Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:86.10.231.219

The "attempted relisting" was closed as follows:


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted. — xaosflux  Talk  20:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:86.10.231.219
Attack page. [] Relisting


 * Keep This appears to be evidence of an ongoing dispute between nominator for deletion and talk page holder. The way forward here is through mediation, RfCing, maybe even ArbCom eventually... but deleting the evidence of the dispute is not in WP's interest. Xoloz 16:57, 22 April 2006 (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.

Relisted 22 April 2006

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:86.10.231.219
perverse IP address user pretending to a username, page used more as an article than a talk page, unfair to saddle any subsequent user of this IP with the comments and animus this user has earned (or at the very least, acquired.) Correlations between postings from this address and form Ombudsman(who appears to at least some users as though he is an admin) suggest the possibility of a more direct link than coincidence or comradeship. User page was deleted, perfectly reasonably, DELETE Midgley 22:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - As the anon user has been trying to get me banned for the "subtle vandalism" of suggesting that Midgley was not being anti-semitic when declaring he felt circumcision to be child abuse (but not, as far as I could tell, making any article edits reflecting this!), I should probably not express my opinion as to what should happen to this user's talk page - but I would like to ensure that anyone closing this discussion look at the history of the user page this talk page corresponds to. Michael Ralston 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael, if you're going to accuse this user of labelling Midgley as antisemitic, you better produce the exact quote. All I can find is: "Here he accuses all jewish people who hold to religious customs of child abuse," which is pretty close to a statement of fact. And if you want to start a campaign against editors who engage in personal attacks, you better include Midgley, who seems to include such an attack in every discussion entry he makes. --Leifern 12:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant except as an index of bad faith, and I certainly do not suggest that not eating pork, for instance, is child abuse - nor even not offering children pork, shellfish etc to eat. THe statement is at the very least intended to misdirect.  But that is not the argument for this place. Midgley 16:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Leifern: What is that quote OTHER than a statement that Midgley is anti-semitic? Especially given how it, as Midgley points out, obfuscates his actual position. And I'd be willing to let it drop if he(the anon) would stop saying that statement of his (the one you quoted) is what the AV RfC is about, and stop accusing me of vandalism! Nobody else has been trying to get me banned - just our invisible anon. Michael Ralston 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about anon's efforts to get you banned, and I don't think it's relevant to this issue anyway. And Midgley is actually correct - one can certainly characterize one practice of a religious group in a certain way without characterizing all of it. I think Midgley's characterization reeked of rank ignorance and was at least potentially offensive, but I don't think it follows that he harbors any ill will against Jews or Judaism in general. --Leifern 17:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is relevant in that 86.10.231.219 behaves in some objectionable ways of which that is one, and uses a confusion of nominity and this "user" page as a component of some of that behaviour. Midgley 18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - this MfD for a User Talk page is inappropriate & is not in good faith (as is shown below).
 * this MfD has come out of thin air - the applicant Midgley has not engaged in discussion to explain his actions in seeking an MfD
 * the User talk page concerned is in proper use as a talk page - as can be seen by visiting it
 * it does not satisfy any criteria for deletion
 * no evidence of "used more as an article than a talk page" is presented (and there is none because this talk page is in proper use as a talk page)
 * no other evidence is presented justifying deletion - and deletion is not justified
 * a third party user has already intervened over a prior "thin air" attempt by an anon (sockpuppet?) to list the talk page for deletion []
 * the third party stated in the edit history:-
 * "rv: user talk pages are not appropriate candidates for AfD; the nomination seems to serve no other purpose than to condone the vandalism of medical articles that the Invisible Anon has been countering"
 * This MfD appears not in good faith and appears to be harrassment:-
 * this is not just because the applicant Midgley is (as is regrettably all too frequent), thin on evidence but, as usual, heavy on ascerbic comments
 * simultaneously with this MfD the applicant Midgley is also running an AfD here []
 * this harrassment all appears to be retaliation for my posting a report [] on AN/I about harrassment and disruption by Michael Ralston
 * Michael Ralston confirms above he wants the talk page deleted
 * this MfD follows from an anonymous IP made AfD only hours earlier which was reverted by a third party editor []


 * Midgley also knows very well that this is a static IP in England which I have been using for quite some time now (please check the history) and which cannot possibly be associated with Ombudsman who is an independent and well established editor of longstanding in his own right.


 * Talk - The Invisible Anon 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it exceptionally improbable that Midgley is harassing you for your attempt at getting me banned. The sum total of my conversation to him on this topic was to state, on that talk page, that it doesn't belong in AfD because it's not an article, and that it does belong in MfD - which it does, even if MfD produces an overwhelming "keep" consensus. As for calling Ombudsman a "third party", you should at least acknowledge that he shares a strong POV with you, and is hardly uninterested on this topic. Michael Ralston 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I must now vote Delete despite my conflict of interest, as the Anon has indicated that my statement that whoever closes this should look at the history of his userpage constitutes an endorsement of deletion - this tells me he is fully aware of some sort of rule violation that he's committing with this. Michael Ralston 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolute keep. I have no idea why this user doesn't want to register a username and am struggling to think of one - but that is absolutely irrelevant to this question. Midgley, whose idea of contributing to an encyclopedia is to write an opinion piece as if it were fact and then personally attack everyone who disagrees with him, is merely trying to muzzle this editor. --Leifern 12:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: As pointed out, Ombudsman kindly saved wiki-users the trouble of debating, and admins the trouble of removing a tag from the article in question. That also is perhaps a matter for discussion elsewhere but it is worth noting that the name Ombudsman is a word of some significance and that the user does not have such powers and is not an admin.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.10.231.219&diff=prev&oldid=41083048 Midgley 16:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was this diff:, not the one you linked. You linked the tag being added. Michael Ralston 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's an IP page, not a User page. If he wants a real User page, let him register a goddamned account like everyone else. --Calton | Talk 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Sometimes people like to stay anon as a social statement, not to hide their identity: by using a consistent name and IP address, this person is providing enough identity for the purposes of Wikipedia. Invisible Anon doesn't seem to be causing any harm: in fact, it seems like others are causing him/her a lot of harm by ganging up and *looking* for various angles of attack. Invisible Anon thus has to spend a lot of time defending his/herself when he/she could be doing editing work. From my short experience on Wikipedia, it's next to impossible to get anyone to address this sort of harassment - especially when admins are involved and can actually use their influence to intensify the harassment. Dissent is healthy, and true NPOV encompasses it. Please stop the beatdown: in fact it would be great if a page were established to track patterns of people who routinely participate in beatdowns. --Pansophia 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: He would be providing identity if he used the IP address he comes from.  Making it appear as though he has a user name is (a bizarre piece of) misdirection, and of course is potentially inconvenient.  The wiki handles some things very well, and making an effort to appear as things are not suggests a perversity and intent to deceive that sits poorly with the assumption of good faith that should be makeable.  The Invisible Anon 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * keep: Enough said.  Ombudsman 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Who is this person? The Invisible Anon 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Ombudsman (who isn't actually an ombudsman on Wikipedia or to be confused with Ombudsperson) or The Invisible Anon? Andrew73 15:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - It seems like someone has now registered under the name The Invisible Anon just to cause confusion. That's WikiPoint. --Pansophia 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiPoint? It doesn't happen on ours, by design. Midgley 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT, Midgley. Michael Ralston 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! In retrospect, that was a bad idea. Sorry, admins. Midgley 18:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm aware I voted delete before. Given the circumstances surrounding this entire situation, I've changed my mind - Midgley's actions are strongly beginning to suggest bad faith on his part to me. I'd also like to suggest the issue of the user page associated with this be re-opened, but I'll take that to DRV after this has been closed, unless someone else does so sooner. Michael Ralston 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This a procedural vote. I don't think anything will be resolved by deleting the talk page of an unregistered user.  In this particular circumstance, coinciding with somebody actually registering as "The Invisible Anon," this action would probably be counterproductive.  I believe the standard procedure with this sort of situation is to start with mediation or RfC.  Regards to all, Durova 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * comment - This user has violated policy on civility and has harassed others with voluminous repetitious arguments. A User page for IP address was deleted due to inapproprate content.  The user seems to be engaging in less harassment recently.  The user has refused to log in under a user name despite being advised to to so by multiple others.  His habit of putting a text entry The Invisible Anon in place of his IP address is at a minimum confusing, and may qualify as deceitful.  At least, the community should demand he stop anon logins. Kd4ttc 22:30, 1 March 2006 (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.