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

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Delete the polemical material only, but Keep the remainder of the user page. The previous MFD and the deletion arguments that show a clear violation of

revision deletion to accomplish this. --RL0919 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

User:Ghostofnemo

This page was previously brought to MfD here because it contained sections that were somewhere between polemical and an attack. The result of that decision was to remove the offending section, but allow the rest of the page to remain. After the deletion decision until today, this account did not edit Wikipedia. However, today, the editor added explanation of "why" xe no longer edits WP, along with a link to the previously blanked info. Since the user has shown him/herself unwilling to abide by the prior MfD discussion, I believe we have no choice but to delete the page entirely so that its history is no longer accessible to be restored or linked to. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the editor above and Cptnono blanked my entire userpage today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ghostofnemo&diff=391976275&oldid=391974532
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ghostofnemo&diff=391979358&oldid=391979255
Not the offending links, but the entire userpage! I note this to point out a pattern of continued
bullying
that is going on here. First my edits were deleted from the articles. Then I was verbally abused for daring to complain about it. Then my examples of deleted edits were deleted from my userpage. Now my userpage has been blanked out twice by other editors in the last 24 hours and they want to delete my userpage to suppress even my complaints about the bullying, and to cover up what has been going on by not allowing me to even discuss it or to refer people to examples of their bullying. Just check out the examples of my deleted contributions, and note the references!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ghostofnemo&oldid=370598551
Who is being a vandal here, me or them? Is there no limit to what these guys will be allowed to do to other editors? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edits is a can of worms not worth opening, but suffice it to say that xe was told on several different talk pages and, eventually on
WP:SYN. Now, after/during being told that by a large number of editors, he made the polemic/attack page. Xe was asked multiple times to remove the objectionable material, and refused. There was even an ANI thread at one point. In the end, I can understand why Cptnono, as the primary victim of the attack/polemic, saw no choice but to file an MfD. In any event, the last MfD was clear, and required the material to be removed; I would argue, in fact, the Ghostofnemo would have to open a DRV if xe wants to be able to link to it. I viewed the keeping of the partial page a courtesy, one which xe, from today, has chosen to reject. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't the the synth issue is quite as cut and dried as you are presenting it to be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_52#Questionable_interpretations_of_SYNTH Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that bibthefish is AGF but the editor disagrees with SYNTH and took it to multiple venues. The one mentioned above,
WP:UP#POLEMIC. It is also clearly disruptive. It serves no other point but to "protest" while it vilifies other editors. He is encouraged to g work on articles but if he is instead back after the long break to attack others then he is a burden to the project that we don't need.Cptnono (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If he explicitly attacks another editor in an inappropriate way or with bad argument, then that's bad. However, if he presents good evidence that other editors exercising bad judgement (which may or may not be the case of course), then I don't see any problem with that unless Wikipedia forbids bad editors from being indirectly humiliated by the means of showing their very bad edits to the public.
I browsed through a number of links provided and I have yet to see the evidence properly laid down. While the details might be obvious to you, it is not obvious to others like me who have not been previously involved. If you want to present a strong case, then please make it convenient for others to access the evidence. Here's what I did when I filed a complaint on a fanatic.
Now, I could be wrong with my impression of
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
will also go a long way in convincing me of your POV.
For the moment, my inclination is still that the issue can simply be resolved if User:Ghostofnemo changes the tone of his user page. If it reads something like
"Request for comment: I felt some of my deletes have been wrongly labelled as improper. The allegations are this and my counterarguments are that. Here are some links relevant to my plight. What's your opinion on this?"
... then that'd be of proper form as long as he doesn't delete legit counterarguments of other users who actually'd bother to respond of course.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, Wikipedia does forbid it. Please read
WP:UP#POLEMIC
.
...statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. (unless he is doing dispute resolution in a timely manner. He isn't).
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.
Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The only way I can see this work is for him to formulate the issue in an objective manner by providing links to entire discussions. Whether or not it is considered canvassing or objective is still a matter of opinion. But, if he's as bad as the two of you claimed, then I can see that's asking too much of him.
Until now, I thought canvassing meant "showing a small canvased portion of a big picture in an attempt to create a misleading overall scenery". Guess I've been using that word inappropriately for a while!
Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
However, I would still like to see links to some good evidence. While you might consider my request to be annoying and obstructive, it is your responsibility as an accuser to convince others of your POV.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, I actually did look up the SYNTH discussion. I have to agree that it is definitely a violation of
Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is my case on SYNTH in a nutshell: "If a respected human rights group has condemned a certain group for a certain type of activity, in general and not in regards to a specific prisoner, that seems relevant in an article about a subject who claims he is being subjected to that same treatment by that same group. It also supports the notion that his mistreatment is notable if AI has previously complained about it regarding other prisoners. And it's clear from the BBC article that AI is making a general condemnation, not a condemnation in one particular case. Another hypothetical example (and the Lucky Strikes and Leader X were also hypothetical): if a biography of a death row inmate notes that Amnesty International has condemned the U.S. for using the death penalty, AI doesn't have to mention that inmate by name for the citation to be relevant, IMHO. If Leader X commits genocide, the fact that genocide has been condemned by international bodies is relevant to that situation, even if the accused was not mentioned by name at the Nuremberg Trials or in the Geneva Conventions. I think what is going on here is that some editors are assuming a "however" or a cause/effect relationship where one is not being stated. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC) And this results in the exclusion of relevant information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)" Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way. Say there are sets A and B of people. China imprisoned both A and B and punishes A harshly. BBC comes in to chastise China for treating its prisoners in a brutal manner with reference to A. Then in a wiki page that details B's imprisonment(s), some editor comes in to add a passage saying "BBC has also chastised China's brutal treatment of prisoners". That editor has just committed not simply conducted
Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"whatever the deal is with the dispute" ??? So I take it you don't understand the dispute, then? He is not linking to past discussions (which someone suggested he do). He is linking to snippets of those discussions that he compiled in a fashion that provided a disingenuous view of the dispute and attacked other editors ("hall of shame" was the original title). That is why it was removed and conditionally kept. So if he wants to link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Ghostofnemo and SYNTH, Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 52#Questionable interpretations of SYNTH, and multiple article talk pages then there is no problem. However, the content he is linking to was removed for good reason. And him linking to it is sidestepping that decision which means he is still being disruptive. So would you mind looking at the dispute and then commenting if you feel that it is necessary? Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see two links on his current page, one to a past revision of the same page, and another to a talk page discussion. Two links does not a "laundry list" make. I guess I can see the point about the past revisions being a laundry list, but I'll repeat that I think it looks bad when we try to hide links to things that happened on Wikipedia. To be honest, I probably wouldn't have called for the removal of the material in the first place. Buddy431 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the material that was removed was not removed for good reason. That's the whole problem. The editors who removed that material did not rework or reword my contributions to improve them, they totally removed them from the article, along with the reliable sources they were based on. That's why there is such an urgent need to erase any evidence of the material in question, so urgent that my userpage needs to be monitored and immediately blanked out. If my edits are so shoddy and ridiculous, why not let me make a fool of myself? I provided the diffs, so if people want to see the actual edits, they can. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you accused me of using a sockpuppet and blanking it myself! Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent need? Go ahead and link to the full discussions. Your user page is in violation not because you are making a fool of yourself but because you are attempting to make others look bad. You have taken snippets of conversations and applied labels. It is clearly a laundry list. If you are using it for dispute resolution it is acceptable but that is not the case. And yes I did accuse you of sockpuppetry. It will be one of the things mentioned at an RFC/U if you continue. I have removed your personal attacks. You need to stop. I did not deny blanking your user page.Cptnono (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After taking another glance at the "Hall of Questionable Deletions", I still don't see anything wrong with it. I looked at the Tokyo Two entry (which I agree is a
WP:SYN
) and I don't really see a deliberate demonization of the editors involved. There was enough quoted in that entry for me to say "No, the other editors are right". A recommendation I have is to rename the "Hall of Questionable Deletions" to be "Hall of Potentially Questionable Deletions".
I do kind of suspect there is a form of personal vendetta going on since
Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course it is personal. If I wasn't mentioned on the page then I would mind much less. No editor should have to put up with that which is exactly why we have WP:UP#POLEMIC and it was already removed once. As I have said, he can feel free to link to the discussions. "Hall of Potentially Questionable Deletions"? Really? Why anything like that at all? Nothing wrong with linking to the discussions but but word smiting a problematic page does not make it less problematic. Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy to solve. Simply ask him to provide the links as well. As for you, I still have yet to see any other supporting evidence of his "smearing" other than the SYNTH debate.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"That's easy to solve. Simply ask him to provide the links as well." Not as well. Just provide the links. Of course he is welcome to say he disagrees with it. He can even write an essay on what he thinks about SYNTH. But snippets used as a protest and/or to shame others (he has admitted to both) is the problem. Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just because the two editors !voting "keep" have said that did not look fully into the dispute I'll make it a little clearer. He was attempting to use SYNTH to say that Pete Bethune was receiving an unfair trial. Bethune came back from Japan and said that he was treated fairly. So not allowing SYNTH worked. Ghostofnemo feels censored but it was simply multiple editors in multiple venues upholding policy. It was proven to be for good reason. So if he wants to make a user essay on his feelings on SYNTH then he has my support. But a laundry list of perceived transgression against him is not OK. Reintroducing material on his user page already removed per consensus is not OK. This should be an open and shut case.Cptnono (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are going in circles. His "Hall of Questionable Deletions" is a list of deletions he disagreed with and which he 'invited' others to look at (although I'd wonder who'd want to do that under normal circumstances). As I said, the least intrusive solution is to ask him to change a few words and provide a few links. There are ways to make this work without making this a very hostile incident.
I generally do not treat 'consensus' as gospel, since it's just a majority decision made by a small selection of internet users who may or may not be qualified to make sound decisions. In a few of the pages I frequent, I've had an entire bloc of POV-pushers voting on all sorts of ridiculous decisions. That's why I asked for evidence.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not going to provide you evidence as to why it was SYNTH since the links are already provided to more than one conversation that called it SYNTH and this isn't about that anyways.
Here is some of the reasoning ("evidence") as to why the information is such a concern:
  • The discussions on Amnesty Intl and his lawyer on the article's talk page was over 37,000 bytes.[1] That number does not include any conversation on his talk page, ANI, or anywhere else. His user page trims it down to just about 3,700.[2] That is not a fair representation of the discussion.
  • What he has chosen to present on the hood is only 4,000 bytes.[3] That conversation took place in multiple venues. The Ady Gil and Pete Bethune talk pages have over 71,000 bytes.[4] That doesn't include ANI and other discussions. It is disingenuous to trim out that many comments. It isn;t a proper summary and instead takes reasoning out of context.
And those are just two of the issues. Does that clear it up at all? Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a start. What makes you think
Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll give you sometime to read the diffs yourself and compare the versions. If you can honestly say that you do not question that the full reasoning was provided in his laundry list after doing so then I will be happy to provide more detailed reason. I honestly don't care at this point if you do not change your !vote since you have made it clear that you did not look into the dispute and provided comments without being informed.Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard. I had you confused with Buddy. Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it was more than a start. Just reading the two diffs in the sandbox shows that much of the reasoning was not provided. Second, I shouldn't need to convince you of anything since the info was already removed after editors did spend time to review the dispute. But to make it super easy, this jumps out: Terrillja @ 03:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC), 日本穣? @ 04:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC), and Bbrown8370 @ 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC) all agreed that the hooding material should be removed. The reasons provided were: Due to it being misleading and it being undue weight. Misleading isn't mentioned in his laundry list for that section. Terrillja's provided reasoning is the most disturbing "Move on, you have already been told over and over why these were removed.--Terrillja talk 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)" without the proper context makes Terrillja out to be a bad guy and fails to state that he provided other reasoning. He provides a nice summary from Qwyrxian but without mentioning the multiple other editors it does not clearly show that consensus was against him. Do you want another example?Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I'd say he gets to keep the page if he properly presents the other editors' contents. Otherwise, the page gets deleted.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
He has had that opportunity and has refused to make it compliant. As the nominating editor points out, he has even reintroduced information deemed unacceptable. Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have already had a discussion, the content was removed by the closing admin, linking to it isn't appropriate. If anyone honestly cared why GoN disappeared, they could have looked at his contribs, but given that no one had written anything on his talkpage since he left, the conclusion is that more than likely, no one really cares. So GoN has two options: either remove it and decide to do something useful here instead of continuing to try and pick fights, as the last MfD would dictate, or head for this door -->
    WP:DENY--Terrillja talk 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: I'm a little confused about what we're arguing about here. There was already an MfD, which clearly required the info to be removed. If GoN wishes to challenge that MfD, he'll need to go to
WP:DRV and get the issue re-opened. All we need to determine is how to enforce the previous MfD. We can just tell GoN it has to be removed again, and then block him if xe continues to re-insert against consensus from the first MfD. Alternatively, we can delete the whole page, so that it can't be re-edited, and GoN can move forward to worry about other things. The reason I opted to pursue the second is because I don't believe that GoN is "irredeemable"--that is, I believe that if xe would just drop the past battles, and move forward to new editing, that xe could be useful here. So I actually felt that this second MfD was a kinder way to proceed than going through a series of escalating blocks. Of course, if xe has no interesting in participating except to maintain a battleground atmosphere, then I guess it doesn't really matter either way. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Or we can look into why the other editors involved are deleting things wholesale and removing relevant information from articles when they are well supported by reliable sources. Don't you see a pattern in their deletions? Could it be that these are inconvenient truths that someone doesn't want in the articles? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If my userpage is blanked, they succeed in covering up their concerted removal of material that differs from the desired tone of the article, which happens to be that Bethune was treated well and received a fair trial. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If my userpage isn't blanked, than I just look like a nut and sore loser, and everyone will obviously agree with these guys that my edits were BS. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to check this out, I've provided the diffs of the deletions, and they can read the discussion page of the article in question to see if I'm misrepresenting the tone of the debate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to provide links to the sections of the article talk pages where these discussions took place. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't link the removals to the discussion pages, because I can't edit the old page. But the diffs are there. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I see you being able to keep your "Hall of Questionable Deletions" in any form (link or otherwise) is to redo it in your current page and make it objective and non-accusative (barring from any subjective interpretation of readers from a supposedly objective presentation of information). With that said, I am willing to offer you some pointers as to how this should be done. The catch is you have to be willing to accept this compromise.
If you do feel you have a genuine case, then you certainly don't need a biased presentation of facts to convince others of your position.
On the other hand, if your ultimate goal is to use lies to slander other editors, then there's nothing I (or anyone else) can do for you.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the post. I didn't truly realize why I am bothered with this issue until I've read this. Yes, I do sense an uncomfortable degree of vigilantism.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Snotty's comment did not provide any actual reason to keep. And it isn;t about wikipolice. It is about an editor creating a laundry list of editor's (including my own) comments out of context. Feel free to base an argument against WP:UP#POLEMIC. Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not referencing a policy in my rationale, I didn't realize that invalidates my !vote. I'll go with
spill the beans 02:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Why are you being a dick about it? Also, "ignore all rules" applies when it improves the project. What he does outside of Wikipedia is not the concern since Wikipedia's standards don;t apply there. I do agree this is a waste of time. If GoN would have not tried to go around the previous deletion this wouldn't be being discussed, would it?Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just telling it the way I see it. In my opinion, IAR is applicable because the only outcome likely to improve the project would be the immediate closing of this discussion.
chatter 03:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I concur with the waste of time part, which is why it would have been so much easier if GoN had not violated the previous MfD (i.e., exhuming the dead horse, propping it back up on display, and proceeding with the 89th flogging). As I said on GoN's talk page, I still believe xe has the ability to become a valuable editor, if only xe'd move past the whole synthesis thing and edit per policy/guidelines. 05:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It would have been so much easier if you minded your own business, that's my view. I looked at that page and saw disputes over whether its appropriate to say someone was denied a lawyer when he was denied a lawyer. I was not aghast at his difference of opinion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And people could mind their business if they were not drug through the mud by other editors. And just because you brought it up: Bethune came back and said he was treated fairly regardless of misreports about the lawyer. So following SYNTH worked. All these people commenting and half of them haven't even looked at it.Cptnono (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel as though you are you being dragged through the mud?
talk) 09:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes. If he wants to link to the whole conversation the it would be OK but linking one or two lines provides a context that us out of view (which is made apparent since the lawyer thing was even mentioned here). That is the whole problem. That is why it was deleted once already/ There are no worries if he wants to link to full conversations but providing snippets of those in an attempt to paint other editors as censoring him is completely unacceptable. That is why we have a guideline specifically prohibiting laundry lists of perceived transgressions.Cptnono (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is this. People are always going to advance their own positions on their own userpages. Everyone who cares and uses wikipedia regularly knows this well. My feeling is that it is better to let users do this than censor. You never know when you may need to argue your own case against overwhelming opposition. If it does not directly attack your character as an editor then it should not be an issue, if it is just his opinion on your edits it should be allowed.
talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
And people can advance their own positions on their user page. For example, mine is not completely clear of any personal beliefs. There is a line that Ghostofnemo has crossed where it goes into not just protesting but attempting to shame other editors. It does directly attack my character along with others (2 examples are provided above already). GoN has crossed the threshold allowed. That is why the information was removed in the first deletion discussion. The editor has been offered suggestions on how to do it without being in breach of the standards and has refused to amend the page and even circumvented the previous guideline based consensus. The editor has even refused to edit articles and focused solely on this protest. No one should care if GoN wants to vent. I even applaud the tenacity. What is not acceptable is admittedly attempting to shame other editors without providing the complete context. GoN is welcome to provide links to the whole discussions and have a note as to why they disagree. A laundry list of out of context snippets is not OK (we even have a guideline on it) and since the editor is not even contributing anymore it is shocking that some editors here are not onboard with enforcing standards. GoN can follow the dispute resolution process. Removal of an attempt to humiliate other editors shouldn't even be questioned.Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the argument breaks down. Expecting a user to fully represent all sides of an argument in a fair way on their own userpage is unreasonable. We should expect a much lower standard and that is to not attack other editors without very very good justification (not their edits) and to not misrepresent. Has the editor misrepresented or attacked your character (aside from your edits)? I will look at past pages to see if this is the case. But the page as currently stands does not do this.
talk) 10:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I have already provided examples above. Yes. The editor is intentionally attempting to shame other editors and attacks their character by presenting their comments out of context in a way that paints them in a negative light. And the argument does not break down since we already have a guideline (specifically tailored to user pages) saying it is not acceptable. I understand the wish to give leeway to a user page but this one has gone to far (so says the guideline and the previous deletion discussion) Cptnono (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a valid editorial disagreement with this editor. However, I think your attempts to get their userpage deleted are not constructive and seem to be along the lines of
talk) 10:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
How do conversations had elsewhere affect anything about his user page? If you have a problem with an editor, you take it to the proper place. You don't try to delete their user page. Dream Focus 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very briefly look through one of the gigantic threads that
Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Those threads show that GoN met resistance from multiple editors and that the content dispute was primarily on his end. However, it really has no bearing on this discussion. And again, GoN is encouraged to replace the laundry list with those and other links since they show the whole picture.Cptnono (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are no longer demanding the deletion of his user page but instead encouraging him to be objective in the presentation of his complaints. That's better.
Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
To Dream Focus. Those talk pages are the background of the matter and I thought they would give you a better understanding of this nomination. Oda Mari (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was decided earlier that the section would be deleted, with the suggestion that the page be deleted and the non-problematic material copied to a new one under the same name. For some reason, that wasn't quite how it worked out, so the content wasn't actually deleted. The original decision still must be carried out; the problematic material isn't anywhere near gone. Now, instead of it being right on the user's page, there is just a link to it. It might as well have not been removed at all. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:31, 28 October 2010 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ghostofnemo_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138551114"