Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion

User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion

THE DELETION REVIEW DISCUSSION FOR THIS PAGE HAS YET TO CLOSE. WHILE THE PAGE WAS UNDELETED, THE DECISION TO RELIST IT HAS NOT BEEN MADE. IF THE DECISION IS TO UNDELETE (NOT RELIST) THIS SECOND DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT OCCUR.

User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Classic example of an attack page. Ed. has stated at Del Rev, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14 that they have no immediate intention of proceeding to RfC or elsewhere. I have no objection to closing this as keep if action is in fact taken. As my objectivity has been challenged at Del Rev, I shall not be discussing it further. It's up to the community. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I regret that admins such as DGG feel that diffs are only useful for attacking. It was based on this assumption of hostility that he had the list of diffs speedy deleted with no discussion whatsoever. After the deletion review that followed, he restored the list instead of answering questions by multiple editors regarding claims that he made against me.

For a new example, my exact words were "I'm not going to commit to any particular timeline to 'fix' everything. Rushing to do so would be, at best, disruptive."[1] Not knowing when the job will be finished is different than having "...no immediate intention of proceeding..."

Unlike DGG and friends, I can't devote every minute of my life to Wikipedia. DGG himself has been deeply involved in this mess since June 2008[2], including taking sides in an edit war[3][4]. (He supported the other "librarian" who would be shown to be warring under a concealed conflict of interest two weeks later[5].) He was even explicit about being "too involved" [6] with this in 2011. Untangling this mess will take time.

Given this reality, it seems straightforward to address issues singly, and the article level. Perhaps others will consider this an important overview of a chapter of Wikipedia history and refine it, making it more neutral and complete. Perhaps others won't care at all, and all of this discussion of deletion will be pointless. BitterGrey (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Per JohnCD[7], this page does not fall within the "attack page" characterization that DGG is again using to try to get it deleted. BitterGrey (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

THE DELETION REVIEW DISCUSSION FOR THIS PAGE HAS YET TO CLOSE. WHILE THE PAGE WAS UNDELETED, THE DECISION TO RELIST IT HAS NOT BEEN MADE. IF THE DECISION IS TO UNDELETE (NOT RELIST) THIS SECOND DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT OCCUR. BitterGrey (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)