Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alansohn/Deletion tracking

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 deleted, CSD G10, and this MFD was generating more heat than light anyway. >Radiant< 09:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alansohn/Deletion tracking

This is a page an antagonistic user created listing various votes I have provided for deletion over the last months (up to May) in various school-related AfDs. I think this is inappropriate. I had let it stand for several weeks while User:Alansohn's RfC, in which I was involved, was ongoing, but I think now is the time to have it removed. This kind of thing is distasteful, and I wonder why User:Alansohn, if he is that concerned with my pattern of AfD participation, didn't simply spare a few kilobytes on his desktop, rather than engage in this kind of behaviour. Anyway, Delete. Eusebeus 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Have you requested that Alansohn agree to delete the page voluntarily before posting here, or given him notice of this discussion? I'm tempted to speedy the page as inappropriate use of userspace, but would certainly want to see the page creator's view here first. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer Sorry, no I didn't, but as it was listed at his RfC (and he has thus been aware of the larger reaction it generated - cf the RfC's talk page), he has had plenty of time to delete it himself. I assumed, therefore, this was not something he felt like removing. Eusebeus 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

At this stage you should at least give him notice of the MfD and an opportunity to comment, as it might happen that this page has dropped off his watchlist. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No explanation has been proffered for why this page violates Wikipedia policy, nor why it is any worse than the extensive and ongoing bad faith wikistalking violations taking place at User talk:Eusebeus#Just wanted to let you know.... More importantly, this page constitutes the "smoking gun" proof as part of the Eusebeus's failed efforts to convince the Wikipedia community that administrative sanctions are required resulting from my Wikipedia participation. It would seem that deleting this "evidence" would eliminate one of the few shreds that support the supposed "case". Alansohn 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Admin comment: Keeping a page like this targeted at another editor, dedicated to preserving the memory of old grievances at a time when no dispute resolution is pending or contemplated, tends to interfere with the ability of editors to move on from the dispute and is extremely disruptive. My current inclination is to speedy this as the equivalent of an attack page, but I will hold off awaiting further comments as well as to give the creator an opportunity to copy the information off-wiki for the unlikely event that it is ever needed in the future. Newyorkbrad 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "User talk:Eusebeus#Just wanted to let you know...." doesn't link anywhere. Were you referring to my post, titled "User talk:Eusebeus#So you are aware..."? --Iamunknown 03:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (I somehow missed that it does link somewhere... --03:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
    • While no administrative action has been initiated yet, and additional evidence of misconduct is mounting and still needs to be gathered, this article serves as a focal point to gather and collect further evidence in a consolidated location, where it can be reviewed and updated by other editors. Again, bad faith wikistalking violations are still taking place at User talk:Eusebeus#Just wanted to let you know.... that are far more egregious than the supposed "attack" taking place here. If Eusebeus's bad faith RfC is to have any shred of validity, this supposed "smoking gun" needs to be retained as evidence. The request to delete this article appears to be a tacit admission that the RfC is indeed baseless. If the RfC is terminated, I will be more than willing to have this page deleted. Alansohn 04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and bury the hatchet. As a person uninvolved in this dispute, the simplest way to move on is to ignore pages that provide evidence for the dispute. I am not aware of any policy that requires deletion of such pages (though I do believe deletion is in the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) Ironically, because the existence of this page is fueling a firestorm, the best way to put out the fire would be to delete the page. I would also consider deleting the section on User talk:Eusebius that Alansohn found objectionable because it's only fair - i.e., replace that section with "This section has been removed, but can be found in the page history." Shalom ^Hello 05:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd love to bury the hatchet, but Eusebeus seems to be escalating his efforts with this MfD, without showing any sort of good faith by removing the offensive wikistalking from his talk page and pulling the plug on the failed RfC, a completely distasteful effort to abuse Wikipedia policy to interfere with those who he disagrees with. I would be more than happy to agree to delete this page if there were any show of good faith on the part of Eusebeus. The ball is firmly in his court. As suggested, I'll add the content of the page to my talk page to maintain an archive of the data. Alansohn 06:19, 7 August 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.