First, on Christmas day, Schroeder attempts to have my page "speedy deleted" on the (false) grounds that it is an 'attack page'.
Worth noting here that, when considering pages in an editor's userspace (the "pigwrestling" page is in my userspace) if another editor feels either the content or the name of the page is inappropriate, the first thing they should do is open dialogue with the editor concerned. This did not happen. Secondly, the admin who then nominated my page for MfD (Miscellany for Deletion) should have done likewise, BEFORE taking the MfD action. This did not happen.
Admin Beeblebrox denies the speedy delete, but then nominates the page for MfD using the most pathetic argument I have yet seen, and not identifying any policy breach. Here's what's happened with that so far.
The nomination by user 'Beeblebrox':
My (first) response:Some sort of collection of "evidence" that does not seem to have ever led to any action. User who created it went inactive 8 months ago. See their userpage for the meaning of "pig wrestling." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox responds to me:Strong Keep There appears to be no breach of any rule or guideline, and none is cited in the nomination to delete. The fact that I have not edited for some time does not mean I have left or have lost all interest in editing Wikipedia. Unless the nominator can provide reasons for the deletion, I suggest they use their time on Wikipedia more constructively and seek to delete pages which break some rule. Davesmith au (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
User 'Collect' adds a 'keep' statement:I explained my reasons quite clearly in the nomination. If you'd like to see a policy WP:UP#POLEMIC will do quite nicely. Your right of course, I should have mentioned that in the nomination. For the sake of transparency, I came across this only because another user nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page, which I declined to do, opting instead for a full deletion debate. Since you have suddenly returned from your prolonged retirement perhaps you would care to explain what this is supposed to be, assuming it is still your contention that it violates no policy now that I have provided information on what policy I believe it violates. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox responds to Collect:Keep If the argument is that it is an attack page - it does not seem to actually attack anyone in any sort of organized manner. If the argument is that it is useless - that is not actually an argument for deletion in userspace. And for an inactive user to appear here implies they are not quite as inactive as was thought - making that argument moot. Absent any strong argument to delete - the default is keep. Collect (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect responds to Beeblebrox:You seemed to have missed the link in my last remark. For convenience sake I will quote the relevant section here to avoid further misunderstandings of the nomination reasoning:
"Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. 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."
(emphasis added) I thinks it's pretty clear that this would apply to this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox then takes what is clearly a tongue-in-cheek metaphor, and attempts to make it literal:Which would apply if the author made noises that it was evidence to be used because otherwise the material might be seen to be attacking someone. Where no one is attacked, that section does not apply, and there is no requiremnet that all userspace pages which mention other editors be used as "evidence" anywhere. Collect (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect pulls him up on it:From Dave's user page, here is an explanation of what this is supposed to be:
So, his own words establish that he is using this page to identify users that he feels are pigs covered in their own excrement, who enjoy being covered in their own excrement, and whose testicles should be injured. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Before coming here, I was offered some really good advice -
"Don't wrestle with a pig - you'll both get covered in crap but the pig will enjoy it".
My hope is that I will actually be able to engage the pigs in civil and constructive dialogue. I am a pathological optimist.
Having said that, if the dialogue attempt fails, you plant both your feet firmly on the solid foundations of integrity and truth, and give their gonads a firm but fair squeeze. They'll usually run off, squeeling as they go, flinging more crap on themselves than anyone else - it's often a thankless task, but hey, somebody has to do it.
Beeblebrox now says he has "demonstrated" what I mean, but seems to get caught up in his own explanation. I still cannot understand what he means by the statement below:Which means you are using both OR and SYNTH on a userspace page of all things! Alas - I look at what is on the page to be deleted and I do not research anything beyond what is physically present. Which is not sufficient to call for deletion. Actually what happens is now more people will see the page than ever would have otherwise. Seems a bit of a downer, that? Collect (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I felt it was about time I chimed in again:That's completely specious logic. I'll grant that at first the definition of "pig wrestling" being used was not obvious, but now that I have demonstrated what this user means the term to mean you try to wiki-lawyer that point with a content policy that is intended for articles not user pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox then has another go at taking a metaphor literally:"I explained my reasons quite clearly in the nomination." No you did not. I see no reasoning whatever in the nomination.
"If you'd like to see a policy [as breaching policy is the only valid reason for deleting pages, that should have been a given] WP:UP#POLEMIC will do quite nicely. Your [sic] right of course, I should have mentioned that in the nomination." Yes I am right and yes you should have referred to it in the nomination, but in fact it appears to be an ad hoc addition with your own words "will do quite nicely" indicating that perhaps it was not until asked for policy that you went and found some which you thought would suffice.
"Since you have suddenly returned from your prolonged retirement ..." ' I never "retired" from Wikipedia which I made quite clear in my "Strong Keep" statement. Your continued assertion does not make it so.
"... perhaps you would care to explain what this is supposed to be, ..." It is mostly a chronological history of edits affecting or relating to the biography of David Talbott, as stated clearly on the page.
"... assuming it is still your contention that it violates no policy now that I have provided information on what policy I believe it violates." It does not violate that policy as explained below.
"You seemed to have missed the link in my last remark. [I missed nothing, I just don't see anything of relevance] "For convenience sake I will quote the relevant section here to avoid further misunderstandings of the nomination reasoning:" You are taking the passages out of context. They are preceded by TWO headings: "Excessive unrelated content" and "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing ". The material concerned is definitely encyclopedia related. Furthermore, I have not attacked any editor. Your further remarks which Collect has established the inappropriateness of, I find fallacious and mischievous. I'll thank you not to take my words and make up your own mind as to what they mean. Any issue with the title of the page could and should have been taken up on my talk page or the page's talk page, as per my request there.
I find this whole episode (Joshua P. Schroeder (jps) first attempting a speedy delete, followed by Beeblebrox nominating my personal notes for deletion without displaying any policy breach), to be distasteful and a waste of administrative time as the page concerned is neither an attack page nor does it violate any policy.Davesmith au (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Me again:If that is the case I'm sure a consensus will be reached to keep it. I find the concept of identifying other users as pigs covered in shit who need to have their genitals damaged rather offensive and decidedly unhelpful, but if the community disagrees with me your "personal notes" will be kept. (I still find it interesting that you suddenly returned from an eight month hiatus the day after this was nominated, but I guess that's neither here nor there for purposes of this conversation) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Schroeder then adds in his two cents worth, violating several of Wikipedia's policies as he does so:As I have demonstrated that you failed to identify any policy violation in your nomination, and since failed to "find" a policy which my page violates, the MfD is invalid, so a "Keep" decision is the only responsible outcome.
"(I still find it interesting that you suddenly returned from an eight month hiatus the day after this was nominated, but I guess that's neither here nor there for purposes of this conversation)" As your nomination states that I "went inactive about 8 months ago", it is relevant to the conversation. However I have already shown that I am not "retired" so that point is moot, not to mention irrelevant to the issue of whether a page should be deleted.
I find it interesting that Schroeder chose Christmas day to attempt a speedy deletion, perhaps hoping it would be done before I noticed it.
I find it interesting that he chose to call it an "attack page" without showing where any such attack has occurred.
I find it interesting that you also used the "attack page" excuse without showing any attack, and that now that that has failed miserably you seem to be arguing about about me allegedly "identifying other users as pigs covered in shit who need to have their genitals damaged" which I have not done. You will notice I refer to myself on the said page, along with other contributors who I would not categorize in the way you seem to be. I have simply collated ALL (at the time) talk page comments related to the biography of David Talbott, without singling out any individuals. The material is clearly encyclopedia related, and does not violate any policies. Should you take issue with the naming of the page, I have already mentioned such issues should be discussed on my talk page or on the page's talk page, which as an admin you should already be aware.Davesmith au (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Note that he links to my post near the top of this forum page with the words "He uses this page as a reference point for his attacks."Declining the speedy was a bad move. Dave Smith is a perfectly awful character who revels in attacking Wikipedians on and off site. He uses this page as a reference point for his attacks. But, now you've given him a forum and we'll go round-and-round discussing this allowing him to continue to spew his filth. Congrats. jps (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox then says Schroeder and I have been fighting off-site, yet Schroeder has not contributed to the thread concerned, nor to our forum for what seems like a good year or two (but I'm too lazy to go look it up). He then invokes another policy which again does not pertain to this situation!Declining the speedy was the only acceptable move, as there has not been an attack of any kind identified. Nominating the page for MfD was the bad move, as the page violates no policies and as such the nomination is a waste of everyone's time. I am not a "perfectly awful character". I do not "revel in attacking Wikipedians" either on or off the site. Show me an instance of an on-site attack, and where I have reveled in same. As for what's off-site, I am within my rights to post whatever I please (within the forum's rules) on the Thunderbolts forum which those here would likely never have seen save your own linking to it (congrats!). It is not an attack but a factual account of the past and was not linked FROM Wikipedia until your actions above. Please show me where I have "spewed" my "filth" (on Wikipedia) and I'll gladly wipe up the mess... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesmith au (talk • contribs) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I respond:I see I am not the only one one who neglected to thoroughly explain themselves from the outset. You two have been fighting off-site and now that conflict has come onto Wikipedia. Delightful. And we now see that you are in fct using this page for purposes not related to Wikipedia, you are using it as a reference page for your off-wiki fighting. Therefore you can add WP:NOTHOST, which is policy, to the argument to delete this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Then another editor chimes in, invoking the same policy I have already refuted!If you keep grasping at straws, all you'll end up with is a hand full of straw. My page has been in place for over a year. The link Schroeder posted here has been on the Thunderbolts forum for one month. The page is, as I have already explained, mostly a chronological history of edits affecting or relating to the biography of David Talbott. As I have an ongoing interest in the said biography, I am entitled to keep any notes relating to it in my user space. I have a medical condition which affects my ability to recall information I may need at a later date, and so I have opted to post it to my user page. As it all relates to the encyclopedia, I am within my rights.
"You two have been fighting off-site and now that conflict has come onto Wikipedia." Please provide proof of this claim or retract it.
"And we now see that you are in fact using this page for purposes not related to Wikipedia, you are using it as a reference page for your off-wiki fighting." As already stated, and as is obvious by the page's content, it is clearly "related to Wikipedia". That I have found reason to link to it from off-site is of no consequence in the argument of whether or not to delete the page. Please desist from your attempts to obfuscate the issue. Schroeder's attempt at speedy deletion failed, and now you seem to be making up the argument as you go along, instead of having made a clear and concise statement in your nomination. The material in question does not take the form of a "blog, webspace provider or social networking site" and as such your claim that it somehow violates WP:NOTHOST is again, erroneous.Davesmith au (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I respond yet again *yawn*:Delete per WP:UP#POLEMIC and per the forum link provided by jps. This page does not need to be hosted on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems the zealots don't have to abide by the very policies they expect others to follow! And people think somehow a concerted effort is going to make things better. Who has the time? Who could be bothered?At the risk of repeating myself, the argument that it somehow violates WP:UP#POLEMIC is invalid, when the policy quoted clearly states that it relates to material not related to the encyclopedia. As to the forum link provided by jps, that is totally irrelevant. No-one here would have been aware of it had he not drawn attention to it himself. If you suggested "Delete" and quoted some policy I have violated, that would be different. Simply reiterating invalid material does not a sound argument make.Davesmith au (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I NEED coffee...