Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Redvers/Say no to Commons


 * 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The result of the debate was speedy keep - no plausible arguments have been given for deletion that have not been withdrawn. Daniel (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Redvers/Say no to Commons
I thought hard about whether I should nominate this...however, Redvers has been asked more than once, by Lar and Giggy for example, to explain the reasons for the criticism and has not addressed the requests. I think an essay that describes the editors of a sister project (many of whom are editors here, including me) as "officious jerks" and saying they can "fuck that" is fundamentally disruptive, especially coming from an administrator. Contrary opinions welcome. Kelly hi! 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, because of my sincere respect for Lar's judgment, below. But, as Johnny 5 would say, "Need input!". I'd love to help fix whatever the problem is, rather than be considered a POINTy disruptionist. Kelly hi! 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Disruptive essay. Possible G10? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The commentary on the talk page is not promising. Agree with TPH at this stage, but happy to reconsider based on new evidence. —Giggy 01:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Kelly, I know you, Lar, and Giggy are passionate about Commons, but there are people who feel differently. While this is not the most constructive diatribe, I still think Redvers should be permitted to say it. It's his userspace and we should give him a wide lattitude in that respect. He's not really causing any harm. Note, I would strongly urge against a speedy, since it is likely that Redvers would just undelete it. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree, normally, if the essay dealt with some kind of insoluble problem or culture. But the three of us mentioned above have all asked Redvers for some kind of example, so we could help fix whatever the problem is, and that's gone unanswered. So basically I think this is non-constructive disruption at this point. But it's just my opinion, and I know that you know I respect yours. :) Best regards - Kelly  hi! 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just because an essay delivers a message that we may not want to hear (Apparently as an Admin/ 'crat/Checkuser/Oversighter on commons, I may be one of the biggest "officious jerks" there) or that we may not agree with is no reason to delete a user essay. Yes I hope that Redvers chooses to engage, and tell those asking what the issues are, with some examples, so that we can dig in and improve (it's a wiki, improving as we go is what we are supposed to do) and yes, I wish he'd be a bit less sharp elbowed in his comments on the talk page, but I think there is merit in this essay. If in future no answers are forthcoming, then perhaps. But it's been less than a month. Far less important things often take longer. Userspace belongs to the community, after all, so if the essay and talk deteriorate, if there is no sign of any constructive engagement, let's revisit. But keep it at least for now. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 4 July 2008 (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.