- 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 debate was Delete - The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor, Wikipedia is not a soap box and we certainly don't need more drama, no attempt to use this information in a venue to resolve the conflict between both users has been made since its creation two weeks ago, so as it stands its only serving to inflame the situation further, as it has become apparent by the ongoing edit war there. A perpetual sub page is not the place to keep track of user conduct the place for that is WP:RFC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:56, 28 January 2008. (UTC)
User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
attack page from user with a long history of using his personal space to attack others. See here for full details of the attack. He can go do it somewhere else. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep-Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever the nature of these attacks, SqueakBox clearly has a conflict of interest in proposing this page for deletion. I note also that he removed all the real material, leaving only an introduction. I suggest that its removal be undone while this discussion continues. -- Bduke ( talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Removinfg the mfd notice the mfd notice merely proves my point. Wikipedia is not here to launch attacks on other users. How would you feel if it was you being trolled. VP claims I am obsessed with him but I don't set up attack pages against him. And for the record his issue with me concerns Girllover not my alleged bad behaviour22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
- Strong keep. The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links. Author is doing a good work because many people have been driven off from specific articles, topics, or even all Wikipedia by SqueakBox, and even many of those he hasn't driven off would like to see admin intervention taken against his behavior. Also, as author asserts, admins often need vast evidence before they can step in, so it's a good idea to conveniently collect it all in one place. Another user has also announced building a similar record of blocks and bans regarding users that had been involved in disagreements with SqueakBox that ended with their being blocked or banned. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and speedy close MfD I have recently opened a dialogue with both users, in an attempt to (while sealing the rift seems a near impossible task) at least end the arguement, as it lends itself to an uncomfortable wiki-enviroment for both SqueakBox, VigilancePrime and every other user who comes across it. My take on this particular aspect of it is that both users have been uncivil in the past, and both have plenty of evidence against the other. It is a case of mutually assured destruction as far as I can see, with each out doing the other. Hopefully with polite negotiation and dialogue both users and disentangle themselves cleanly, both coming out happy. I personally believe that both users agreeing to wipe a slate clean is the first step, and it would be better, I feel, if Viliglance voluntairly had the page deleted, in conjunction with SqueakBox reducing his level of hostility in an equal measure, rather than Squeakbox take "the lead" with this MfD. SGGH speak! 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, as freedom of speech issue, with no apparent policy vio. Whilst I'm drawn to opine that the page has far more than a grain of truth in its assertions, this really shouldn't matter. GrooV ( talk) 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Content disputes. GroomingVictim ( talk · contribs) has an iron in this fire, extensive content disputes with the user targeted by the attack page. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice. all the pro-pedophile activists come swarming like bees to honey. How much longer will wikipedia allow this stalking of a good editor by pedophiles anfd their supporters? Pol64 ( talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. And you have evidence for this? Are you saying I am pedophile supporter? The above comment is appalling. This is exactly the problem. Any criticism of the anti-pedophile editors is taken as being in bad faith and that does tend to put off new editors, and does lead to NPOV issues. --
Bduke (
talk) 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you mean criticisms of Pro pedophile activists. And isn't it appalling that editors support that stance. We don't see editors supporting murder or racism so why do we see them supporting
Child sexual abuse. The day an editor says
Jews and
Niggers should be edit4ed they get indef blocked but to these people who onl;y want to justify abusing children we treat them as if they were arguing about fish and chips. And wikipedia's reputation as a site that supports pedophilia grows daily. Thanks,
SqueakBox 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is appalling that editors support pro pedophile activists, but it is not what I was talking about. I was referring to the comments by Pol64 that assumes that everyone, including myself, who did not go 100% in support of your nomination, are pro pedophile activists. It is simply untrue and he had no evidence for it. It was not assuming good faith in those people, and it does not help your case or the encyclopedia. -- Bduke ( talk) 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you mean criticisms of Pro pedophile activists. And isn't it appalling that editors support that stance. We don't see editors supporting murder or racism so why do we see them supporting
Child sexual abuse. The day an editor says
Jews and
Niggers should be edit4ed they get indef blocked but to these people who onl;y want to justify abusing children we treat them as if they were arguing about fish and chips. And wikipedia's reputation as a site that supports pedophilia grows daily. Thanks,
SqueakBox 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - attack page. If the user wants to collect quotations and diffs in preparation for mediation/RfC/RfArb, then he may do so on his personal computer. This really qualifies as a speedy delete, imo. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment (Abstain from Voting) - No harm in direct quotations. If a user does not want his own words to haunt him, he should not voice them. If someone chooses to be disruptive and uncivil, he should be accountable for his behavior. Thus, in a way, SqueakBox willingly provided the fodder for this page, and there's nothing really against policy here. Still, some may legitimately interpret this as trolling. However, SqueakBox has been known for following the edits of other users himself, so I guess (to put it bluntly and not at all to support this assertion) "what goes around comes around." ~ Homologeo ( talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (Per request above, I would like to state that I was informed about this MfD via my Talk Page, but the decision to comment was my own) ~ Homologeo ( talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete attack page. VigilancePrime's publicly visible page accuses Squeakbox of personal attacks and other serious offenses in the text and in the section headings. He claims he's doing that to format diffs for a planned "admin intervention" request. If that is really his purpose, he can easily do so off-wiki in a text document. When he's ready with his case, he can file an RFC/U or AN/I report. Maintained on-wiki without engaging in due process, it's an attack page pure and simple. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I have not known SqueakBox for long enough, but I have seen similar opinions expressed about him. If they are allowed to make these opinions, why not all in one place. I think that the person feels that they are under attack and would like to improve the place by collecting evidence against a possibly disruptive person. This is fine by me, and at least does not violate bad faith or civility. Karla Lindstrom 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close Seems more like a personal dispute that should be settled via a user conduct RfC or ANI rather than an MfD. Suggest speedy close and take it to a more appropriate forum. -- 12 Noon 2¢ 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- A second comment the page has been blanked again. I have continually warned that content must be maintained until an MfD is over, however I am reluctant to warn again as I am being accused of a lack of neutrality, not to mention accusations of being in favour of pedophiles.... SGGH speak! 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mfd debates do not trump BLP (mine) or PA, we need to stick with policy while the debate continues. pol is right that you need to know take responsibiliy for the PAs. It is my reputaion on and opff wikipedia that is at stake here. Thanks,
SqueakBox 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't affect this MfD to have the attack page blanked, because the initial MfD nomination has a link to the unblanked page that editors can view to decide their votes. Considering that it is an attack page, it is in accord with policy for it to be blanked on sight by any editor; though it should be deleted through this process so the history is gone too. (I have never edited or blanked that page, this is just a comment here). -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd like to point out not only the disruptive behavior of repeated blanking conflicting with established MfD process, but also the flaming language and accusations those voting for delete have put forth even here. I think these ought to teach a thing or two about about these people's general lack of civility and their often-seen vandalizing behavior, which is exactly why the nominated piece is so crucially needed. This is exactly how SqueakBox, Jack, and Pol have edit-warred in the past even with admins that they have treated with just as flaming language, in spite of official admin warnings. Hadn't it been for unpopular topics, all three editors would not only have received temporary blocks for their repeated violation of WP:3RR, they would have certainly been banned long ago. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh? I've never been warned by an admin for anything, since there's been nothing to warn me about. I've never used "flaming language" towards anyone. And, I've never exceeded 3RR. There's nothing at all disruptive to this process for the page to be blanked, because the link to the unblanked page is at the top of this page for all to see. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not being familiar with the MfD process and the policies that prevail on User space, I'll abstain from !voting too. I can't help to find it ironic, though, that a wikipedian who will, as it seems, routinely shower his fellow editors with epithets carrying such heavy social stigmas as "pedophile" or "pro-pedophile activist" should consider his own reputation endangered by a collection of edits of his. Bikasuishin ( talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
comment — Page has been protected from editing until the conclusion of this mfd. editors should know better than to start edit warring. — DarkFalls talk 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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.- 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 debate was Delete - The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor, Wikipedia is not a soap box and we certainly don't need more drama, no attempt to use this information in a venue to resolve the conflict between both users has been made since its creation two weeks ago, so as it stands its only serving to inflame the situation further, as it has become apparent by the ongoing edit war there. A perpetual sub page is not the place to keep track of user conduct the place for that is WP:RFC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:56, 28 January 2008. (UTC)
User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
attack page from user with a long history of using his personal space to attack others. See here for full details of the attack. He can go do it somewhere else. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep-Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks.-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever the nature of these attacks, SqueakBox clearly has a conflict of interest in proposing this page for deletion. I note also that he removed all the real material, leaving only an introduction. I suggest that its removal be undone while this discussion continues. -- Bduke ( talk) 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Removinfg the mfd notice the mfd notice merely proves my point. Wikipedia is not here to launch attacks on other users. How would you feel if it was you being trolled. VP claims I am obsessed with him but I don't set up attack pages against him. And for the record his issue with me concerns Girllover not my alleged bad behaviour22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox
- Strong keep. The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links. Author is doing a good work because many people have been driven off from specific articles, topics, or even all Wikipedia by SqueakBox, and even many of those he hasn't driven off would like to see admin intervention taken against his behavior. Also, as author asserts, admins often need vast evidence before they can step in, so it's a good idea to conveniently collect it all in one place. Another user has also announced building a similar record of blocks and bans regarding users that had been involved in disagreements with SqueakBox that ended with their being blocked or banned. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and speedy close MfD I have recently opened a dialogue with both users, in an attempt to (while sealing the rift seems a near impossible task) at least end the arguement, as it lends itself to an uncomfortable wiki-enviroment for both SqueakBox, VigilancePrime and every other user who comes across it. My take on this particular aspect of it is that both users have been uncivil in the past, and both have plenty of evidence against the other. It is a case of mutually assured destruction as far as I can see, with each out doing the other. Hopefully with polite negotiation and dialogue both users and disentangle themselves cleanly, both coming out happy. I personally believe that both users agreeing to wipe a slate clean is the first step, and it would be better, I feel, if Viliglance voluntairly had the page deleted, in conjunction with SqueakBox reducing his level of hostility in an equal measure, rather than Squeakbox take "the lead" with this MfD. SGGH speak! 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, as freedom of speech issue, with no apparent policy vio. Whilst I'm drawn to opine that the page has far more than a grain of truth in its assertions, this really shouldn't matter. GrooV ( talk) 22:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Content disputes. GroomingVictim ( talk · contribs) has an iron in this fire, extensive content disputes with the user targeted by the attack page. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete with prejudice. all the pro-pedophile activists come swarming like bees to honey. How much longer will wikipedia allow this stalking of a good editor by pedophiles anfd their supporters? Pol64 ( talk) 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. And you have evidence for this? Are you saying I am pedophile supporter? The above comment is appalling. This is exactly the problem. Any criticism of the anti-pedophile editors is taken as being in bad faith and that does tend to put off new editors, and does lead to NPOV issues. --
Bduke (
talk) 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you mean criticisms of Pro pedophile activists. And isn't it appalling that editors support that stance. We don't see editors supporting murder or racism so why do we see them supporting
Child sexual abuse. The day an editor says
Jews and
Niggers should be edit4ed they get indef blocked but to these people who onl;y want to justify abusing children we treat them as if they were arguing about fish and chips. And wikipedia's reputation as a site that supports pedophilia grows daily. Thanks,
SqueakBox 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is appalling that editors support pro pedophile activists, but it is not what I was talking about. I was referring to the comments by Pol64 that assumes that everyone, including myself, who did not go 100% in support of your nomination, are pro pedophile activists. It is simply untrue and he had no evidence for it. It was not assuming good faith in those people, and it does not help your case or the encyclopedia. -- Bduke ( talk) 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you mean criticisms of Pro pedophile activists. And isn't it appalling that editors support that stance. We don't see editors supporting murder or racism so why do we see them supporting
Child sexual abuse. The day an editor says
Jews and
Niggers should be edit4ed they get indef blocked but to these people who onl;y want to justify abusing children we treat them as if they were arguing about fish and chips. And wikipedia's reputation as a site that supports pedophilia grows daily. Thanks,
SqueakBox 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - attack page. If the user wants to collect quotations and diffs in preparation for mediation/RfC/RfArb, then he may do so on his personal computer. This really qualifies as a speedy delete, imo. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment (Abstain from Voting) - No harm in direct quotations. If a user does not want his own words to haunt him, he should not voice them. If someone chooses to be disruptive and uncivil, he should be accountable for his behavior. Thus, in a way, SqueakBox willingly provided the fodder for this page, and there's nothing really against policy here. Still, some may legitimately interpret this as trolling. However, SqueakBox has been known for following the edits of other users himself, so I guess (to put it bluntly and not at all to support this assertion) "what goes around comes around." ~ Homologeo ( talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) (Per request above, I would like to state that I was informed about this MfD via my Talk Page, but the decision to comment was my own) ~ Homologeo ( talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete attack page. VigilancePrime's publicly visible page accuses Squeakbox of personal attacks and other serious offenses in the text and in the section headings. He claims he's doing that to format diffs for a planned "admin intervention" request. If that is really his purpose, he can easily do so off-wiki in a text document. When he's ready with his case, he can file an RFC/U or AN/I report. Maintained on-wiki without engaging in due process, it's an attack page pure and simple. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I have not known SqueakBox for long enough, but I have seen similar opinions expressed about him. If they are allowed to make these opinions, why not all in one place. I think that the person feels that they are under attack and would like to improve the place by collecting evidence against a possibly disruptive person. This is fine by me, and at least does not violate bad faith or civility. Karla Lindstrom 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close Seems more like a personal dispute that should be settled via a user conduct RfC or ANI rather than an MfD. Suggest speedy close and take it to a more appropriate forum. -- 12 Noon 2¢ 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- A second comment the page has been blanked again. I have continually warned that content must be maintained until an MfD is over, however I am reluctant to warn again as I am being accused of a lack of neutrality, not to mention accusations of being in favour of pedophiles.... SGGH speak! 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mfd debates do not trump BLP (mine) or PA, we need to stick with policy while the debate continues. pol is right that you need to know take responsibiliy for the PAs. It is my reputaion on and opff wikipedia that is at stake here. Thanks,
SqueakBox 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't affect this MfD to have the attack page blanked, because the initial MfD nomination has a link to the unblanked page that editors can view to decide their votes. Considering that it is an attack page, it is in accord with policy for it to be blanked on sight by any editor; though it should be deleted through this process so the history is gone too. (I have never edited or blanked that page, this is just a comment here). -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd like to point out not only the disruptive behavior of repeated blanking conflicting with established MfD process, but also the flaming language and accusations those voting for delete have put forth even here. I think these ought to teach a thing or two about about these people's general lack of civility and their often-seen vandalizing behavior, which is exactly why the nominated piece is so crucially needed. This is exactly how SqueakBox, Jack, and Pol have edit-warred in the past even with admins that they have treated with just as flaming language, in spite of official admin warnings. Hadn't it been for unpopular topics, all three editors would not only have received temporary blocks for their repeated violation of WP:3RR, they would have certainly been banned long ago. -- TlatoSMD ( talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh? I've never been warned by an admin for anything, since there's been nothing to warn me about. I've never used "flaming language" towards anyone. And, I've never exceeded 3RR. There's nothing at all disruptive to this process for the page to be blanked, because the link to the unblanked page is at the top of this page for all to see. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not being familiar with the MfD process and the policies that prevail on User space, I'll abstain from !voting too. I can't help to find it ironic, though, that a wikipedian who will, as it seems, routinely shower his fellow editors with epithets carrying such heavy social stigmas as "pedophile" or "pro-pedophile activist" should consider his own reputation endangered by a collection of edits of his. Bikasuishin ( talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
comment — Page has been protected from editing until the conclusion of this mfd. editors should know better than to start edit warring. — DarkFalls talk 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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.