Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ZuluPapa5/CAUC

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 deleteOutcome is pretty clear. ZP5 can apply to DRV if their topic ban expires or is lifted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:ZuluPapa5/CAUC

Per WP:UP#COPIES, userspace "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." This content has not been edited for the past 10 months, appears stale, and is not under active development. Since ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs) has been topic-banned by ArbCom from all matters climate-change-related, it seems unlikely that he can actively develop the page in the near future, and userspace is not an appropriate long-term repository for extraneous content per site guidelines.

I raised my concerns here directly with ZuluPapa5, but given our inability to agree on the matter, have brought it here for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• This was removed. [1] Again, please stop this. now. I am not allowed to comment on this topic. This is harassment.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're allowed to explain here why you think this page meets our userpage guidelines. If you're not even allowed to comment at MfD, then clearly you're not able to develop these pages and they should be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES. It is not my intent to harass you, but if you feel strongly that I'm doing so, then please take that up in the appropriate venues (i.e., not here). MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The pages were harmless. You putting them up for deletion, when I can not discuss the topic, is by all reasonable means, harmful and harassment. Particularity when I object. Please cancel your request now. I suggest you seek clarification on attempting to substantially involve me in this issue, against my desires. It may be considered harming. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

The community has outlined what sorts of material are appropriate for userspace here. I believe that this page falls outside those community guidelines, and is thus inappropriate for this site. I don't see how you are harmed if you're not given indefinite free webhosting on Wikipedia's servers, and I would prefer that you stop casting this discussion in relentlessly personalized and battleground terms. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want the right to edit the article without harassment. You present a false premise, every edit is stored on the web serves, no matter what. Even the distracting exaggerated issues you have fabricated here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The page appears to be a now-lapsed effort to revive Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations, deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations way back in December 2009. There were no edits to this draft since March of last year, ZuluPapa5 has been topic banned from this subject area since October, and no other editor has made any edits to the page. The draft appears to be a POV fork aimed at debunking IPCC methodology. ZP5 is free to retain a personal copy of his work for his own use in the future should his topic ban be lifted (indeed, an admin might be persuaded to undelete the page at that time), but in the meantime Wikipedia userspace isn't intended to be a permanent parking area for article forks. The latitude available to topic banned editors in this respect is probably even narrower. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not and I am not allowed to edit the page because of the dispute. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That is, I think, one of my main points. You hadn't edited the page for at least six months before your topic ban was enacted, and you're barred from doing so now. There's no reason for it to be retained further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am barred from presenting reasons and editing. Please, seek clarification so I may specifically respond to your concerns. There is no reason to delete, but for harassment. No on had any troubles, except that the article was sitting in my user space, and clearly tagged as as sand box. There is no main article to fork. This whole deletion issue is an overblown and exaggerated fabrication. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear violation. Such subpages, even if they're not controversial, should be hidden from search engines. Wikipedia isn't a free webhosting service so I'm going to hide them from search engines. ZuluPapa5's responses to MastCell on his talk page and here are decidedly uncollaborative and nasty responses to perfectly legitimate questions. (The responses sound exactly like QuackGuru.... hmmm....) A topic ban doesn't prevent an editor from responding to direct questions from admins, and especially here in an MfD where climate change isn't the "subject" of conversation. The subject is improper subpages. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to harass me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

When you respond that way you are revealing a battleground attitude and you aren't welcome here as long as you exhibit it. I suggest you get over yourself and start cooperating. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

When I am not able to edit in a topic, and folks go out of there way to delete my contributions, that is like a battle. What would you like me to cooperate with? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They are only following policy. It is your response that might be interpreted as battlefield behavior if you exhibit ownershiplike activity. My immediate comment above was referring to your way of responding to reasonable questions and comments. Such responses are neither peaceful nor constructive. They have no place here. Wikipedia works by consensus and collaboration. One cannot exist as an island here. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What would you like me to consent too? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like you to respond to MastCell's and TenOfAllTrade's comments in an appropriate and cooperative manner. While you should respond politely and cooperatively to every editor here, they are both highly respected sysops and have some concerns that need your response. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your responses to MastCell on your talk page have been decidedly hostile, calling them "harassment" and putting a hat on them entitled "bothersome". Don't do things like that to admins or anyone else. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you take my harassment concerns seriously? Seems' like you want to escalate them into hostile, battleground, ownership and whatever else. If you would address the merits of my concerns, you would be taken seriously. This issue is ripe for clarification by others, would you agree? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you're being too sensitive and interpreting legitimate attempts to converse with you as harassment. That's a violation of AGF. Those two admins very civilly contacted you and you have no right to assume bad faith and act like you're on a battlefield with them on one side and you on the other. So basically your concerns are misdirected and lack merit. I'm not about to address them because they are essentially a straw man and addressing your misconceptions would mean I'd miss the mark. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned by Brangifer's comment above. Is there some special way we are required to address admins, as opposed to "anyone else"? Groomtech (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

@Groomtech, I suggest you read ALL I've written on the subject, not just here. You seem to be misreading what I wrote, and implying something I definitely don't believe. I make it plain that one should not treat anyone, admin or not, in a hostile or uncooperative manner. In this case I was dealing with the manner in which ZuluPapa5 was responding to others, not only here but in other places as well. Keep in mind that this whole affair has played out on several talk pages and in edit summaries. You may not be aware of that, so I can assure you there is no need to be concerned about my remark. Two of those who have (unsuccessfully) tried to get some answers from ZP5 just happened to be admins, so I mentioned that fact. That doesn't make them any more worthy of being treated decently. In the actual situation where ZP5 is under a topic ban, he should realize that if there's any doubt (and there could be if it had been a newbie or nonadmin without experience asking the questions), that when admins are asking questions about things tangentially related to the topic ban, that they are doing so in good faith and that they will also extend good faith toward sincere replies to their queries. They wouldn't then unfairly accuse ZP5 of violating his topic ban. Using the topic ban as an excuse to not reply was just plain uncooperative. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, this whole discussion has digressed from the purpose of this page. It's become off-topic. This is an MfD discussion, so there's no point in my responding more. I've made it plain why I believe this should be deleted. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns then MastCell escalated this to here, based on his POV and offense to my helplessness to defend the content. No one had an objection to the content, until he alone subjectively escalated it here. BTW, MastCell was involve with my topic ban, his action here could be bias by that. Now, BullRangifer would seem to want me to consent to this due to MastCell's admin credentials alone, and ignore the harassment concerns. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A further note; this is actually the third recurrence of material along this theme; another article by ZuluPapa5 – Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment – was deleted in November 2009. While the content in these pages has evolved somewhat (this earliest iteration of the article was a straight copy-and-paste and deleted on that basis), I am afraid that even were he not banned from the topic, this would be a windmill at which ZuluPapa5 needed to stop tilting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Other folks escalated these issue and for what purpose, I would like to get clarified. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST gives no cause to delete this page. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Double checked with Wiki mission statement [2]. Confirmed, this content meets the mission. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I believe the content violates WP:UP#COPIES, rather than WP:NOTWEBHOST. The Wikimedia mission statement is broadly phrased; existing site content guidelines (including WP:UP) are applications of that mission to specific situations. I don't think that one can appeal to the mission statement as a means of circumventing discussion of the relevant site guideline. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, at the begin there was no objection to this user page, until you made one. There can be no objection unless the are two to start, alone it is subjective POV which started this. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How could WP:UP#COPIES apply to content tagged as a user sandbox? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

[3] admin says no evidence for harrasment seen.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonder over wp:hound as well. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: ZuluPapa5 risks being sanctioned under WP:ARBCC for any edits he might make to his userspace draft of this article. I suggest that he mark the article for speedy deletion himself under {{db-u1}} to avoid any uncertainty as to his intentions. If at some future date he is no longer under a topic ban from Climate Change, he could apply at WP:DRV to have the copy restored to his userspace. If he continues to oppose the deletion, and a case is opened at WP:Arbitration enforcement about this, it seems likely that the userspace draft would be speedy deleted anyway as a G5 under the authority of WP:ARBCC. See an AE case from last December as a precedent. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, feel like I am being baited into a battle here anyway [4], when I would prefer the content be left in peace. But really, I should take no action to change the content in question. Folks should avoid harassing my disability (not implying you meant too, I appreciate the comment). Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you agree with the deletion, just say so and I'll take care of the rest. In that case the MfD could be speedy closed, and I would see no need for an AE request to be opened. If you don't agree with the deletion, I recommend that you not argue the matter further, since that is what people are thinking violates ARBCC. In that case the page will most likely be deleted when the MfD closes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 27 January 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.