Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff (2nd nomination)

User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff

This page has now been offered on ANI and the thread was later archived.

The page was blanked by its author and is now also deletable per WP:UP#POLEMIC.

Page was also CSD-declined

See also

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff

Jack Merridew 05:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment — The page has a prior history and I've no interest in that; RevDel of the June stuff would seem appropriate. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - The page's previous "keep" was conditional, in that the information was being compiled to present for admins to review an incident claim. The information has since been presented, and that presentation archived. The page hasn't been touched in nearly a month, either.  Chickenmonkey  06:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  Previous close was also a non-admin closure. I'm the one who {{oldmfd}}-tagged it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question From my look at the history, She deleted it and also put a speedy on it. It was then deleted. Then Jack, you came along and restored the material. Why didn't you just leave it alone as the page was blanked? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  You seem to not be seeing things correctly. Jack Merridew 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't care that the crap about Jack Merridew's obscene behavior is removed, although it was COMPLETELY out of line for him to restore the page to the version regarding his harassment after I blanked the page, which is also typical of Jack Merridew's conduct. He is nominating it per WP:UP#POLEMIC, although per WP:UP#POLEMIC, there is nothing that states this page must be deleted. WP:UP#POLEMIC states clearly: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Note that I did blank the page and Jack Merridew reverted it to the version he wants removed. What a crap thing to do, Jack, very pointy and typical of your very poor conduct. It was properly blanked and it is entirely improper for you to revert it. You seem to have missed the point made by Athaenara that it was properly blanked, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. However, there are things on that page prior to the content about Jack Merridew's harassment and wikistalking that I wish to keep in case I return. I know that an administrator can delete that content back to the version prior to that, which is here. Bad show, Jack, you should keep your mitts off subpages of other editors who have blanked pages. Boo on you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  Please be civil. Blowing your top doesn't help anything. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

  Great, I gave the same link to the "Funny Stuff" above and suggested RevDeleting only the stuff concerning myself. I think the next custodian who happens by should do just that per our agreement and speedy-close this. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment —I've restored the stuff you removed; must have been and edit conflict. Jack Merridew 11:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - After looking over the edit histories of both Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs) and Jack Merridew (talk · contribs), frankly it seems that both of them are far less than good examples of civility and acceptable Wikipedia behavior. I think both of them should be instructed to stay away from each other, and both should be watched by an admin for a few months to rein them in when they step over the line. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That is an unhelpful comment that has nothing to do with this deletion discussion, and will only serve to cause more bickering. You should find a more appropriate place to direct your concerns.—Chowbok ☠ 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's a comment about two editors who can't get along with each other, and the fact that they can't get along bears directly on whether the page should be kept. Please don't delete others' comments again. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Blank the page again. The page was blanked by Wildhartlivie, and again by an administrator. I don't understand why the request for revDeleting the page. Blanking it should be enough IMHO. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)