Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 3

3 April 2010

Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature (closed)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature – Not a DRV issue. WP:DR is that way. – lifebaka++ 22:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

|- | style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |- | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am asking that this reason for closure be changed.

1. I requested this page be blanked, and Scott MacDonald deleted the page, and closed the MFD discussion. Scott MacDonald and I have an extremely poisoned relationship, on 17 February 2010 calling me "a scoundrel and a coward".[1]
2. His closing reason stated:

   "The result was Delete Blatantly disruptive attempt to game the system, and now blanked by its own creator."

3. I attempted to revert these comments to this: "The result was Delete now blanked by its own creator."[2]
4. Scott MacDonald reverted this.[3]
5. I then attempted to explain our history, and like-minded editor Tarc reverted me.[4]

First of all, this MfD was only open less than 4 hours so as an admin, Scott Macdonald would not regularly close and make a decision unless I had blanked the page. Second, this closing is simply a new pot shot at me by Scott MacDonald. I ask that the wording be changed to reflect the reality of this closure, and without the attacks on me. Okip 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this at DRV? The page was blatantly unhelpful as even the creator seemed to have accepted that by deleting it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Please don't try to read my mind Scott, I closed it because it was reflecting badly on the wikiproject, the actual content is helpful. I don't want to have continued arguments with you, and have pretty much abandoned all pages we were previously arguing on. You are an incredibly involved editor, please change the wording, as DGG has now asked you to do, and this goes away. Okip 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Quod scripsi scripsi. Editing my comments to make the close say something different was bad form. The article was deleted as being disruptive - I would have speedy closed the same even without the blanking. However, the result is the same. And frankly, you can't go about engaging in blatant personal attacks (which is what Tarc reverted - it was not a neutral attempt to "explain our history", that's just dissembling) and then pretend to be thin skinned because a close was worded in a manner that reflected badly on you. Grow up.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what I wrote:

"This AFD was only live for a couple of hours, and it is closed by an extremely disruptive and involved editor who I have been involved with recently. I attempted to revert this editors opinion, but he reverted it."[5]

I am referring to the same issue which the Signpost called "BLP madness" and which led to at least 5 requests for arbitration, and several ANI's, actions which you and other editors expected to be blocked about. If this is not "extremely disruptive" I don't know what is. If my calling your actions "extremely disruptive" is a "blatant personal attack" what is your comments to me? Your wikilawyering about what the definition of "extremely disruptive" does not hide the patent fact that I have never even come close to telling you to "grow up" or that you are "a scoundrel and a coward".[6] Again, I don't want to have continued arguments with you. Okip 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)