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)[reply]

User:One Night In Hackney/Temp

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment- It is strange that wikipedia tolerates an editor who openly glorifies a terrorist organisation Astrotrain 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As these are archived discussions, I'd prefer to post them at the source. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[1]--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
[2].--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
More