The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was speedy delete. This is an end-run around community consensus, that we've had way too much debate over in the first place, and that was endorsed in several places including deletion review. >Radiant< 07:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• User:Rickyrab/New Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

This page states This page does not aim to be compliant with the most recent MfD of BJAODN. Specifically from the latest MFD closure:

This is not a closure without prejudice for recreation, or an encouragement to create a GFDL compliant version.

This is a blatant attempt by a user who has participated in many in the MFD's BJAODN to recreate BJAODN on Wikipedia again.

Please note some of the below sub-pages were created prior to the BJAODN MFD that concluded in a delete, but the same core policies of WP:NOT and reasoning WP:DENY behind the deletion of BJAODN apply here.

• User:Keegan/Sandbox/Donald BJAODN
• User:MichTheWeird/BJAODN
• User:Rickyrab/ April Fool's BJAODN
• User:TenPoundHammer/BJAODN and all of it's sub-pages.
• User:WindFish/BJAODN

— Moe ε

• Delete. Subpages aren't places to store deleted content. This person clearly knows it will probably not come back, so he shouldn't have made the subpage in the first place. RobJ1981 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
• DragonHawk's opinions:
  • Delete. [NOTE: This commentary is regarding Rickyrab's page only; the other pages were added to the nomination after I wrote this. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)] WP:POINT, WP:BATTLE, WP:CON. WP:DICK. BJAODN MfD #6 was closed with prejudice against recreation, and there has been no consensus to change that. The user has made statements to the effect that he plans to ignore anything he disagrees with. Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C. Disrupting the community just because you're not getting your way is not acceptable. • (As an aside: I think it is a shame Rickyrab has chosen to go this route. His attempt at recreation is well-cited and consists mainly of links to edit diffs (not the actual content), which addresses many of the objections in the MfD. A non-unilateral approach here might well have led to a much better outcome.) — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
    • A non-unilateral approach here might well have led to a much better outcome - which approach do you suggest? Walton ^One 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
      • There are a number of possibilities ^[1]. None of them involve trying to re-create a userpage version of BJAODN and loudly proclaiming that one intends to disregard the community. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep User:TenPoundHammer/List of fictional things, User:TenPoundHammer/2000s in culture, User:TenPoundHammer/List of films featuring museums. I see no evidence they are harmful or vandalistic. They appear to contain legitimate, non-nonsense content. Odd stuff, sure, but real. They're not articles, but they're not in article space, either. I've got all sorts of cruft squirreled away under my userpage; does that make me evil? — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete User:Keegan/Sandbox/Donald BJAODN, User:MichTheWeird/BJAODN, User:WindFish/BJAODN, and the rest of the vandalistic nonsense under User:TenPoundHammer, for the same reasons that BJAODN was deleted: They are just monuments to vandalism. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Provided that Rickyrab has ensured that this content is GFDL-compliant, I see no reason to delete it. The BJAODN MfD was improperly closed; there was no consensus to delete. Just because the closing admin decided that BJAODN should be historified "with prejudice against recreation" does not mean that his/her views reflected community consensus in any way. They didn't, and I think it's sad that Rickyrab is now being accused of disruption just for trying to salvage something from the big mess created by the various BJAODN MfDs. Walton ^One 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• Would you care to explain how something that went through MFD and DRV twice was improperly closed? The issue isn't GFDL compliant, that was even left out of the closure. If you think it was improperly closed, then feel free to disrupte the community furthur by placing it on deletion review for a third time. Rickyrab is being disruptive, and he intends on recreating it in his userspace and even stated even after tempers have cooled that he intends on recreating BJAODN. Does that sound like consensus? Consensus was to delete at the MFD and at DRV all but 3 or 4 users thought it should have been overturned, that my friend, was the consensus. MFD does reflect the consensus of the community, and I think the community has spoken enough about it. — Moe ε 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. How were these recreated and WHY??? Burntsauce 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Info: As of this moment, several of these pages pre-date the entire BJAODN controversy by years; they're just independent collections. A few are newer creations, apparently in response to the BJAODN MfD. • As for how, they got created the same way any other page gets created :) — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep all. I created my personal BJAODN just for humor's sake -- I didn't even know until just now that the existing BJAODN had been put up for MfD. I merely intended for my own BJAODN to be an archival of silly content I'd found on Wikipedia -- basically, "Look at this, my God, can you believe someone made a page like this?". I don't see my personal BJAODN, nor anyone else's, as "monuments to vandalism" at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?)} 23:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• Just a bit of a heads-up on a potential issue here: I wrote my commentary when the nomination was just about Rickyrab's page, and was specifically regarding that user's behavior. Since I wrote "Delete", additional pages have been added to the nomination, and my commentary does not apply to those pages. Scope creep in this MfD could make an already confused issue even more confused. While I expect Moe ε thinks all of these pages should be deleted for the same reason (and there's nothing wrong with that), it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone else sees all these pages in the same light. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, see my second note above. The original intention was to nominate just this page, but I am adding a few others as well. — Moe ε 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Just to be explicit, I'm not accusing you (Moe) of doing anything devious here. I feel confident that you are acting in good faith. I'm just concerned that this has become a moving target. That could lead to divergent outcomes completely by accident. — DragonHawk ( talk| hist) 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC) reply

No offense taken, I understand, and thats what I intended to make clear in the note above. Thank you for elaborating for everyone. — Moe ε 21:35, 28 August 2007 (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.