Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lonewolf BC/TOXIC WASTE DUMP

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 Delete. Eluchil404 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lonewolf BC/TOXIC WASTE DUMP

This page appears to be the 'laundry list of grievances' against other editors, of the sort which is generally considered unacceptable for user space. It does not appear to be a good faith preparation for dispute resolution. Sam Blacketer 18:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I sure there are definitely other ways of dealing with disputes with other editors. And it does not look like it was created using good faith. And clearly a violation of WP:USERPAGE#What may I not have on my user page?, under bullet #8. --nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. All entries are from the users talkpage, with added comment. I have suggested to Lonewolf that he transfers the entries into an archive of his talkpage. Editors do not have to archive their talkpages, and when they do there is no requirement for it to be only chronologically. This keeps the content off the talkpage, but in a place where it is to hand if required. In response to Sam Blacketer, most of the material only involves one other editor - and they posted to Lonewolf's talkpage; it is not therefore a 'laundry list' but a record of communication. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to remain neutral on this in terms of voting, but, LHVU, the "added comment" is perhaps what turns this "toxic waste dump" from a simple archive into a bad faith taunt. --G2bambino 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I too will remain neutral on voting. Earlier (upon seeing this review), I suggested G2 remove his 'Hall of shame'. Now I'm suggesting Lonewolf to do the same. GoodDay 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do not think this is a good idea, and I would not do it myself, I do not see any policy that this is breaking. Because of this, I need to vote to keep this. I do not see this as a violation of our User page guidlines, as Nat suggested it is. If I am wrong, let me know:)--SJP 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply For the longest time, this "TOXIC WASTE DUMP" only had one target, G2bambino, of course, it now also includes one IP address. I don't see anything wrong with keeping a list/history of a talk page, but when comments are added, that basically develops a page that describes certain faults/flaws or perceived faults/flaws of the "target". In the end, it could be perceived as an attack page as described by point #8 of the guideline. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Ah, why should I remain neutral? Remove the colour commentary or delete it. --G2bambino 19:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Laundry-list of grudges indeed. Raise an RfC, keep the info on your own computer, or drop it. Any of these is fine. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 7 November 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.