Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Voting tallies removed

Absolutely not appropriate. Lawrence § t/e 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't justify a revert, IMHO: 1 2 — BQZip01 — talk 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

This is all I am going to say more about this MfD, this is insane and it is well in line with WP:USER. Those advocating its removal simply don't understand this application of a Wikipedia guideline and I'm glad it was kept.

For those advocating against my next RfA, please realize that it is not an admin's job to prevent conflict (conflict will happen), but to facilitate a reasonable discussion.

If you consider following the rules to a T "disruption, then perhaps you should rethink your position.
If you think a discussion is tantamount to disruption, perhaps you should rethink your position. Yes, I could have removed it and worked offline, but I didn't need to IAW the rules. I didn't advertise the page. I didn't do anything with the information other than work on it. I didn't invite anyone to see it. I didn't do anything else other than prepare for an RfC. This whole thing could have been in an RfC right now if I had just been allowed to work in peace on the draft. This was as much an "attack page" as possessing a firearm is assault. I consider this AN/I & MfD to have been the primary disruption here.

This was my line in the sand and I see it as vindication of my actions by the Wikipedia community (save for a few)

Feel free to comment at will here, but I will not respond to any posts on this page. Have a nice day. Gig 'em and God Bless. — BQZip01 — talk 05:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that this MFD delayed your making an RFC is completely laughable. You were the only one that could have ended this MFD any time you wanted by just moving the page offline. Your choices were 1.) Keep the peace, work offline, get your RFC done quickly, 2.) Continue the madhouse at WP:ANI and here, work in userspace, delay your RFC who knows how long. An admin chooses #1, you chose #2. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Unbelievable. I was going to respond to this drama-inducing little "final shot," perhaps by noting that being barely tolerated (for 4 days, not the demanded 45) by a community that's nonetheless sick of your behavior is not a vindication of anything -- or by refuting the idea that an admin should create (rather than resolve) drama, as BQZ seems to believe. But I've had enough drama. So, uh, good luck with that RFA, man - given your behavior here, you're gonna need it. --TheOtherBob 17:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

TomPhan was a sockpuppet of a user I had a hand in blocking at WP:SSP Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TomPhan — BQZip01 — talk 15:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note on ANI

Public note here letting admins know the page must go to DR by Wednesday or can be deleted. Lawrence § t/e 15:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)