Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BozMo/difflog

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The result of the debate was "page withdrawn by creator on request" Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can be closed as "page withdrawn by creator on request". I will do the formal close later if no one else gets around to it, I don't have the syntaxt to hand.--BozMo talk 20:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted page. This appears to be a straightforward recreation of content recently deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say; see User talk:William M. Connolley#Information is hard to erase. This would be a standard WP:G4 candidate, but I've brought it here because the question needs to be answered: if certain content is deemed unacceptable in a particular user's space, does that mean it is unacceptable in any other user's space as well? I believe the answer should be 'yes'. Robofish (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant differences, in particular because the edit history (which apparently contained the PAs, and inferred attacks) is absent. I could have used tools and done a "recreate and move" but did not do so for exactly that reason. I do not believe that this straight list of diffs could possibly be offensive, even if there is an assumption that they are disapproved of. We are allowed to think poor thoughts about each others edits, that is not a personal attack. In addition I would add that this is not in the user space of the person who made the list, but in the user space of a user who was apparently attacked by it. There is no legitimate grounds for objecting this list, away from its edit history. I can add other stuff in due course where I think editors made interesting decisions. --BozMo talk 12:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and block creator. Clearly WP:POINT violation. If you don't like the deletion of WMC's page, then try deletion review.--Scott Mac 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. BozMo has addressed all the concerns the closing Admin raised about William's list. Count Iblis (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: can someone please explain how the project is served by immortalising a diff wherein William Connelly calls me a "twat"? I believe in letting bygones be bygones, so I'm struggling with this. Should I create a page narrating this ancient quarrel to keep my memory fresh? WMC's page was deleted, why are we having to re-debate this? This isn't helpful.--Scott Mac 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I am Spartacus. Fucking stop obsessing about trivialities and start building the encyclopedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I am Spartacus too--Scott Mac 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it looks like Scott tries to be Crassus, waiting for the Parthians ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does anyone else think "unlattering" is kind of a cool-sounding word? It could mean "bringing to the front", i.e., causing something to no longer be "latter." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say it's a misspelling of the the rather unfriendly act of pushing someone off a ladder (as in "the defenders managed to unladder the Viking attackers during the siege"). Correctly spelled, unladdering things are astonishing enough to make someone fall of a ladder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and its recreation by an admin friend "acquaintance" of the subject is a shame and imo disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to make that acquaintence? --BozMo talk 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just for you - User Boz mo denies he is a friend of WMC and claims he is only his "acquaintance" - Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although having the bit gives you the ability to misuse the tools for pure disruptive purpose it would be better if you refrained. Also per reasoning of deleting admin on his talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what is the reference to the use of tools? Per WMC talk page the content was preserved by Google and I copied it. I did not undelete the article. --BozMo talk 17:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought you had used the admin ability to view deleted articles. Change that to acting counter to community consensus for a purely disruptive purpose.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus to delete at the original MFD. Sorry if I'm moving too fast for you.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I came here because the Taunting Behavior exhibited by the re-creator at the closing Admins Talk page. This is Flagrant disregard of our our expectation of Admins. I think WP:AE or ANI would not be entirely out the question for promotion of battle field conduct in relation to the recent Arbcom case. Rob and Scott are hitting it on the head The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was not intentionally taunting. But if anyone else thinks the same way I guess I could delete the page myself --BozMo talk 17:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Offer. If any serious admin thinks this is all a bit pointless they can speedy delete the page with my blessing. I am going offline for a while anyway and life is too short. --BozMo talk 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway is a serious admin who requested the removal of the page on my talkpage. My offer was real and the page is gone --BozMo talk 20:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Original basis for deletion was apparently handled by BozMo. The whole thing is silly drama, but "silly drama" isn't a policy-based argument. Alleged misbehavior of BozMo elsewhere is not relevant to page deletion. However, BozMo was not "taunting." It was a policy-based discussion. --Abd (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I hope the closing admin will give some weight the to remedy on deletion of evidence pages in this related arbitration case. I believe it is remedy number 4.6. The principles and findings of fact should also shed light on the arbitrators' reasoning and intent in that remedy.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coppied from talk per request.Cube lurker (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2011 (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.