Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PR


 * 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 Keep. Anthøny 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/PR
This page began as an ANI posting by User:Karl Meier on 7 October. The page was later forked off from WP:ANI on 15 October, because it was becoming extremely long. It became so long because it quickly evolved from an "incident" into a long, tendentious argument about User:PalestineRemembered's entire editing history, personal views, etc. When these discussions are conducted under the auspices of mediation or arbitration, there are some basic standards. Here, there were none - inviting specious accusations, incivility, and even edit warring. As User:R. Baley asked on the 8th, "is this page part of the DR process now? It's a lot of material (and sub-headings!) for an 'incident'", later re-affirming this opinion in response to my suggestion   "the hostile free-for-all atmosphere of this posting is accomplishing nothing. Therefore I move that this discussion be closed as beyond the scope of ANI. If serious concerns about PR's behavior still exist, they should be taken to ArbCom."

The discussion petered out after the 16th, and I asked PR's mentor to close it. He suggested I take care of it myself, however, before I got to it User:Jaakobou, PR's eternal enemy, leapt in with fresh complaints. Nothing came out of it, and after a short period I archived the thread. (ANI is normally archived automatically after 24 hours without postings.) However, User:Jaakobou showed up again to keep the thread alive, so here we are.

Recently, the WP:CSN was deleted due to its lynch-mob atmosphere, and a replacement was deleted as well. This sub-page combines all the undesirable features of those boards with a focus on a particular user, making it little more than an attack page. Furthermore, the only user still making active complaints has an apparent record (,, , et al.) of forum-shopping and even hostility towards neutral parties who don't agree with his view on user-conduct complaints. The last thing Wikipedia needs is a process page devoted to that kind of nonsense. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 01:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * strong objection - i'm in the midst of discussing how to proceed with the very recent major policy violations by PalestineRemembered and his new mentor has not yet read the input fully since his geographic area is on fire ... and to top it off, he suggested that if any admin decides to block PR he only needs to notify him. i'm in the process of making sure the forced mentorship placed on PR in a CSN (archive 11) is implemented properly - and currently we're waiting for the response of his new volunteer for mentorship - regardless, this page should never be deleted but rather archived (once the mentorship issue is resolved).
 * p.s. User:Eleland is a highly partisan part of this problem - in the 3rd "edit war" link he gave, i reverted a gross change in the structure of the ANI in which he changed the text i replied to.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Stong delete: Take it through the dispute resolution process, since when do we fork off pages about specific users at ANI? IvoShandor 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Since they deleted CSN which handled these sorts of situations. Note I've added a link to this on the AN noticeboard talking about ANI board bloat where PR's page was mentioned as a possible solution. Kyaa the Catlord 10:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This was forked off due to WP:SIZE concerns on ANI, not as part of a conspiracy against PR or by any act of ill-will on Jaakabou's. The charges that Jaaka edit warred over the discussion are baseless as he presented above and PR was warned that his actions in changing around the discussion in the way that Jaaka reverted caused PR to be chastised, not the other way around. Deletion discussions should focus on policy not on perceived behaviour problems by someone who is not the subject of this forked ANI discussion. Kyaa the Catlord 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We have to figure out how to handle these ANI subpages, until we realize that closing CSN was a big mistake and reopen it so that they don't exist any more. While user conduct RfCs are pretty much useless, they do at least provide some precedent for dealing with these sub-pages.  For a user conduct RFC two editors that have previously made a serious attempt at negotiating a resolution to the issue directly with the other user have to certify the basis for dispute and prove via diffs/links their prior attempt at resolving the dispute.  If that doesn't happen within 48 hours, the page is deleted.  What would happen to this page on that basis?  Deletion - there is no evidence that the page opener or anyone else attempted to resolve the discussion directly with him before opening the thread.  Someone less involved could even consider deleting it under WP:CSD, but I won't take that step.  Either way, either the page should be deleted, or very firmly archived and possibly protected to prevent any further edits.  GRBerry 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even as we discuss this subpage, which is pretty much archived as it stands since no movement has occured on it since the nomination here, eagle101 is opening new subpages which could be affected by the outcome of this MfD and encouraging others to do the same. Kyaa the Catlord 14:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This wouldn't be a problem on the main ANI page, and saying that it must be deleted because there is more discussion than normal is silly. -Amarkov moo! 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the main ANI page, it would have been archived two or three times by now. I don't know why different rules should apply here. ANI is for "incidents", and nobody has specified what the "incident" is here, except maybe an "incident" of not liking an editor. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 22:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Take to RfC for dispute resolution. I think this is what should happen in all really long ANI reports when they become a dispute resolution case. J- ſtan TalkContribs 21:04, 26 October 2007 (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.