDs defending the various weird pages in his userspace tend to support that position, like the one directly below. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Like my comment at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal, Wikipedia has free content. I intend to use this as a template to substitute. It is meant to be a personal attack warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porchcorpter (talk • contribs)
 * Except that it's not a template. It's an old discussion. Using it as though it is a proper warning template is more likely to result in confusing the recipient than to resolve the situation. It's unfortunate that after all this time and all the help you have been given you are apparently unable to comprehend that simple distinction. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see that as a valid reason for this page - it's not appropriate for a personal attack warning as it would not be discussing that hypothetical personal attack.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 23:42, 2 December 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.