Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tanthalas39/dougstech

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 Page has been deleted StarM 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing instructions

User:Tanthalas39/dougstech

As I have been told, pages like this is not what the userspace is for. DT is effectively site banned. As far as I have been told, pages like this could be considered attack pages, and, as said above, since DT is already banned, this page serves no more purpose. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but don't you have better things to do rather than search for subpages in people's userspace relating to DougsTech? Seriously..go edit an article or something... (I have no opinion on the keeping or deletion of this article) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly no longer in reasonable preparation for an RfC or the like - hence not falling under that specific exemption for such a page any more. Collect (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC) And as noted below, asking the user is good practice. Collect (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Did the nominator ask the user in question to consider deleting the page on his own, before bringing this here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Tan is an admin and can delete this himself. Is there, therefore, a good reason why you did not simply ask him to? //roux 21:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, this seems a skosh pointy in light of this. Your first edit off your break was to do this, Daedalus? I think perhaps your break wasn't long enough. //roux 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing pointy about this. Currently I am searching through the subpages of other users, looking for pages like this one which could be considered attack pages. As to asking Tan, I have not. To the earlier question again, you say this is pointy. Do tell me how it is disruptive to ask for the deletion of attack pages?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not an attack page; it's a fair analysis of a past Wikipedia problem with--and this is key--clear exegesis, not merely a list of names and unsubstantiated allegations, as well as a proposed solution to said problem. It was explained to you in your MfD why the two pages were hugely different. So yes, to be blunt, it looks very much like you got upset by the deletion of your list and are now lashing out again; you tried to do this during the previous MfD and were shot down. I think you really do need a much longer wikibreak, as this action--your first after your break--has all the hallmarks of holding a grudge. //roux 22:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Funny, that was just what my list was. It didn't contain allegations, it contained facts. They weren't linked because they didn't need to be linked, because, at the time, the page was only for myself. Check the block log of all the people listed, you will see that the list only contained facts about them. As to the other part of it, concerning stalkers of myself and Gwen, I used that as a quick way of finding related usernames. I don't see what was so bad about it that it needed to be deleted. My list had no proposed solution. It was a long-term evidence gathering helper. If a sock showed up that had similarities to any of the socks listed there, then I could file an SPI given the presented patterns.
      - As to holding a grudge, there is no helping it. I admit that I did brood over this apparent hypocrisy, of deleting something that was clearly not an attack page, yet saying nothing in regards to his own page which was similar. I'm bad about dropping things. It's a problem that I admit exists, but because of the nature of the problem, time won't help, I just need to work on it. Time didn't help because I couldn't forget about the existence of this page. I have a problem forgetting things. Although I will not forget this, you can bet that if this page is decided to be kept, I won't keep going back to it.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The best time to start working on your issue is now. Withdraw this and move on. All of the other issues you raise were dealt with quite comprehensively at your MfD; I see no reason to rehash them here. //roux 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As to a good reason about not asking him, it honestly didn't occur to me.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then ask him now, please. There is no need for us all to have a 7-day discussion if he would be willing to delete or blank the page himself. This should be standard practice before filing a userspace MfD.Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Asked.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user has thankfully left us, there isn't really much point to this page any longer. Majorly talk 22:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Majorly and Collect. No longer needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure we've seen the end of Dougstech. No harm in keeping it. StarM 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous. Tan | 39 01:23, 11 June 2009 (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.