Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Husnock/Durinconcerns

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 delete. Daniel Bryant 22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Husnock/Durinconcerns

Borderline attack page per WP:ATK. Perhaps this page was appropriate to use as a temporary holding area for evidence against Durin (talk · contribs) presented by Husnock (talk · contribs) during his ArbCom case, but it stands now as a permanent collection of accusations against Durin and reproductions of posts and threads chosen to make her look bad. In no way should this page be allowed to continue to exist; it has already been applied as a weapon against Durin in her recent RfB. (Note that Husnock has departed Wikipedia and hasn't edited for months.) - Merzbow 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: A poor excuse for a page to begin with, and with Husnock gone and Durin voluntarily desysopping, triply needless. Suggest consider speedy. Newyorkbrad 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Newyorkbrad Alex Bakharev 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have notified Durin of this discussion. --BigDT 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if the person acted poorly in the past they should be called to account. Nardman1 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The matter was already the subject of an arbitration case and has been fully addressed at this point. There were no negative findings about the subject of the page. Newyorkbrad 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yup... although the text on WP:ATK says that "this guideline is not meant to apply to good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior", the intended application is made specific in the next sentence: "For example, a request for comment filed in good faith would not be considered an attack page." I think it is therefore clear that such "good faith reports" are proper in the context of Wikipedia dispute resolution, where cases can be opened, commented upon, acted upon, and closed properly according to policy, and where there are checks and balances in place to protect the accused. They are not proper as permanent attack monuments in user-space, which nobody WP:OWNs anyways. - Merzbow 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Newyorkbrad. --Aude (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not needed, looks like a lot of sniping and much ado about nothing.--MONGO 06:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if it is ever needed in the future, it can always be restored but there is no need for it now. --BigDT 12:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Newyorkbrad and MONGO. ElinorD (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If this goes, should not User:Durin/Husnock images? Appears to be of similar content, saying Husnock has broken copyright rules of this site. Hasn't been edited since Dec 06 and matter looks like its closed. Werewolfman07 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  There are a number of extant problems on that page. I gave up editing it because it was obvious that I would be relentlessly attacked for doing so, and nobody was willing to spend the social currency to stop the idiotic personal attacks against me. There are other people who have been referring to it, and bit by bit the problems on that page are being addressed. --Durin 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  Page seems to imply the Husnock knowingly uploaded bad images and did so hundreds and hundreds of times. Unless that's proven by an ArbCom or something, might be best to delete the page as it could be used as a fuel later on to further existing disputes. Might also show good faith to end any ongoing vendettas. Just a thought. Werewolfman07 16:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  Whatever the justification for "Durin/Husnock images", I think it would be a nice gesture if Durin would delete the page. - Merzbow 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't intend on deleting that page given the huge amount of work that went into creating it to find all the various copyright violations and other policy problematic cases. That would be taking a backwards step with regards to the permissions on these images. Especially given that Husnock insists he is no longer among us, I fail to see the point of the gesture. --Durin 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No opinion on Durin/Husnock images. Thatcher131 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back into Husnock's main talk page. List of charges at the top of the page should be axed, but the bottom half is all talk page entries made by other people to Husnock along with his responses. There would be no justification to delete information off of anyone's talk page, and Husnock and Husnock minions could later return and say this was an effort to destroy evidence. Also, don't agree that this is an Attack Page, as Durin does appear to have done at least some of what is being discussed on this page. Could not find anything anywhere that Husnock ever charged Durin with a real life crime, as suggested by some, or that Husnock was in anyway connected to the failure of Durin's RfB. -Werewolfman07 03:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But all these talk page entries would already be in Husnock's talk page archives, which are prominently linked on his talk page; having them here is unnecessary duplication and as described above picked and chosen to present Durin in a negative light. - Merzbow 04:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, if they are already on his talk page. Has anyone checked? Werewolfman07 05:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't care if this page is deleted. I don't see that it is doing any more harm than it already has. The public perception of my persona has already been thoroughly trashed here, at least in part due to Husnock's actions. That this page was allowed to exist in the first place, that Husnock was allowed to go on the week+ long diatribe against me without anyone stepping up to the plate to stop him is evident proof of the failure of the system here at Wikipedia. This page is a monument to that. I attempted to defend myself when nobody was willing to block him over this, with this posting to WP:AN. Less than half an hour later, it was deleted by User:Taxman as "not helpful". So Husnock gets to go on a looooong drawn out diatribe and is left to happily conduct his willy-nilly attacks, and when I finally protest vociferously about it, I'm deemed "not helpful". Good grief. Husnock did accuse me of threatening his family in real life. He had no evidence of this at all, because it never happened. Nobody here cared enough to do anything about it. This MfD, from my view, amounts to archaeologists looking at a pile of guano and agreeing that, yep that really was a steaming pile way back when. Guano doesn't smell so bad long after it petrified. People think it should be deleted now? It should have been deleted a looong time ago, when it was still steaming. Far too late now. Now, it doesn't matter. This MfD is purposeless. --Durin 15:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a very tricky subject when one accuses another on Wikipedia of real life crimes, since no edit history of diff comparison can provide evidence one way or another. I was once accussed of stalking someone on this site, matter long since resolved, but it can indeed be frustrating. One question though, where exactly did Husnock say you threatened his family? I looked through the page histories and can't locate such a comment. Werewolfman07 06:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This page is a thorn in Durin's side which in turn causes him to be mean towards other people. Better to just get rid of this and the other page. -Pahuskahey 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• <laugh> Sorry, but it's not a thorn in my side anymore. I am not mean to people, at least not because of ridiculously absurd accusations against me. I'd prefer this page remain in place, as I noted above. --Durin 20:48, 9 March 2007 (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.