Can this please be deleted? I have been more than nice but this is getting out of hand. Instead of dismissing it, lets have a mature conversation about it before I crack. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 18:41, 11 January 2009 (EST).
→ User:Peterfitzgerald/EEarchive#Blanking_your_talk_page, Wikitravel_talk:Deletion_policy#Blanking_talk_pages. There are ongoing discussions which reference important discussions from your talk page, which you inappropriately blanked. Since we are in the midst of discussing whether it is appropriate to police user talk pages in egregious cases, I have archived the information from your talk page here. I would encourage you to restore the content you blanked from your talk page, as this would make communication easier, and because you are well aware you were acting inappropriately in doing so in the first place. --PeterTalk 18:51, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Wow - you speak. Anyways, the consensus on the page is that I can blank my page if I want and should not be held back about it. The decision has been made and that's that. If in the future, it changes well then there ya go but it has been chosen overall that I can. Peter, whether or not you get where I am coming from doesn't matter - but I wasn't being inappropriate, mmkay? I have personal reasons for blanking it that I don't want to have said on here. The best you could do is respect my wishes and not aggravate this further. Thank you for your time. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 18:56, 11 January 2009 (EST).
I seriously want this deleted. Please respect my wishes. I do not want to be used as reference for situations similar that arise or whatever. Although it would be useful for policies or showing users how things have actually happened I still don't want that. I don't want to be observed like a guinea pig, seriously. I do not know any more to say for this, so please delete this. I have made it perfectly clear. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:37, 14 January 2009 (EST).
I don't think you're in a position to demand anything, and besides Peter won't read this, since he is on a (temporary I hope) break, sadly because of your great debacle. And if it's really so embarrassing, then it should probably give you something to think about instead --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 20:59, 14 January 2009 (EST)
It is embarrassing so can you guys quite being jerks. A sysop can still delete from what I know. When it involves me DIRECTLY - I can demand whatever I want I think. I don't know where you get that from. It's like if you constantly made a bunch of mistakes at your work, and people started to get annoyed by it, then they began videotaping it, then they posted it on Youtube. Your boss said to stay out of meetings, projects, and other presentations. That guy also said for you to just do your work and keep interacting with your coworkers to a minimum. Then you ask them nicely and give reasons to get them to take the videos down from youtube. Same thing. You would have as much right to demand things as I would because directly it involves you. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 21:37, 14 January 2009 (EST).
I am going to urge again that this please be deleted! It is completely embarrassing! I would never humiliate any of you this way! If you are so keen on keeping this and whatnot, maybe we can make a sort of deal, like take out the names of who is saying the comments and stuff, because the sole purpose of it is to show examples of how certain behaviors work out (to an extent, I mean half of the stuff is on other pages) and not to point fingers of who said what. Is that a reasonable solution? edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 18:56, 25 February 2009 (EST).
I want this at least discussed please. Don't ignore this. I feel I've been more than fair. You guys have ridiculed, humiliated, bullied, hurt me, I think I'm being fair. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K.
16:18, 27 February 2009 (EST).
Keep up the whining and distraction and I will nominate you for a 90 day ban. 2old 16:49, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Don't think you can get away with this bullshit, I'm not whining, I'm demanding. You are just being a pain in the ass, why don't I nominate you for a 90 day ban? You have been nothing but rude to me. You are a jerk. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 16:51, 27 February 2009 (EST).
I have been MORE than nice to you, I've given a MORE THAN FAIR compromise, the least you can do is debate it with me. You can't just victimize me like this, it isn't right. Do you have no concision? edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 16:55, 27 February 2009 (EST).
Oh by the way, I really don't care what you guys think of me, I just want this resolved. You guys are being completely unfair in every regard. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 16:55, 27 February 2009 (EST).
Apologies for dragging on any drama surround this page or EE in general, but it might make sense to move this archive to Wikitravel:User ban nominations/Archive/User:Edmontonenthusiast or a similar page within the Wikitravel: namespace as it is not tied to Peter so much as it is an archive of information relevant to why Wikitravel instituted its first user ban. The page is currently in Peter's namespace so it's his call, but I'm throwing it out as a suggestion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:48, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
I think that would be ideal. It's probably also worthwhile to move this talk page (with the vfd discussion included) to the talk page of said target archive. Please feel free to make the moves and redirects from here. --PeterTalk 21:59, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Both done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:09, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
I have found it completely rude that something I wanted gotten rid of has been archived by Peterfitzgerald. He has totally disrespected me and my wishes, and I deeply want this deleted, or a compromise to be made but I want something to change and this is unfair in every aspect. You should not victimize me like this. Totally uncalled for. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 12:56, 28 February 2009 (EST).
Delete. I see no compelling reason to hold up an editor who has made useful contributions to Wikitravel as an object of ridicule. If the presence of this archive is as emotionally disturbing as EE says, I think we ought to at least consider excising it. Does it really serve any purpose anymore? LtPowers 15:31, 28 February 2009 (EST)
To expand, I don't think the discussion at Wikitravel_talk:Deletion_policy#Blanking_talk_pages reached any sort of consensus, and certainly not a "clear" consensus to keep. While we can all agree we would have preferred that EE not blank his talk page, several of us strongly supported his right to do so if that's what he really wanted to do. And given the content of the archive, I can't really blame him. If he intends to use the absence of that text as license to continue disrupting Wikitravel, the edits are still right there in the edit history of the page and can be easily linked. Otherwise, I consider it a show of respect to not keep this sort of thing around just out of spite. LtPowers 15:40, 28 February 2009 (EST)
I'm wracking my brain to try and understand where you are coming from here. First, on the vfd page we are supposed to provide a deletion rationale based on the Wikitravel:Deletion policy. I would expect that as an administrator, and an experienced member of the Wikitravel community, you would follow that basic principle.
Second, I'm amazed that you believe I would "keep this sort of thing around just out of spite"; that the point is to ridicule someone. That is to assume bad faith on my part. On the contrary, there is an enormous trail of information about the site to which the content of this archive is relevant. Having been attacked for trying to do my best within the bounds of policy to keep a lid on extensive trolling, I especially want this information easily accessible for people wishing to understand clearly what exactly happened. This is the most basic point of why we archive discussions, rather than remove them—so future contributors can understand the process by which decisions were made. --PeterTalk 16:57, 28 February 2009 (EST)
I just don't think it's a good idea to keep it around if it's causing another human being this much anguish. If specific details from the archive need to be accessed, they can still be so through the page history. If I don't reference the deletion policy, it's because that page is mainly written for articles and images, and sometimes "common sense" has to trump written policy. If we were to only allow deletions based on what's written on that policy page, anyone could write anything they want in userspace and never have it deleted. LtPowers 23:13, 28 February 2009 (EST)
I realize that you are acting in good faith here (a courtesy I wish you would extend to me as well), but I think your vote on this page is very misguided, and the practical effects of this vote are harmful to Wikitravel. I've tried to make clear the reasons why this vfd is frivolous below (which is why it was initially speedy kept). The effects, however, are to feed the behavior of trolling for attention (the preferred response is to not respond and to bore the user in question), to reopen an unpleasant debacle that had otherwise died down, and to potentially create ill-will between users who would be better served by working on improving this travel guide. --PeterTalk 22:26, 1 March 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I'm not the one creating ill will here. I do try to assume good faith, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult on both sides here. I could go into the reasons for that, but this is not the place for that discussion. On the topic at hand, we disagree, and I wish you could let that be the case without demanding unanimity. LtPowers 09:22, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Unfortunately this is the place for this discussion, as it will also link back to the archive, as well as belong at User talk:Peterfitzgerald/EEarchive—perpetuating this frivolous vfd makes the archive more relevant.
I could care less about unanimity. What does concern me is that an administrator is encouraging, and even engaging in, the misuse of process , in clear defiance of several Wikitravel policies, especially the deletion policy. If you disagree with the policy that a rationale per the deletion policy must be given when voting in a vfd, or with the policy that we do not police user space (except in the cases enumerated below), then you should challenge those policies on the appropriate Wikitravel_talk pages. I can certainly understand if you voted to delete, having simply misunderstood or been unfamiliar with the relevant policies, but at this point I would think that would cease to be the case.
Lastly, since you are having trouble understanding my position, I will try to make it more clear:
First, fostering ill-will. Promoting a frivolous vfd, which runs counter to established policy, as well as established consensus (see Wikitravel:User_ban_nominations/Archive#Reply_to_WindHorse and User talk:Peterfitzgerald/EEarchive), and which is squarely targeted at me, strikes me as aggressive and counterproductive. Moreover, the very existence of this vfd implies that you assume I am acting in bad faith, and you have said as much. Second, in addition to perpetuating this frivolous vfd, and assuming bad faith on the part of myself and other administrators, you have actually partaken in name calling. It's hard for me to understand how you think that this would not foster ill-will.
Second, in addition to the archive being relevant to policy discussions, and preserving content painstakingly created by many users, it is important to me personally that this record be easily available. Despite having discussed the processes by which we would handle trolling by this particular user, I was blindsided by a deluge of hostility and accusations of bad faith a full month later, without anyone having let me know that they thought the processes inappropriate. (Had they done so, I would have simply stopped and re-engaged in policy discussion, as I did immediately when it became evident that we did not have consensus on how to handle the situation.) Since I was traveling, I hardly had an opportunity to respond. To this date, none of the users upset with how I (and others) handled the situation have deigned to comment in that thread. This in itself was inappropriate, and I want a clear trail of information to demonstrate why I had taken the line with this user that I did.
Third, I believe that encouraging this vfd is very counterproductive. There has been some debate whether this user is in fact a troll. I think much of the discussion has been misinformed, focusing too much on unknowable intent, rather than on clearly defined trolling behavior. The seminal work on trolling is at Meta . I highly encourage everyone who is interested in this issue to read (or take a closer look at) this article. The user in question has employed each and every one of the trolling behaviors described (save "Uploading inappropriate content") on an scale unprecedented on this site. Moreover, if you look at some of the user ban discussions on Wikipedia, you'll note that the very language used by the troll is nearly identical to that used by EE. Not all of his contributions have been trolling—his contributions to Edmonton have been most welcome, clearly a work of love, and I thank him for them. But he has very clearly been trolling for attention since the first day he arrived on the site.
That article has some good advice for dealing with trolling, the first being that we strive to assume that the user is not trolling; the archive pretty plainly shows that we made that effort. The most important advice, however, is to not feed the trolls. That is, do not react to those who seek reactions. It also states that this is not terribly realistic, since someone is bound to react—I think we are all guilty in different ways to failing in this respect. But actually indulging trolling behavior, which this vfd does, is disturbing. --PeterTalk 21:21, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I'm sorry that my actions have troubled you, but I still don't think I've done anything egregiously wrong. I neither started nor restored this Vfd discussion. All I did was express my opinion on the topic at hand. You've made it clear that you don't think there's any justification for a "delete" recommendation, but that doesn't change the fact that I find its existence to be detrimental to our goals. I consider the deletion policy page to be largely silent on the topic of deleting pages in userspace; it clearly states a few cases for deletion but in no way implies that those constitute the entirety of deletion justifications. In this case, I believe the existence of the archive is doing more harm than good; logically, then, it should be removed, even if there isn't a policy we can point to that says "remove it."
The impression I get from you is that you want me to change my mind on that point, which is why I suggested you're looking for unanimity. But even if I acknowledge that there's no written policy that would clearly apply to the deletion of this archive, that doesn't change my opinion that it should be removed. That one of EE's first actions upon return was to attempt to have the archive removed indicates that it weighs heavily on his mind; I think that's unfortunate and unnecessary, but I can't discount his feelings on the matter.
As for accusations of bad faith, I do apologize. It seemed to me that the archive was created and kept to provide a showcase for EE's behavior, something that can be pointed to as an example of what not to do. The goal of having a way of referring back to the events that led up to January's debacle, I felt (and continue to feel) could be equally well served by a simple link to the version of EE's talk page immediately prior to his blanking, like so: . The content is exactly the same as your archive, minus the notice box at the top, and it would both satisfy EE and serve the goal of being able to reference the desired content. Thus, it was natural for me to conclude that there was some other purpose to copying and pasting all that text to a new page. I continue to be confused as to why that isn't sufficient, but I apologize for implying that the creation of the archive was motivated by malice.
Finally, I cannot in good conscience ignore a plea for help, even if it comes from EE. When he, or any user of the site, asks me a question, I consider it my duty as an admin to respond in some way. And even if I were inclined to ignore his trolling behavior -- which is really limited to seeking recognition for his work and redress for perceived wrongs, both of which are fairly legitimate as trolling goes -- I would have been remiss not to express my true opinion on this topic once it was raised for discussion.
I hope you can see where I'm coming from on this. LtPowers 08:43, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I do, now, and I'm glad we both understand where the other is coming from. I do think there is a difference, though, between a recommendation that something be deleted and a vote for deletion, which is an attempt to impose a deletion. The latter goes against policy in this instance. --PeterTalk 22:43, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Peter, if you were in the same position, I think you'd make a few nasty comments yourself. You are right, Lt, this is heavy on my mind and this site, and if we can just get this resolved and get rid of the grudges (I will too!) and move forward in creating great travel guides, that'd be awesome. Unfortunately this whole thing has made me not feel like contributing too much outside of this but can you blame me? Anyways, if this is resolved in a way I hope, I'd be more than glad to stop talking about this and just move on with travel guides. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:13, 4 March 2009 (EST).
Thanks, Peter. I would still encourage you to compromise and maintain a link to the relevant revision of User talk:Edmontonenthusiast rather than a copy of it. A link would guarantee accuracy, as well as allow EE to feel he can contribute instead of feeling he has to leave. LtPowers 10:43, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Compromising on that is a) needless hairsplitting and b) acknowledging that there's a problem in the first place that needs compromising on, when there clearly isn't – cacahuatetalk 11:59, 5 March 2009 (EST)
There is a problem here, and it's that this archive is causing a contributor to feel unwelcome. Whether that's justified or not is irrelevant to the existence of the problem. LtPowers 19:18, 5 March 2009 (EST)
You know what? Originally I didn't want to provide a link to it when I blanked the page, but I think another suitable compromise is to have Peter delete it, and I provide a link to the history, or have Archive/2008 or somethin'. That would be MORE than fair I think. And yes, Lt, I do feel unwelcome and cacahuate you aren't helping. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:29, 5 March 2009 (EST).
Lt, we're far beyond holding this user's hand. He's a big boy, he put himself in this position, and pandering to his whims at this point is the last thing that we should be doing. It's been said a zillion times that he's welcome here, if he can focus on Edmonton and travel guides. He's not welcome here (imo), if he's here to troll for attention, to pit other users against each other, and to suck people's energy into a vortex of stupidity. How he feels about this incredibly valid archive is not anybody's problem but his own, and brought on by nobody but himself. There's nothing to compromise on; rest assured if Peter deletes his archive I'll create one of my own, so we can keep dragging this out, or we can all just move on – cacahuatetalk 19:09, 6 March 2009 (EST)
All I said was that there was a problem; I didn't say whose problem it was. Now, what I still don't understand is why you'd insist on recreating the archive when a) a perfectly good link to the exact same content is readily available, and b) EE has even offered to host the archive himself in his own userspace. What possible goal could you have left that wouldn't be satisfied by one or both of those options? I'm baffled. LtPowers 19:23, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Cacahuate you don't even make sense. You don't want me to discuss this, so why oh why would you be so ignorant to everyone but yourself and ensure that I would react to you. I'll tell you why, cause you don't want me here and are being smart by making me look like the bad guy. Of course I react when someone makes a comment. So you are just looking to get me banned. That's what I believe. It's as relevant as you thinking I'm a troll, which isn't even true so it's the same concept. If not that, then why? For your guilty pleasure? So you can watch me get so angry? I believe each and many others - what I don't believe is that you're doing it for good not bad. You're just doing it to be a jerk. And Lt, is right, I said I'd archive it my very self, there problem solved. All Peter needs to do is delete the archive and next time I sign in and find out, I'll be sure to archive it. It isn't hard. Just don't be mean about it. I would like to move on and not hate people forever, I hate that actually, but many of you guys don't seem to really care, don't have a concision or anything. Don't you get what you are doing is mean and to me, is a form of cyber bullying? Let's BURY this issue. I either want it deleted or archived somehow in a different way. I am not negociating any further. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 22:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT).
Keep. Let EE become a valued member of the community, and he can politely ask Peter himself. Otherwise forget it. -- Colin 16:09, 28 February 2009 (EST)
I'd say EE has already become a valued member; he's done some fine work here. However, the decision is basically up to Peter. If it were my call, I'd say keep it "for the record", but deleting it would not be a great loss. Pashley 23:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Quite right -- he is a valued member of the community. I should have said that once he learns to cooperate with others, deal better with conflict, and other skills then perhaps Peter will see that the page is no longer needed and a polite request will suffice. I recommend that EE give it time and that he work on his "getting along with others" skills first. -- Colin 11:26, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Keep. That's an article in an admin's personal namespace. It's up to him. End of discussion. The issue of whether EE could blank his talk page is irrelevant here — he was allowed. I'm dismayed to see that we're still indulging in this line of thought. Gorilla Jones 16:13, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Keep. There is absolutely no question that a user can create and maintain an archive in their own user space - we police user pages only for hate speech, vandalism, and spam; this archive is none of those. We've had discussions about this page before and in many places with a clear consensus that Peter can keep an archive if he sees value in it (and note that if Peter hadn't created this archive someone else would have as it was/is relevant to ongoing discussions), and while I appreciate and admire LtPowers' patience and thoughtful manner towards EE, this VFD nomination seems tremendously redundant and a bit indulgent. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:23, 28 February 2009 (EST)
If you could point to the "clear consensus", I'd appreciate it. The only extensive discussion I saw was at Wikitravel_talk:Deletion_policy#Blanking_talk_pages, which I linked above, and where opinion seemed split. But I freely admit I may have missed something. LtPowers 23:13, 28 February 2009 (EST)
There never actually was a consensus, and there probably won't be until I agree on something. I have fairly made ideas for compromises, but nobody seems interested. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:06, 1 March 2009 (EST).
The notion that users have a right to do basically whatever they want within their personal namespace has been in practice, and repeatedly held up in discussions and challenges, since the founding of Wikitravel. I believe you have misread the "blanking talk pages" discussion. We did not reach a consensus, but the issue was not whether users have some control over CC-by-SA 1.0 licensed content on their userpages, it was whether it was acceptable to police policy violations within the User's talk page—in this case, the blanking of user talk pages. The notion that it is ok to police user space content that does not violate any Wikitravel policies is extreme. A relevant discussion I'm familiar with is here. The only cases in which there is any consensus, let alone practice, to police user pages are:
1) if the user in question requests deletion (this does not apply to talk pages—which this archive clearly is—as made very clear here);
2) if the userspace page was created by someone other than the user.
There are no other cases in which we have ever allowed the deletion of pages in personal userspace. Blanking has been allowed for a few more cases: 1) when the user page serves only as a significant collection of irrelevant linkspam; 2) when the content is, with a high degree of certitude, included for the purpose of fraud; 3) if the content is a violation of a serious policy (the only case in which this has happened was for a user page that advertised prostitution). --PeterTalk 22:19, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Peter made the points that I would have made - you're right that there was no consensus on whether a user could blank a talk page (and I actually argued that a user should be able to do so), but this VFD is not about EE's talk page, it is about a page Peter created in his own userspace that he (and many, many others) felt was important. There is no arguing that we allow people to do what they want with their user spaces except in rare occasions (as outlined by Peter above). In addition, there is nothing about Peter's page that violates the Wikitravel:Deletion policy, and aside from EE all previous discussion about the page in question was that it should be kept - that is a strong consensus. I'll refrain from further comment as I'm not entirely comfortable with the tone of the current discussion and some of the insinuations being made, but I would like to maintain my vote of a strong keep for this page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:40, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Just because it doesn't violate anything under the deletion policy doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. Hey, at least it's being discussed. I appreciate all the commentary, as I hope this discussion will lead to a full consensus BY EVERYBODY. Ryan, I think this is a very special case, so exceptions need to be made. But that's my opinion. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 00:28, 2 March 2009 (EST).
Keep. As long as EE creates mischief (calling several administrators "jerks" seems to fall under that category), this record should remain, so others can see just how we got in to this mess. If EE improves his attitude, then I think we can consider deleting it. PerryPlanetTalk 21:18, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Frankly, some admins were jerks toward him. Not saying he didn't deserve it, nor that he couldn't have been more diplomatic, but neither side is faultless here. LtPowers 23:13, 28 February 2009 (EST)
All the more reason to keep it then, so that others who look in to the matter can see the whole picture, rather than relying on a fragmented series of comments from people after the fact. PerryPlanetTalk 00:04, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Yes, admins have been jerks. Just because they're admins doesn't mean I should just let it go and not call them anything, which they were being. I'm sorry, that's how I felt and others have agreed. Perry, you haven't been that great to me either, you weren't a jerk ;), but I always thought you were nice to me and would stick up for me, but now it's different. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:06, 1 March 2009 (EST).
And if some admins have been jerks, then the record should remain easily accessible, so that everyone can see exactly how this all happened. PerryPlanetTalk 20:37, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I don't think so. I came back to this site with an open mind, I wasn't mad at anyone, not you or anyone on this website. I had changed my opinion of the people on this site, in a good way. I still thought people were being jerks and whatnot, but I was willing to forget that and give them another chance. In return, the nice thing would have been the same. If that were a case nobody would still be holding a grudge against me or accusing me of anything or anything else that has recently happened or will probably happen. But the community seems unable to do that for whatever reason. I don't know why, I mean you can't live your life with a grudge against someone, it can lead to stress which can lead down the road to all sorts of health problems, and even if I'm mad at any of you, I don't want to be the cause of that. And you can point the finger, Perry, at me, cause what you'd point at me is probably true and it would only further diminish my dignity here. But it still won't excuse what the other party did. You guys may not know it cause everyone does a good job at pointing out every little bad thing I do, but when a sneeky admin does it, nothing happens but whatever. I am tired of arguing, and man am I getting off topic. I've contributed to the site again, I asked politely for something I wanted, but the community is the same. And because of the rudeness, I'm back to thinking the same way of this site I was a month ago, or pretty close. You know what I'm really tired of? Do ya? This is what seriously happens before I log into this site. My heart pounds faster and I get shaky. That can't be good. All of you have instilled so much DAMN fear in me, and I know you'll get away with anything, even if it's untrue or it completely DISREGARDS how poorly I've beentreated that it makes me do that. I'm tired of that. I don't want that. I'm sick of it. I could care less, Cacahuate, if it is dealing with emotions. I could care less, Texugo, I really don't care. I have emotions, and I use them, you may think it's bad and that we should not have feelings or whatever, but I think differently and you can't stop that okay? There is no rule that I can't have emotions on this site, that would be absurd, and the fact that you want me to not have any is absurd, but it's your opinion nothing more. Sorry again for going off topic. Although in a sense I guess it ties in here. So, after this thing about the archive is decided, I'll take another voluntary leave, and it'll range from between 2 weeks to permanent. It greatly depends on the outcome of this. I just don't see why you'd be so selfish to disregard people's feelings just so you can have the comfort of seeing everything that happened, which won't happpen because only like 20% of it is probably in there. Another thing, Perry, if you enjoy that comfort so much, the page can be deleted and you can just simply go into my history and read it. I'm sure anyone interested in looking at it is able to do that. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 18:44, 2 March 2009 (EST).
I do enjoy the comfort of being able to easily access discussions if I need to, whether I'm experienced with the matter at hand or have just found out about it. This archive was created so that anyone who was trying to figure out what the heck was going on or needed to look back into the matter could see how it all developed, without having to sift through a hundred revisions of your talk page - there's no flashing arrow in the page history which shows you which revision is the one that will explain everything. This isn't about ridiculing you, this is about having a record. As long as this matter continues on Wikitravel (because it clearly hasn't died down yet), this record should remain. PerryPlanetTalk 19:45, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Why should comfort be the basis of this? That is just so selfish. I don't care if the intentions were not to ridicule or whatever, cause they are either way. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:13, 4 March 2009 (EST).
Keep - It's not about holding up anybody for ridicule or whatever; it's not like he's putting it up on the Main Page or something. Peter's got the right to keep it if he wants, and I think it is useful to keep that stuff for reference, especially in the case that either a) EE continues to exhibit the same behavior and generate the same types of conversations, or b) someone else does. A lot of us wrote things there that we would like to be able to refer back to for similar situations in the future. And like any other kind of contribution here, once you contribute, you give up the right to demand that it be deleted. Like the bottom of every edit page says, "If you do not want your work to be re-used on other web sites and modified by other users please do not submit!" I don't see where this is any exception. EE has to right to politely request Peter to delete it, but if Peter says no, that's the end of it. Even if Peter does delete it, I or someone else could archive it ourselves. Texugo 00:39, 1 March 2009 (EST)
It may not be about ridiculing, but it is ridiculing. I would never hurt you like this Texugo, so why do you all prevail to do so for me? I don't know. I was hoping to get past this whole thing, and while my opinion had changed of you all (in a good way) when I returned, you guys couldn't do the same and still hold the same grudge. Forgive and forget. Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean it's right or that they should. Especially when people's feelings are involved. I have politely requested, Texugo, how do you not get that? I've had angry requests and polite requests, the most recent one was polite but Peter rudely ignores it. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:06, 1 March 2009 (EST).
Delete, if we're having a discussion this long about it (plus, I'm sure, lots more discussion on several other pages), then it's not contributing toward our goal of making a free travel guide. If it were ever needed in future it's pretty easy to recreate anyway. JYolkowski 19:32, 1 March 2009 (EST)
This is an article in personal namespace that contains nothing even remotely resembling a violation of Wikitravel:Deletion policy. Is it too much to ask for people to reference the deletion policy on the Votes for deletion page? Do we really want to set a precedent whereby we're using the Votes for deletion page to ad hoc censor user pages, with no reference to site policy, because another user, fresh off a month-long ban, is willing to make an episode? Think through the implications here. I can't fathom why we're even having this discussion. Gorilla Jones 20:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I disagree. While it may not exactly match anything in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, it's obvious it doesn't "fit in with our goals for making a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable travel guide" if it's causing this much of a distraction. Agreed, it's not an article (which is what the above quote applies to), but it's nowhere near "nothing even remotely resembling a violation of Wikitravel:Deletion policy". JYolkowski 21:16, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Also, the top of this page indicates that the burden of proof is on those that want the article kept. It is up to users that want to keep the page to indicate why the page doesn't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not the other way around. Not that they haven't, but it's worth pointing out. JYolkowski 21:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I'm not having an "episode" so quite the crap. I want the page deleted, that's not an episode. Don't make up crap. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 00:21, 2 March 2009 (EST).
Keep. I agree with Texugo --Inas 22:52, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Keep. Gorilla sums it up best: it's Peter's personal page and it's fully in compliance with all our policies and CC by-sa. Jpatokal 23:21, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Actually, no. Most of the content there was placed by other users; only the text there that you wrote belongs to you. And all of it was licensed freely under a free license, which means anyone can do anything they want with it (as long as they don't misrepresent what was written). LtPowers 09:22, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Keep. Per Peter, Texugo, the deletion policy, a Gorilla, and a healthy dose of common sense. Personally, if I was embarrassed by something, I would stop drawing so much attention to it – cacahuatetalk 23:25, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Keep This is not about ridicule, but as far as I've gathered this was the first time in the history of Wikitravel that a regular user, who contributed usable content was banned - an action that defies everything the community would like to stand for. And to that end, preserving the history leading up to the action is important, and should be available for future Wikitravellers. And EE, you've not given your name, I'd suppose that the username is unique to wikitravel. So the only point of arguing with this, would be because you want to keep contributing here - in which case a much better approach would be leave this aside, work hard to become a valued member and adhere to the norms of this place, in which case people who accidentally bumped into this page would think, EE? that can't be right, shrug their shoulders, and move on. Jumping right back into this, head first, is only making things worse for you --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 20:26, 2 March 2009 (EST)
It is a shame that so much creative talent and time has been wasted on this. It certainly seems like the concensus is to Keep this. Can we now please end this discussion and move on to a more substantial topic for all. 2old 10:35, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I agree with 2old. Maybe someone can do something useful, like update the Collaboration of the Month or something...
Delete I can see why PeterFitzgerald wants to keep it but, in general, material that casts other users in a bad light should not be maintained in user space because it not only assumes bad faith but can also taint the user keeping the material. (Why, a user unaware of the existence of EE may well ask, does this editor keep a copy of a talk page from months age on his user space unless he/she has some hidden motive?) If it must be kept, or rather, if the community feels it must be kept, I suggest moving it out of userspace into wikitravel space (whatever the equivalent of an RfC is on WT). In its current location it will only do harm. --Wandering 00:02, 5 March 2009 (EST)
That would have the effect of angering EE even more by drawing more attention to something he wishes not to be seen at all. Concern over the light in which Peter is cast by his decisions is appropriate for discussion on Peter's talk page — this page is intended for evaluation of articles under Wikitravel:Deletion policy. It would be helpful if we could confine any further discussion to that. Gorilla Jones 01:38, 5 March 2009 (EST)
I really can't see anything in the deletion policy that applies to this situation, either way so let me just say that I think it is a distraction from the goals of the project and could be perceived as petty if kept in userspace. (And, the latter is more a policy issue than a 'specific to Peter issue' so it is best brought up here rather than on his talk page.) --Wandering 15:25, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
You are correct, there is nothing in the deletion policy that applies to this situation. That is why it is not a valid vfd, and is why it was speedy kept twice. Deletions (and votes cast for them) are governed by policy, not whim or feeling. That is why we reference policies when voting on this page (e.g., Wikitravel:What is an article?, Wikitravel:Deletion policy, Wikitravel:Article naming conventions, etc). Perhaps it is necessary to write this in bold at the top of the page?
If you think there should be enforceable rules governing the process of archiving discussions in one's userspace, you should start a discussion about that, work to build a consensus, and then move that consensus into a policy article. You can assess on your own whether you think doing so would be a worthwhile use of your time. What seems to be clearly petty and a distraction from our goals is this frivolous misuse of the vfd process, and in particular the straightforwardly inappropriate action you took in reviving it. --PeterTalk 19:14, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Did I revive it? I thought a discussion that was open on vfd was open to discussion. I guess there are unwritten rules here that I am not aware of. My apologies. --Wandering 20:06, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
There are no unwritten rules, but maybe some confusion. Colin archived this discussion as a speedy keep since consensus seemed to have been reached, and you restored the archived discussion in this edit. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:14, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
It appears that this was a mistake—my apologies as well. --PeterTalk 20:16, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
My bad and apologies. I missed the speedy keep by CJensen. In that case consider my remarks struck (stricken, like my face with embarrassment!) --Wandering 21:14, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Given that this discussion is getting a bit ugly, it might be worth stating that (I believe) everyone here understands that this archive isn't being maintained out of spite or to embarrass anyone, and that had Peter not created it someone else would have. It's probably also worth noting that those less familiar with the situation, and especially those who have not spent hours and hours dealing with it, might see it differently and be willing to try yet one more attempt to resolve it via compromise. However, reading the archived page in question (which was created SOLELY so that we would have some context for actions like the current one) as well as numerous other discussions should reveal that past "compromises" have not worked and served only to drag out the current situation. I was dismayed that the VFD was re-opened the first time, but a bedrock of the site is that things work best when discussed completely, so let's let this VFD run its full 14 days, assume good faith, and try not allow it to damage any relationships between the editors here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:44, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm not saying that Peter is keeping this for petty reasons. In fact, I totally understand why he wants to keep it, and I think it should be kept because it is part of the historical record of the user. However, I do believe that it is better maintained somewhere other than on user space. Down the road, when the genesis of the whole thing is forgotten, it will only make Peter look bad. However, I see that I am treading on toes here, which was definitely not my intention, and so, in the words of my soon to be teenager - whatever! (I guess wikitravel and wandering, sadly, since I do like to wander, don't mix well!) --Wandering 20:12, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Agreed. I'm shocked we're still discussing this. It in no way violates any policy for this archive to be kept. And despite what a couple users seem to believe (for a very strange reason I cannot comprehend), there is absolutely nothing insulting or "bad light" casting about it remaining in place. It's not an opinion of a user, an essay, a biography. It is a conversation that took place. On a wiki. Between people who are all capable of reading and familiar with cc-by-sa, and should have read 100 times before the warnings at the bottom of each edit page. Again, it in no way violates any existing policy, as has been said before, this isn't the place to challenge policy, so for the love of christ, can we stop feeding the conversation lover? This is such a non-issue it isn't even funny – cacahuatetalk 02:27, 5 March 2009 (EST)
cacahuate, maybe if all this crap happened to you , ya wouldn't think of it as a non issue. again, I COULD CARE LESS if it was meant to be insulting/degrading, it IS - simply that. you wouldn't know that because you aren't in the situation. why don't we just delete this and move on with travel guides? i agree that it is getting out of hand, because some people won't back down (including me). there is no absolute need for it on this site, so why is it still here? i don't care if it's legal to keep it, when someone is being hurt by it - it shouldn't matter. why can you not use your heart? i know you got one. sertmann, you made a very good point at the end there, depending on how things play out i may hafta use it, thankyou.edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 18:31, 5 March 2009 (EST).
By the way, you do understand that this discussion will be archived, per the policy at the top of the page... -- Colin 21:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)
This crap did happen to me... I'm one of the administrators who you attempted to drag through the mud, and no, I won't back down and watch as you try to rid the site of some of the evidence that justified mine and other's actions. History is history, let it be that. You can't undo history in real life, and you won't be undoing it on this site either. Move on – cacahuatetalk 19:09, 6 March 2009 (EST)
No this didn't happen to you - not even remotely in the same way. You are being such a jerk it's unbelieveable and you wonder why I react to you? What you have done is wrong too, you've just been subtle in my opinion, which is very smart. The reason I "dragged" you is because you were so mean to me. When you deleted the photos on Shared, I thought maybe you had changed, so now I just see you are the same person. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:24, 6 March 2009 (EST).
This matter of the archive has been decided, and I will make no further comment. However, to prevent similar issues arising for you, EE, I ask you to think seriously why you care. If people think you are a jerk or a great contributor, so what? You cannot change others opinions, but you can decide whether to be effected by them. People's opinions will change faster than Canadian weather. If you rely on them for your state of mind, you'll constantly feel unstable. Instead, I humbly suggest that you take note of others concerns, then shrug your shoulders and move on. Anyway, this is my advise. It is up to you to take it or not. Whatever, no more from me on the matter. Oh, and welcome back! WindHorse 21:42, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Hey I've always pretty much liked your comments, I appreciate that. Thank you. Anyways I made a very generous idea that I would archive it myself, which was what highNmight Peter wanted me to do originally, but I need him or another moderator to confirm this, and I need to know they'll follow through, but they need to confront me. If not, I don't really know what to do. It is a dear insult. Even though it's been rarely referenced (and if it is ever referenced in my talk page, it will be reverted no matter what, due to arrogancies) I still feel like it's always staring me in the face and it is hurtful to me, because not only is what wwhappened bad, but it's the fact that people on this site CANNOT and will nOT move on and even try to forgive me. I've done so for them, but I'm not in the situation of that forgivingness anymore due to how 2old, Peter, Colin, and of course, Cacahuate (who I actually thought changed) have treated me. If you expect me to change, I expect you to at least try. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 11:10, 7 March 2009 (EST).
"I either want it deleted or archived somehow in a different way. I am not negociating any further."
By clicking "Save" below, you acknowledge that you agree to the site license as well as the following: (...)
to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works;
to create and reproduce Derivative Works;
As you have accepted the terms above, you are in no position to demand or negotiate the removal of the content in question, period. You can however, as you have, attempt to gather a consensus among wikitravel users that content should be deleted. Looking down the page, it's clear that you have failed to gather such a consensus - In imagery terms, you have lost your plea in the supreme court, there are no further routes of appeal - So in your own words, bury the issue. Your only other option at the moment is to drag the discussion on to a point where people stop responding, unfortunately I have no clue how the make the current situation any more clear to you. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 23:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Just because the license says that you can do whatever the hell you want doesn't mean it's right. In the past it's been legal to kill people, it doesn't mean you should do it. You guys are the absolute most arrogant people I've seen. Why you must continue to put this huge burden on me is out of reach. You guys are out of line. I know the #2 jerk in town, that's you cacahuate, (#1 goes to dear 2old) would have definitely done the same thing #3 has done. I could care less which of the three (or if someone like Colin did it) the point is SOMEBODY archived something of my own. It truly isn't theirs, it is mine. If you are so naive to see how this hurts me, I suggest YOU taking a voluntary 1 month break. Again, I DO NOT FLIPPING CARE if you had intentions to be mean, you are - don't wiggle your way out of it. At least admit it, like I've admitted to things. You guys can't even do that, instead you give me labels and BAN ME FOR REASONS I DIDN'T know (and it directly involves you SERTMANN, who discussed how to "deal" with me offsite without my knowing, so when I made comments, they were reverted, I readded them, then I was banned. How is that fair? The least you could do is delete the stupid thing). I ALREADY OFFERED TO DO WHAT MASTER HIGH HORSE JERK PETER FITZGERALD WANTED (sorry for the caps your highness, we really don't want to upset you here on Wikitravel, even if you've been a jerk, it's okay, you've contributed so much, we're glad to have you) IN THE FIRST PLACE - ME TO ARCHIVE IT MYSELF. WHAT DO YOU WANT ME? BEG FOR FORGIVENESS? I THINK I PRETTY MUCH BEGGED ALREADY. YOU JERKS CONTINUE TO VICTIMIZE ME THROUGH THIS AND I'D NEVER DO IT TO YOU, THIS IS THE MOST UNWELCOMING SITE I'VE BEEN TO. Please, do some homework tonight if you really don't get it, spend a short bit, understand where I'm coming from and why I am acting in this way. If you guys expect ME to become a WELL OFF contributer of this website (which I will admit is pretty nice aside from the crappy community overall) the least you can do is take the first step and bury this issue by deleting it - yes you Peter. I've been totally nice to you, and I just went one one of few rants at you but really, can you blame me? After all you've done seriously. Also, you make it seem like I rant on you ALL THE TIME, I don't I've done it maybe 2-4 times and tha's it. You don't rant, but tend to be a jerk in other ways. We're both not too good in this situation I think, yet cause you are a SPLENDID contributor, only my bad is noticed. CRAP.edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:13, 10 March 2009 (EDT).