Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff (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 blanked. Frankly it is hard to judge a consensus when the two combatants seem more interested in throwing rocks at each other than discussing reasons to deal with the page. Therefore I will blank the page and allow Wildhartlivie one month from today to use the material to raise a WP:RfC/U or something similar. If after that there has been no attempt made to use the material the page should be deleted. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff
This page has now been offered on ANI and the thread was later archived.

The page was blanked by its author and is now also deletable per WP:UP.

Page was also CSD-declined


 * See also:


 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff

Jack Merridew 05:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment — The page has a prior history and I've no interest in that; RevDel of the June stuff would seem appropriate. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - The page's previous "keep" was conditional, in that the information was being compiled to present for admins to review an incident claim. The information has since been presented, and that presentation archived. The page hasn't been touched in nearly a month, either.  Chickenmonkey  06:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous close was also a non-admin closure. I'm the one who oldmfd-tagged it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question From my look at the history, She deleted it and also put a speedy on it. It was then deleted.  Then Jack, you came along and restored the material.  Why didn't you just leave it alone as the page was blanked?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to not be seeing things correctly. Jack Merridew 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't care that the crap about Jack Merridew's obscene behavior is removed, although it was COMPLETELY out of line for him to restore the page to the version regarding his harassment after I blanked the page, which is also typical of Jack Merridew's conduct. He is nominating it per WP:UP, although per WP:UP, there is nothing that states this page must be deleted. WP:UP states clearly: "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." Note that I did blank the page and Jack Merridew reverted it to the version he wants removed. What a crap thing to do, Jack, very pointy and typical of your very poor conduct. It was properly blanked and it is entirely improper for you to revert it. You seem to have missed the point made by Athaenara that it was properly blanked, per WP:UP. However, there are things on that page prior to the content about Jack Merridew's harassment and wikistalking that I wish to keep in case I return. I know that an administrator can delete that content back to the version prior to that, which is here. Bad show, Jack, you should keep your mitts off subpages of other editors who have blanked pages. Boo on you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. Blowing your top doesn't help anything.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 11:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Terima kasih, Kayau. I peeked at you user page and tidied-up an essay you wrote. You show remarkable maturity for a young person, which is more common in your region of the world. I know this as I lived in SE Asia for the last five years, most of it in Bali. Pleased to have encountered you. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, I gave the same link to the "Funny Stuff" above and suggested RevDeleting only the stuff concerning myself. I think the next custodian who happens by should do just that per our agreement and speedy-close this. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment —I've restored the stuff you removed; must have been and edit conflict. Jack Merridew 11:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - After looking over the edit histories of both and, frankly it seems that both of them are far less than good examples of civility and acceptable Wikipedia behavior. I think both of them should be instructed to stay away from each other, and both should be watched by an admin for a few months to rein them in when they step over the line. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an unhelpful comment that has nothing to do with this deletion discussion, and will only serve to cause more bickering. You should find a more appropriate place to direct your concerns.— Chowbok  ☠  18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's a comment about two editors who can't get along with each other, and the fact that they can't get along bears directly on whether the page should be kept. Please don't delete others' comments again. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank the page again. The page was blanked by Wildhartlivie, and again by an administrator.  I don't understand why the request for revDeleting the page.  Blanking it should be enough IMHO.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Crohnie, while I'm posting @you, much of what I'm going to say is addressed to the wider issues.
 * This is not 'evidence', it is a demonization tactic, it is a parroting of tactics that have been used against me in the past by problematic editors such as User:White Cat and User:A Nobody. I'm not a stalker, Robert John Bardo is—and see that I'm the Wikipedia editor who uploaded file:Robert John Bardo-Police photo.jpeg. There are stalkers on this site, they are dealt with appropriately; look into User:Amorrow, for example.
 * The issues between Wildhartlivie and I are a content dispute that is centred on the appropriate form that filmographies should take on this project and the broader issue of the role of WikiProjects and their authority over their articles. I am right about all the -issues concerning the formatting of filmographies and anyone who knows even a little bit about coding knows it. Wildhartlivie knows it, too, I believe, but that's not something she can acknowledge because it's inconvenient, as I explained on Rossrs's talk page; What she is doing in all this is obstructing appropriate clean-up over a personal preference for a splash of colour, and a stubborn insistence for her preferred way of doing everything. She and a few friends, including yourself, have seized WP:ACTOR as a vehicle to assert control over a wide swath of the project and this is fundamentally against the core definition of what a WikiProject is. That's the core question being addressed in the new RfC regarding consensus and WikiProjects. This is going to go pretty much as I've been saying things should, too. If her core motivation was the improvement of filmographies on the project, she would be welcoming my improvements to their implementation; that she does not, leads me to the conclusion that she's intent on establishing WP:ACTOR as a suzerainty within en:wp with her able to exercise control over her articles.
 * Your friend is not a victim here, ref she's simply a stubborn woman who is very wrong about a lot of her approach to this project; she is manipulative, devious, rude and threw a pity party when I assured her that I would pursue appropriate dispute resolution steps if other means failed to resolve this stupid shite. I'll be posting a detailed statement to the RfC about this; ironically, I have a cold, and this is slowing me up. I will put together an RfC/U on all of her conduct issues if this persists much longer, too. I will, however, pursue the idea of having her friend Rossrs act as an informal mediator, first. I like Rossrs, think he's bonzer bloke and am not too concerned that he's not exactly a neutral party in all this. I have good faith that he will focus on the issues that matter. He knows much of the history of this dispute and that will be useful to reaching an appropriate resolution of it. I expect to become his friend, too, and see cracks in his friendship with Wildhartlive that are of her making.
 * So, where were we? Oh, MfD'ing her smears of another editor; me. Blanking this is insufficient, in my view; it's still here, it's toxic-wiki-stuff, and is a distraction from the real issues. Such things are about changing the subject off of one where you're losing a dispute. Blanking is about hiding things from GoogleBot, not from editors who know how to to root through page histories and dig up shite. Christ, she's got a local copy; I do, her caporegime does, too. If this is kept, I can cope with it; really. See the prior MfD where Chris pointed out that this so-called evidence really reflects poorly on her.
 * Jack Merridew 22:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, in case it's not clear to all that that is what I see as appropriate here. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the page has content that reflects the sort of personal misconduct and disparagement of me by Jack Merridew that he has continued in the above posting and from what I have read, is fairly representative of his conduct against other editors about whom he is not suppose to comment or mention. That you are trying to fuck up my friendship with Rossrs was a planned thing since you started recruiting him. Nice going Jack. But none of that shite you've posted above has anything to do with this page. However, as I read it, he has blatantly violated his arbcom ruling that allowed him to return in the above post when he makes reference to White Cat above. It says "No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo . Nice. Jack, you've threatened RfC/U many, many times and rest assured one more threat is not the reason I'm leaving Wikipedia. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of being wikistalked by you and your BFF and your ongoing harassment. Total weariness of the whole pile of shite that you guys have put me through, coupled with bad health, deaths and illnesses of close friends and loss of desire to put up with you is what did it. Not your repeated threats to "escalate the complaint", which you claimed was part of your injunction. I don't see that making repeated threats to escalate things is supported in your arbcom results. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bzzt. That restriction was lifted last year; scroll down a bit for the motion to that effect:
 * Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
 * Note too, the part where it says I am to:
 * follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts
 * Jack Merridew 01:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However, it does not say that you should go about threatening further action and using arbcom as an excuse to threaten, intimidate and wikistalk me. It says nothing about that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do not agree to mediation with Rossrs and I, or if you do and it does not resolve the dispute, I will simply follow the steps outlined in WP:DR, as all editors are expected to do. It's as simple as that. I'm sick of this, too. Jack Merridew 07:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And there we have another in a LONG LINE of threats. I responded to Rossrs, although with your recent claims and the content of your posts the last couple of days, I don't have faith in any form of dispute resolution. It is nowhere in anything about you from arbcom that supports your assertion that posting repeated threats to escalate is anything near what arbcom meant. I am fully convinced they don't expect you to wikistalk, either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as the page is blanked. If Wildhartlivie believes he has valid complaints and evidence of wrongdoing, he should be allowed to collate such evidence in his userspace in preperation for an RfC/U or something similar.  If he is not currently planning an RfC/U, then the page should be blanked (per WP:UP) and the edit history should be left intact in case Wildhartlivie wants to refer to it in the future.    Snotty Wong   soliloquize 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete revisions in question. I'd like Crohnie, specifically, to explain why keeping the page is okay in this case but wasn't okay when I kept a similar one, which she voted to "strong delete".— Chowbok  ☠  19:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded some on your talk page, but the comments made above by Jack saying he's taking this to another level gives it the right reason within policy for her to have it blanked and not deleted. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, the potentially legitimate reasons for allowing this page have expired. Tim Shuba (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2010 (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.