Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Redvers/Say no to Commons (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per policy (bullet point four). This renomination is too soon. &mdash; Maggot Syn 00:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Redvers/Say no to Commons
Disruptive essay that attacks members of a sister project. User has been asked to provide examples of Commons problems for about a month without reply, despite other activity on Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 20:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redvers last edited on the 4th July. He indicated that he was busy and therefore unable to discuss his problems with Commons . He also asked you to stop editing his talkpage . Despite the fact that he hasn't edited in the last week, you have decided to nominate a page in his userspace for deletion for the second time. I really would recommend in these cases that you wait for another editor to take action - if a page really should be deleted, surely you won't be the only person willing to nominate it for deletion? It's interesting given that to my knowledge we haven't interacted directly, but from seeing your edits around the wiki, I get the feeling you're someone who has trouble letting go of disagreements with other users. I suggest leaving Redvers alone as I'm finding myself agreeing with his view that you are hounding him. WjBscribe 21:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep (if you don't withdraw this as per WJB above). It's only a week since you last nominated this page for deletion - what will have changed in this time? – iride  scent  22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - WJBscribe has made some kinda-sorta bad-faith allegations above that I've asked him, on his talkpage, to address. That said, I withdrew the previous nom on the belief that this would be addressed in a somewhat expeditous fashion, per Lar's recommendation. It was actually called to the creator's attention long before it was first nominated for deletion. But not the slightest scrap of evidence has yet been offered as a basis for the essay. So, as a Commons editor, and in response to being called an "officious jerk" and "fuck that", I think it would be better if this essay is deleted pending some kind of justifiable argument for its being kept. Kelly  hi! 22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I can't see what the problem is here. As a Commons editor, I don't agree with Redvers here, but we're not in the business of deleting things just because they "might offend someone", which seems to be the argument here. (Apologies if I'm misrepresenting you). Frankly, the idea that someone would be offended by someone attacking a sister project doesn't hold water, or I'd be indefblocked long ago for my views on where this project is headed, let alone some of the WMF's side projects. Redvers is an extremely long-standing & active editor here (not to mention one of our most experienced in image use and policy); if he's said he's going to reply when he's available, he will. Leave him the time to do it - two XfDs in a week, especially when the creator's away, just looks vindictive, even if that wasn't your intention. – iride  scent  23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess my problem would be the statement that Commons "is inhabited by the biggest bunch of officious jerks you could ever hope not to meet" and that the said Commons users "can fuck that for a game of marbles". Way beyond the bounds of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. That said, Redvers was asked to address this a month ago (by another user, Carcharoth) - and repeatedly since by other editors. Revers has made about 40 other contributions here since then, without addressing this. So I don't really see any reason why this attack page shouldn't be deleted pending some reason for keeping. Kelly  hi! 23:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fairly weak keep for now. If Redvers gets active again and goes a month of active without being willing to explain, sure, then. But give the guy a chance. :) rootology  ( T ) 23:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. Redvers has had a chance. Kelly  hi! 23:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't cry if it were gone, or anything, since he doesn't want to at least spend five minutes out of his day to say what is wrong. rootology  ( T ) 23:32, 12 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.