Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced-encountered on WP

:{{pagelinks|User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced-encountered on WP}}

Page that contains nothing but a vague threat. User has a long history of trying to argue endlessly long after consensus has become abundantly clear, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal or search ANI for their username for more information on that. Page serves no purpose, and is needlessly divisive/confrontational without identifying any actual problems. Part of a pattern of not listening despite a long mentorship and a general pattern of incompetence. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I was surprised to see this nomination, but after a quick dig around March and ANI, it doesn't loom so good. (No offense Worm.) Page as it is seems to say its contents will threaten/disparage/etc. HurricaneFan25 18:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another "contribution" by Porchcorpter that is of dubious value, far from encyclopedic in scope, and appears here to be purely divisive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination is 90% ad hominem. We don't delete pages because we don't like the behaviour of the editor who happens to be the creator of the page. We delete them because the page itself (or its topic) can be deleted per policy. I can well understand suspicions that whatever Porchcorpter subsequently writes about his experiences may turn out to be useless (or worse) - but it is not even slightly reasonable to prejudge that based on our opinions of his character (which might have developed since whenever his last visits to ANI were). A suggestion that we may not like it is a threat that concerns us? Hardly, and nor is it divisive or confrontational (who is being confronted, exactly?) A page describing an editor's experiences and what they've learned from them can be a very useful thing, far from "serving no purpose". It's entirely reasonable to permit the editor to develop the page so that we discover whether that turns out to be the case. Also, Beeblebrox, I feel you should read the WP:COMPETENCE essay in its entirety before using it in this way! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::"A page describing an editor's experiences and what they've learned from them can be a very useful thing, far from "serving no purpose." I agree 100% with that statement. That's not what have here. What we have is a title that implies that there will be such a page, and some content that implies it is instead going to be another WP:UP#POLEMIC shit list. If Prch wants to add some actual useful content to the page that reflects the title, now would be a perfect time to do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::"implies it is going to be another WP:UP#POLEMIC shit list" - yes, that's one possible interpretation of what it implies. And such an interpretation (which from the nomination is clearly based more on opinions of the editor, than on the page itself) is not sufficient to justify deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There's no content there that even comes close a need to delete. If it gets filled with something MFDable then bring it here, not just because he may write something naughty there one day.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and I must say I'm quite surprised at the lack of good faith here Beeblebrox. Suggesting that the reader might not like hearing about the problems Porchcorpter has faced shows that he is trying to empathize with the reader - it doesn't imply that he's going to be writing a shit list at all. What I see is a recently started page in user space (where we allow editors quite a lot of leeway), where Porchcorpter might actually describe their experiences, wholly orphaned and only edited by him - then this MfD appears, attributing motives upon him. I spent months telling Porchcorpter to start assuming good faith, and that we are a forgiving community who will not hold old sins against him if he actively tries to change and yet nearly a year on... Well, let's just say I'm very disappointed, and not in Porchcorpter. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::Again, if he actually wants to use this page to document lessons learned from past experience, I fully support that. "This page will be created soon, and you may not like it. If not, suggest you never come to this page." is nothing of the sort. You know I respect your work with mentoring, and even I can admit that Porch has improved somewhat during the time you have been working with him. So I am equally disappointed to have stumbled across this page that contains nothing but a vague, nonsensical warning and no content remotely related to the page title. AGF is not a suicide pact. If he created this page to document what he has learned, then why was the first and only edit to post this somewhat menacing warning? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - For what? There's nothing yet here that violates WP:POLEMIC. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:Beeblebrox, "Part of a pattern of not listening despite a long mentorship and a general pattern of incompetence.", do not attack me. Worm has been helpful, I was quite younger (but not too young) when you opened the ban proposal. Now my competence issues are solved, by my age, by going through on Wikipedia and getting experience, and by Worm's help. But I have no idea why people agree with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Porchcorpter&diff=449911912&oldid=449906980 false incompetence]. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::I realize eight months may seem like a long time to a very young person, but true maturity takes a bit longer to develop. Your blanket statement all your issues are "solved" is evidence enough that they have not been. However, the real point is that this page consists of nothing but a vaguely menacing statement about what is going to be on it later. It serves absolutely no purpose to anyone, including you. Why you would even care if it was deleted or not is not at all clear since no effort has gone into it and it says nothing of substance. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::"you may not like it" does not come under "menacing". Not by any means - not "vaguely" or otherwise. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Taken completely out of context as a stand-alone remark, I agree it does not. Taken in the context of this user and their previous contributions along with their continued attempts to whitewash their past and deny every last thing they have ever done wrong no matter how many users try to explain things to them or how strongly consensus is against them... yeah, it kinda does. Of course that is my opinion, but it is an informed opinion based on various previous interactions with this user. I would again ask why anyone would even care if this page was deleted as it has no real content and serves absolutely no purpose to anyone, including the user who created it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::Once again, you're making clear this nomination is about the editor, not the page. If that were how MfDs are judged, then I would vote delete too. But it isn't. MfD is not the place to express your feelings about an editor - however justified your feelings may be. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::::::Making decisions based at least partially on context happens all the time here. There's nothing wrong with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete No purpose other to violate POLEMIC. While admiring the AGF expressed above, a more realistic interpretation, particularly given the history, is that the page has nothing to do with problems like dealing with edit conflicts or referencing, and is not an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. The vague threat "you may not like it" is inconsequential, but certainly not an aid for collaboration, and has no place at Wikipedia. Deleting this page would do the user a big favor as it would clearly indicate what approaches are likely to lead to problems. By contrast, keeping the page because it is not yet a clear POLEMIC violation would just encourage further exploration of Wikipedia's boundaries. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing polemical. In any case, criticism of the project is a protected subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Meh. Beeblebrox is of course right about what this is going to become, but why not let it. Also note that this is a copy-paste page move from User:Porchcorpter/Problems I've experienced on WP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Chris Cunningham has it spot on, I think. To mix metaphors, there's something to be said for nipping an almost certain trainwreck in the bud, but this is indeed a quite embryonic train. 28bytes (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep If the content of that page will end up violating policies, then it should be brought here, as it stands, I don't see the problem. Criticism of the project is to be encouraged, I don't see the threat here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep- Nothing polemical about it. Pre-emptively deleting an unproblematic page simply because you don't like or trust the author is wrong. What it's really saying is this: "Because you've caused problems in the past, we are going to assume everything you do in the future is also wrong and you are forbidden from expressing opinions about anything". That is, quite frankly, disgusting. If the page becomes a tirade, then it can be deleted but not before. Reyk _YO! 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: No violation here. Buddy431 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep essays critical of the project should be encouraged. If it turns out to be a personal attack, delete it, but this 'he is a bad user so anything he has to say about the project should be deleted before he even gets around to writing it' I strongly oppose. jorgenev (t|c|s) 02:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I find no violation of policy here - so why jump the gun? Collect (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2011 (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.