Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:One Night In Hackney/Temp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Xoloz 16:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:One Night In Hackney/Temp

Attack page on various editors who have disagreed with User:One Night In Hackney at various points in time. The page is being used by this editor to try and discount any contributions made by the named editors in AFD discussions, as well as making uncivil comments and bad faith assumptions. It violates policy on userspace Astrotrain 11:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, attack page, violates policy (and if we don't delete it, I'll be on it soon!). :) *Cremepuff222* 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a piece of work that is being collated to highlight serious abuses within wiki. It is no surprise that nominator of this AfD is subject to the investigation and only exists to abuse wiki. For the past number of weeks Astrotrain's ONLY conributions to wiki has to engage in edit warring and reverts and then to log off!--Vintagekits 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So "keep because I don't like the nominator"?--WaltCip 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a valid use of userspace, gathering information. The fact that the nominator is ON that list, and would prefer to keep his activities under the radar does not provide a valid nomination reason. SirFozzie 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep User would likely just re-create this off site were it to be deleted and its no different from other evidence gathering going on within people's user spaces. Suggest nominator, if wanting his own name not there, negotiates with ONIN, ie dispute resolution not Mfd is the way to deal with this, SqueakBox 18:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia policy doesn't apply to anything off-site- he can store whatever "evidence" he likes on his own PC. It sets a worrying precedent if users are allowed to keep selective "evidence" on their own userpage.Astrotrain 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Couldn't care less Nice of Astrotrain to nominate this while I was on a wikibreak it has to be said. As sugested above by SqueakBox the information is also stored off-Wiki, and this page was created for a specific reason and has been seen by the relevant parties. There is no pressing reason for the page to exist at present, but the information contained in it can always be posted again elsewhere should the partisan voting and abuse of the AfD system continue. One Night In Hackney303 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice of you to inform each editor named in this page that you created it. Astrotrain 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • All you had to do was look through my contributions, as you normally do. One Night In Hackney303 22:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per SqueakBox. That the nominator didn't bother to notify One Night In Hackney that this MfD was taking place adds to my suspicion and displeasure with the nomination. If it was not just an oversight (and it certainly could be; I've made my share of silly and forgetful mistakes!) then it seems underhanded. --ElKevbo 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- why should users be allowed to keep their own personal attack pages? Pages that they can create at will and in which they can select their own quotes and comments in an effort to advance a position to suit their own purposes? This is not what wikipedia is about. It will put editors off editing wikipedia if other editors persist in keeping pages such as this. Astrotrain 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Disruptive POV pushing by a group of partisan editors isn't what Wikipedia is about either. One Night In Hackney303 22:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That is your opinion Astrotrain 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No, it's a fact, as the page you're trying to delete shows. One Night In Hackney303 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
At the end of the day, we can all create pages like this- perhaps I should create a page about editors who have used the name of a terrorist organisation in their signature? Astrotrain 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If all you're going to do is trot out the same tired line you do every time the misconduct of a certain group editors is raised, I will not indulge you any further. Oh and not terrorist organisation - undefeated army. One Night In Hackney303 22:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment- It is strange that wikipedia tolerates an editor who openly glorifies a terrorist organisation Astrotrain 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Change the record!--Vintagekits 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per SirFozzie. And, just as an aside, this looks like a textbook case of a bad faith nomination, done only to prove a point. ---Cathal 23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment- so an attack page is not bad faith? Astrotrain 08:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Sir, I've read the page beginning to end, and I see no attacks therein. Now, on the other hand, you have pointedly, one more than one occasion, accused One Night In Hackney of being a "glorifier" of terrorism. That is an attack. ---Cathal 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep C'mon Astrotrain; in your heart, you know you don't really care. Aatomic1 00:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment- if I remember right, you have also been making unproven claims against this group of editors Astrotrain 08:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per SqueakBox. (Oh, unless this would be added to the page as typical pile-on voting from Bastun ;-) ) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 06:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Attack page DXRAW 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, compiling information is a proper use of userspace, as ONIH has learnt. I have a feeling most of the delete votes are more a dislike of the user rather than a following of logic. –– Lid(Talk) 06:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and find something else to kvetch about. It's a valid, albeit unorthodox, choice of subject. YechielMan 08:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:FUCK.--WaltCip 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It's extremely useful for both victims and perps to have a hit list. (And because it's been compiled by 303 it's beautifully formatted and referenced too!) W. Frank ✉ 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Cowboy Up. You need a thick skin in this business. Herostratus 23:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would have been Keep, but ONiH has taken to reverting my edits to the page. That's having his cake and eating it. If he wants a homepage go to MySpace.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've got a MySpace thanks, and a couple of other websites. If you want the links just email me. One Night In Hackney303 13:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepIt is wikipedia ettiquette to respect user-space as non editable unless one has been specifically invited to edit there. I work on pages continually in user-space and have never encountered any problems and few transgressions. What 1NIH dies in his user-space is his affair so long as it is nothing illegal. I would have thought it was better for those concerned to be able to see it than not. Giano 13:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Fair enough (although see WP:UP#NOT), but if the page is being used to criticise others it seems reasonable to allow them to have a say as well. Given that ONiH's official response to this AfD is Couldn't care less, he seems very jumpy when I added my comments. Why let a rebuttal get in the way of a good smear, perhaps?--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I said I couldn't care less whether the page exists or not, that does not give you free reign to falsely claim you were quoted out of context, when you were quoted in full and word for word. To allow comments such as that to stand would necessitate a reply on my part. The page is not a place where discussion is to take place, as I have previously stated you can attempt to justify your behaviour if and when the information is publicly disseminated. One Night In Hackney303 14:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of lying. The context is the full thread where these comments were made and from which the quotations that you have selected have been removed to stand in isolation. As for this being somehow a private page, an awful lot of people seem to have found it - and, indeed, commented in this AfD.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As I said, you were quoted in context but claimed otherwise. The page contains direct links to all the AfDs the quotes have been extracted from, and each quote is linked to the exact edit that made the quote. Short of simply copying the content of every AfD into the page and highlighting the offending comments, I fail to see what more could be done to resolve your complaint. One Night In Hackney303 14:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Your two comments, directly above, contradict each other. Regardless, your page is an attempt to take isolated quotations out of context, add your own comments, deny any right of reply, and to use the implications that you make to smear other editors. I suggest that you should have the courage of your convictions: either post the page 'publicly' and allow others to edit it or take it down: that might 'resolve my complaint'.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The comments do not contradict each other in the slightest. Also, had you clicked on the "What links here" button you would have found I have ample courage, you will see exactly where the page has been made public. There is no "smearing" being done, simply cataloguing the actions of a group of editors. If said editors find that it "smears" them, I would suggest they refrain from making such a spectacle of themselves in the future. One Night In Hackney303 16:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As you have posted the page publicly, then, you surely cannot have any objections to me adding my own comments.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, you are welcome to add your own comments at the places the page has been made public. One Night In Hackney303 16:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As these are archived discussions, I'd prefer to post them at the source. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Precisely my point. The discussions relating to them are archived, nobody will see your excuses. One Night In Hackney303 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no evidence of blatant attacks. The comment above about ONIH being a terrorist "glorifier" is laughable. The articles in question are neutral in tone and the sourcing proves notability. I see no evidence that this page breaks policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[1]--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If you dont understand the difference between, the Irish Republican Army and the Provisional IRA then maybe you should "hould yer whisht!"--Vintagekits 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[2].--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand the difference between the two, such as they are. I also understand that you adopted a deliberately provocative and ambiguous signature.--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So what did you hope to accomplish by posting that link? One Night In Hackney303 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
All I got from the second link was ONIH stating he hasn't referred to any post-'22 "incarnations" of the IRA (for lack of a better term) as non-terrorist organisations. I fail to see the point being made there but clearly see this AFD has deviated from its purpose and become a forum for people with an axe to grind. I could be incorrect but I'm fairly sure this breaches a couple of policies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:39, 26 May 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.