Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zouavman Le Zouave/Ibaranoff24 (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 discussion was keep for now. There is no general consensus on how long this sort of "investigation page" can be kept in userspace without being used, but it is clear there will not be consensus to delete this particular page in the immediate future, so any nominations made within the next month should be speedily closed. However, if another month goes by without use of this page in a dispute resolution process, it is probable that consensus will change.--Aervanath (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Zouavman Le Zouave/Ibaranoff24
MFDs for this page:  Last deletion nomination was closed without consensus. Several editors have strongly suspected that this page is an attack page, and the creator of the page has all but confirmed this fact, and has continued to attack and make false allegations against other editors, and is all-around disagreeable with other editors, making no attempt to come to a comprimise in any argument. The creator of the page has made no edits to this page in two weeks. -- Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close We just finished this yesterday a few days ago (my mistake on the timespan). — BQZip01 —  talk 22:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The MfD closed on the 23rd. It is the 27th. That is not "yesterday". Furthermore, there is no reason to "speedy close" when the last discussion had no consensus. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Please realize that the discussion was closed, not relisted for further comment (an option the administrator chose to decline). As I stated before, IMHO, a "timely" use of such information should be about 30 days. Relisting it so shortly after closing is a violation of a behavioral guideline "The term "forum shopping", or "asking the other parent", refers to repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like...This also includes...bringing up the same issue at the same forum multiple times...". The existence of these kinds of pages has the support of a Wikipedia Guideline WP:USER which states, "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason.", and precedent: 1 2 — BQZip01 —  talk 01:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. This is an attack page, plain and simple. It's clearly biased. There's absolutely zero neutrality in this list. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Neutrality is required for articles, not user pages or RfCs, WP:ANI, ArbCom pages, etc. An attack page would be something like "User:Nobody sleeps with underage girls. He's a ****ing racist. Etc." All I see on this page is a collection of comments regarding edits Ibraranoff has made and the surrounding discussion. The comments are largely neutral (Ibaranoff did XYZ, ABC did FGH, etc.) though the commentary is one-sided, that is the purpose of such a page.
 * Comment: This is a page focusing negatively on the contributions of a particular editor. Such pages may be kept for a limited time only when they serve a legitimate dispute resolution purpose. The creator of the page will kindly explain how he intends to use the page for appropriate dispute resolution, and why maintaining the page on-wiki under this title is the best way to address the issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: I intend to use the page to counter the numerous claims that I am a POV pusher, instead showing how Ibaranoff24 edits according to his personal point of view with no respect to consensus. When the dispute and debate will be over, I will gladly ask for the speedy deletion of this page by an administrator. Until then, I think it is important for this page to stay for it contains edits and diffs that I have gathered up to back up some points.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are these claims being made, and what steps are being taken to resolve any open issues? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the last time: There was never any consensus. All your page shows is that you know how to edit in "Fox News"/Michael Moore mode. Were your list to contain factually accurate, neutral material, your claims would match up with your edits. But they don't. Reality doesn't lie. Most editors can see a clear bias on your part, and a total lack of neutrality toward other editors who do not share your opinions, especially in debates where your opinion is in the minority corresponding with what is sourced, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Just because there was no consensus to delete the page doesn't mean it should be kept indefinitely. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Zouavman Le Zouave, your assertions seem to be pretty straightforward (if not one-sided...because we are only hearing one voice on the matter). Why not simply file this at RfC and let others weigh in on it? The best way to make this issue go away is to file it in a WP:DR forum and request deletion of this page. It then won't have any reason for deletion and you can manipulate it as necessary. It also shows good faith on your part to follow the spirit and letter of "the law".I even created a header for a page such as this. If you have any questions about usage, please let me know. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I am not at all opposed to the idea. However, since there is already a mediation in place, I would rather not start another dispute resolution page right now. Real life takes up a lot of my time right now, and I have put my admin work on fr: on hold to focus on these discussions due to lack of time. Would moving this page to a dispute resolution page make these discussions more difficult to manage?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   08:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is already a page for such mediation, perhaps you could just post it there then? — BQZip01 —  talk 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The mediation is taking place on an article talk page. I wanted the time and "privacy" to edit in my userspace, without interference. When the page will be of no use, i.e. when the dispute will be over, I would be glad to delete that page. In the mean time, what to do with it (delete, move, or status quo) is to decide. I am not opposed with the two latter outcomes.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep In any event, as it was not relisted, then 4 days is very short time to expect much to change in people's opinions -- and "two weeks" is far to short to say it is pending indefinitely without being edited.  Collect (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep give it a month or two before bring it back here. It still may be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:04, 1 May 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.