Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MrX/w

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: no consensus . I'm going to WP:BOLDly close this as no consensus for now, with the proviso that MrX has until the end of this month - that is, midnight of May 31, UCT - to either submit this as a well-formed complaint to an appropriate venue or blank it and request deletion. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrX/w[edit]

User:MrX/w (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This laundry list of perceived wrongs has been in existence for a month. Nothing has come of it, therefore it's continued existence is a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC. Said policy refers to such laundry lists in userspace as "Excessive unrelated content". Policy on such clearly states, "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used and the same once no longer needed."

I asked the creator/maintainer of this list to remove it in a talk page message nearly a week ago [1]. He responded only to state that because I'm not specifically named and he had originally intended to use it immediately/imminently, there is no violation. However, "imminently" ("likely to occur at any moment") is a key word here and "used in a timely manner", a key phrase. Because the list has not been used in a timely manner and it is obvious that nothing is imminently going to be done with it (even after requesting it be removed), the subpage remaining is a violation of policy for userspace and should be immediately deleted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This can be saved just the same on their own hard-drive.--MONGO 16:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • MONGO, you are right, of course, it can--but this is one of the things that we have allowed in user space. It is possible that the community decide to change this whole idea, of course, and if it does, that's fine. Until then, we get to use Wiki server space to write these kinds of things up... Drmies (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Politely disagree. It has all the looks at this point of an attempt to intimidate since nearly a month went by and no use of the evidence at a noticeboard or elsewhere. I'd suggest this path is a slippery slope.--MONGO 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'Preciate the politeness. I don't disagree, BTW, that the slope is always slippery here, but a lot of these things are. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed it is an attempt to intimidate, MONGO. I was told by one of the "Keep" !voters when I requested earlier the list be deleted that if I kept quiet and behaved, the list would eventually go away. If I did not, the editor in question would rightfully have reason to take it to a noticeboard. [2]. There's also his "boomerang" comment below. And SPECIFICO has made the same kind of intimidating comments: "If you act obsessively here or wherever this story is headed...". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — clearly fits the description of "laundry list of wrongs". My only concern is that the nominator is apparently an involved party. Nobody would (or could) object if MrX kept this list off-wiki, but accumulating it over any significant duration of time on-wiki is a violation of policy. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm surprised to find my recently created sandbox page nominated for deletion. It most certainly does not violate WP:POLEMIC as my intention is to work on it as I am able to and post it to an appropriate venue when it's properly fleshed out. I, and three other editors (Drmies, SPECIFICO, and BullRangifer) have explained this to the nom. My time is currently limited and I am a volunteer. It's not posted to my hard drive because my hard drive doesn't connect to the Wikipedia database that houses the diffs. I suppose if consensus arises to delete this, I will have no choice but to bring the evidence to a noticeboard, AE, or Arbcom, somewhat prematurely.- MrX 🖋 17:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging three editors who supported the editor's creation and maintaining/keeping of the laundry list even though keeping it is a blatant violation of policy re: WP:POLEMIC is also a violation of policy re: WP:CANVASS, is it not? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can't copy/paste it into a WORD doc or even a DOCX file offline?--MONGO 18:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A bad faith nomination by the involved party. This calls for more eyes on their activities and collection of more diffs. Time to take action, since they insist on kicking the sleeping dog. Do I hear the sound of a boomerang? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepThe nominator here is trying to censor legitimate claims regarding his own misbehaviour. If he is so concerned about POLEMIC, perhaps he should look at his own user page first. Calidum 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Calidum, I don't usually subscribe to whataboutism, but you have a bit of a point. Just a bit, though--Winkelvi's user page contains no names and diffs (not that I saw anyway), and that is usually a big deal for us admins. Also, please don't just throw around the C-word like that; no one benefits from overblown rhetoric. Let's discuss the matter on its own merits, and let's try and believe that the truth will set us free. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MrX is obviously working on a clear and thorough documentation of a good faith and apparently well-founded complaint. It so happens that the complaint concerns OP Winkelvi. There's no requirement that MrX work around the clock to complete his work in a needlessly short time span. Better to have a clear well-presented set of evidence, if such evidence exists. Winkelvi should not be preoccupied with this preparation. If a complaint is filed, it will be decided on the merits. Until such time, it's best OP ignore this and work on other matters. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking administratively here, it is proper to have some concern over these kinds of pages, but here, I don't see some long list of longstanding griefs, some indiscriminate collection of perceived wrongs. If the oldest diffs are indeed from 2015, one would hope that the editor would actually do something with them in whatever forum they use this content, and I would be worried if that diff had been listed back when it happened. But as it is, the document is fairly recent and I don't think many of my admin colleagues will have a problem with it. Having said that, I think I speak for many of us admins when I say that digging too deeply into someone's editing past is troublesome and usually doesn't help one's case. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE It should probably be pointed out that both MrX and BullRangifer are threatening me in what appears to be a form of retaliation for bringing this policy vio page to MfD. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • another note Winkelvi, you're experienced here. You know how this movie ends. Apparently MrX is documenting what he believes is obsessive behavior. This will be decided on the merits. If you act obsessively here or wherever this story is headed, it's only going to come back to bite you. So take a page out of Trump's book and turn the other cheek. It works for him! SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per shit or get off the pot. It's been a month now, use them or store them locally. PackMecEng (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: Apologies, perhaps I have been spending to much time around the shop folk. I did not mean to offend you. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yours just rolled off my back like feathers off a duck. Even Nancy Reagan was known for occasional lapses of temperament. The one I didn't understand was when somebody or other repeated it right after. Unlike you and me, some things don't get better with age. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - this page violates HOUNDING. Jeepers, MrX - while I appreciate your measured civility, (and humor), this month-long collection is clearly overboard. I don't know of any editor who actually likes opposition, but it certainly doesn't justify an individual collection of diffs for more than, say, a couple of weeks if that long, especially if the purpose is to get your opposition TB at AE or AN/I. Even if there was cause to do so, it shouldn't take a month. WP:HOUND policy advises editors ...to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. It also states The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.... I think we can safely say Winkelvi feels distressed and that their level of editing enjoyment has been substantially reduced. The latter is reason enough to have the page deleted which may even include a warning to not do that again - hopefully making the keep iVotes aware that such a page is inappropriate. Atsme📞📧 18:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you fucking kidding me?! You have the balls to accuse ME of hounding, when I am the one who has compiled evidence of hounding, stalking, and battleground behavior by the OP direc ted at me? How did you, Mongo, and ψλ even know this page existed? We're you all stalking my every edit? I never discussed this pafe with anyone; I never linked to it; I never mentioned ψλ's name. I'm so fucking thoroughly sick of the constant drama and battleground bullshit on Wikipedia that I could puck. How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!!- MrX 🖋 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the most bizarre and desperate interpretation of "hounding" I've ever seen. Totally off-base. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puck? Did you mean "pucke"? You must really be upset. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems as though only reason to maintain this in WP space is for Mr. X to advertise his grievances against Wink, and that doesn't seem like a good use of project resources.
To anticipate possible accusations: I became aware of this posting via looking at people's edit histories and Winklevi has never discussed this issue with me.
Additional comment: accusations of stalking against those voting "delete", and hostile remarks like "How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!" suggest that this is more of a personal grudge than anything else. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to support the accusation of "advertising"? The page has no links from anywhere, so I don't see how anyone would even know it exists. If the goal of this MfD is to combat perceived "advertising", then this is a spectacular example of the Streisand effect, as it's now being advertised to the entire community on the drama board. Swarm ♠ 04:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes—as at least one editor has noted, anybody can see it in MrX's contribution history, which appears to be how Winklevi found out about it since he wasn't pinged directly. More to the point, if he hadn't posted this on Wikipedia, nobody would know about it, but since he did post it on Wikipedia, now a couple of dozen people know about it at least. Blaming that on a "Streisand effect" that Winklevi brought on himself seems like hair splitting since the target of such a thing could pretty well be expected to complain about it.
And while we're on the subject of "accusations without evidence", I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that Winklevi canvassed anybody here. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per PackMecEng. If you have a grievance with another editor, there are appropriate venues at your disposal. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stretching the bounds of evidence-gathering ("shit or get off the pot", per PackMecEng ). Seeing the above uncivil remark to Atsme, I would advise MrX take a wikibreak to cool down. — JFG talk 19:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try to keep on track, please. GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Gratuitous vulgarity, neither meaningful nor amusing. Speaking of wikibreaks... Your own hiatus you tout on article talk pages, I assume looking for "welcome back" notes, doesn't seem to have done you much good. If you're so stressed out, don't jump in to disputes with nothing to say. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The page is a month old. Had it been around for months and linked to, that would be another matter. But, I don't see the need to rush a wide ranging complaint. Some complaints are filed too quickly as it is. O3000 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. It seems you two have been antagonizing each other for a while now, and that this is simply the latest battleground in your ongoing dispute. I am not particularly happy about that, but since we are here, I will attempt to deal with this as constructively as the circumstances permit. I would encourage you both to give it up on the grounds that this simply is not worth it. In particular, Winkelvi, I would like to in good faith remind you that you are currently the subject of editing restrictions for more or less exactly the behavior that MrX is complaining about. I fear that if this does go to ANI, the community may interpret it as evidence that your initial six-month block was not long enough. MrX, Winkelvi has expressed concerns that this page is being used as a weapon to coerce good behavior, and from an outsider's perspective, his concerns seem to be valid. This is not entirely your fault—the comment by BullRangifer that Winkelvi cites above was not at all helpful in this regard—but some of your own statements have not helped either. Please keep in mind, both of you, that I am not trying to take sides here: I am just noting what I see as an outside observer, and which I expect are things that anyone reviewing an ANI post will also notice. This dispute reflects poorly on both of you.
Returning to the topic at hand, my current inclination is delete. The reason is that MrX's justification for maintaining this list is that he is compiling diffs and other evidence, yet he has not added any diffs unrelated to this MfD since April 20, and failed to add any unrelated evidence whatsoever save for Winkelvi's previous ANIs. Because he has been adding evidence as it has appeared, I interpret this to mean that Winkelvi has not done anything ANI-worthy since the 20th, which would imply that MrX is simply sitting atop a completed pile of evidence. Furthermore, he maintains that he is compiling this evidence because he will eventually file this at a noticeboard, but he has failed to express this sentiment consistently and also failed to state when he will file this, despite the fact that he appears to have a completed pile of evidence for the reasons I explained above. If MrX can provide some reasonable date, tentative or otherwise, by which he intends to have posted this, then I might be willing to cast in favor of keep and revisit this later if he fails to act on it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This page is being used as a weapon" ?? Is there no limit to this nonsense? Winkelvi created this page and the predictable tail-chasing. Your outside perspective makes no sense. Every minute of distraction with this stupid MfD delays the ultimate use and erasure of the inventory. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This page" in the quote you refer to above refers to User:MrX/w, not this MfD. Obviously this created drama, and I began my comment above by stating as much. But seeing as we're all here and us MfD regulars need to vote on this, I believe the correct position is to delete the page, unless MrX can demonstrate that he actually intends to use it soon, for the reasons I listed above. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so who would even know that page exists, unless they were, uh, I'm just saying, in case they possibly were stalking MrX's edits -- and I have no idea obviously whether that's the case. These evidence dumps are very common, and they stay up for 1,2,3 months and then they go away. Some of them stay up for much longer. So what? Who even knows they're there. I'd have no objection if they were outlawed, but I can tell you from editing in some of the same topics as MrX that he files lots of AE and other complaints, and they're generally well-documented and result in disruptive editors being redirected to more fruitful endeavors. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's please avoid the passive-aggressiveness. If you're going to accuse Winkelvi of stalking MrX's userspace and/or contributions (an allegation that I won't dismiss), please just come out and say it. Drawing attention to something while distancing oneself from it comes across as though you are trying to avoid accountability, which is more or less the last thing we need in this whole mess.
To respond to the actual point, I can't speak from personal experience on how long piles of evidence sit in userspace. I seldom get into disputes, and I've never had a problem with them being protracted. If MrX finds himself in this situation often (which you imply might be the case), his role in escalating these may require examination. However, I will cite the sections of WP:POLEMIC that editors have quoted above, which seem to indicate that this should not be the case, because 2 or 3 months is in my humble opinion not at all timely. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notion/accusation of stalking was already answered and debunked days ago here, and you know it, SPECIFICO. Yet another chilling threat of being taken to a noticeboard for scrutiny simply because I started this MfD is noted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to keep focused on the issue at hand. GoldenRing (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Actually, I don't "know it" because I don't care the slightest teensy bit about you and I have no interest in finding out who you stalk who you don't stalk who stalks you, etc. Sounds like some folks here spend too much time on the internet and need some real-life interactions. Even a trip to Starbucks has changed peoples' lives! SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) SPECIFICO, please scale back on the rhetoric. I'm sure you're fed up, and I won't claim you don't have a right to be, but you should keep in mind that personal attacks, sarcasm, shouting, etc. does not make you look good to uninvolved editors. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Definition of not helpful. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must provide the natural reply, which is that your claim that you were emailed by numerous people without being able to name anyone who did does not lend itself to being believed. I should expect that someone would not be afraid to speak up about this. If they all truly are afraid, it would be nice if you could forward the emails (or even send a list of the names) to someone uninvolved so they can verify the truthfulness of this and at least vouch for your claim. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Users must be allowed to use their own user space to sandbox anything they are working on that will be introduced to the community at large in the future, including preparations for investigations into user conduct. There's no violating content, so what's the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they mustn't. Every page on Wikipedia belongs to Wikipedia and that includes userspace. Precisely why there are guidelines and policy concerning userspace. See this [3] for more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only applicable guideline (it's not even a policy) is WP:POLEMIC. Since the diff collection is ongoing, the "timely manner" issue is irrelevant. This MfD smells bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
727 makes a pretty solid case it's not ongoing. He didn't edit it since April 20, then when Winklevi politely asked him to delete it, MrX added that message as a diff as if it was further evidence of the need for a block! And then upon it being prodded for deletion, he went and dredged up some old diffs from 3 years ago? Something smells bad, all right. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Legitimate use of userspace. Last edit prior to nomination was four days prior. If MrX had no intention of doing anything with the edits or if it had been sitting there for a long time (arbitrarily, say 6 months), then I would see more of a case. (in other words, per WP:POLEMIC: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."). Timely manner is debatable, but with an edit just four days before nomination, it seems like a stretch to say that's been violated. Even looking at the one month since it was created, maybe MrX would do well to move forward with it, but it can indeed take a lot of time to compile such things.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites: The one edit four days before the nomination was MrX adding the diff where Winkelvi asked him to delete this page, rather politely at that. Not exactly damning evidence of harassment. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extent to which it is damning or even likely to result in a sanction doesn't matter here, as this is not ANI. Maybe unnecessary to add the request for it to be removed, but regardless, if MrX says he's still putting it together, I don't think a month is too long. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why but this reminds of all the hoopla surrounding the allegations of Trump-Russian collusion, and here we are a year later and....all we have is a 🍔 without the meat. Atsme📞📧 23:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be certain, but I believe that's the first time someone's responded to one of my !votes with an unrelated Breitbart headline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POLEMIC. looks to be preparation for dispute resolution. Give it one week, or delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per quote from Wikipedia:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content cited in nomination. I question the wisdom of trying to keep this on Wiki, as I would the wisdom of storing nitroglycerin in an unairconditioned garage in sunny Florida.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I became aware of this discussion because it was pointed to at ANI. I don't know about the merits of the dispute being documented, but if the rationale for deletion is over "used in a timely manner", a page one month old does not qualify for deletion on that basis. Particularly when it appears to involve the nominator here, and it is precisely, to the day, one month from page creation to MfD (longer for the age of the diffs, but that's not relevant here). (And it looks like an awful lot of the keep versus delete comments track with the two "sides" in recent content disputes about current events in US politics.) Editors are entitled to prepare evidence for dispute resolution, and even though we don't want WP:There is no deadline to be infinite in these situations, a month or two is not unreasonable. It looks more like evidence accumulation than an attack page or hounding to me. And the arguments that it would be just fine to accumulate this material off-site but keeping it on-site is a misuse of Wikipedia strike me as illogical: if the problem is that the material is too adversarial or that it is being kept too long, then it would still be adversarial off-site, where it could be kept even longer. That's like saying it's OK so long as I can't see it. And if the problem is that it is adversarial and thereby unsettling, that's something for the eventual dispute resolution to figure out, but not a rationale for make-it-go-away. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of class could be shown by simply offshoring the diffs.--MONGO 01:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if that was a reply to me, but the indenting makes it look that way. Even more class would be shown if the editors who are regulars at the pages about current US politics would stop acting so tribal. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I thought about this and it is more than a pain. Creating a workable AE complaint offline with diffs such that it could be cleanly moved would be a pain even with pro web tools. Worthy of discussion elsewhere, if this hasn't already occurred. (Tribalism is an issue yet less tractable.) O3000 (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, I wrote this in a text editor . . . Factchecker_atyourservice 01:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tryptofish, I think one month is a very long time to hang negative stuff, about a different person, visible to everyone, in the nominal privacy of their own yard. Once someone has committed a complaint to writing, with evidence, giving it another three weeks of to build the case, protected from outside comment, is not useful to the later process of resolution. Move it now to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Once there, the mediators can manage it, escalate, poor cold water, warn the parties, etc, and while there, both sides can add further comments as discussion proceeds. Writing your unhappy personal grievances in a personal journal (eg https://penzu.com/) is considered a good and healthy thing. Writing your unhappy personal grievances on street-facing signs in your front yard is not. Negative stuff about others should go straight to WP:DR or offline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I have a question. You claim that it is common for evidence to sit in the userspace for months, which I don't doubt can be true for relatively complicated matters. This, however, seems to me to be a relatively straightforward case of hounding, given that he compiled all of his diffs (except the ones pertaining to this MfD) in four days (most of them in the first two). The way I see it, "reasonable" in the case of this policy is defined by how long it would reasonably take to compile the evidence for ANI, and it would seem to me MrX could have easily filed this a month ago, seeing that he had all of his evidence. Instead he has sat on it. Can you elaborate, then, why it is you believe that it is reasonable for him MrX to spend several months on this, given the above? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What I just wrote appears to be another way of approaching the argument SmokeyJoe just made above. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let's be clear that I did not say "several" months. But anyway, I don't think that there is an objective way to determine the amount of time it should take before it becomes too long. I think a month or even two (probably not much more than that) is reasonable, and others may differ. But I think that the very fact that there is not a definitive time-frame is a good reason to say that it's been too long is a weak argument. I think that the metaphor of a street-facing sign is a flawed one; maybe this is more like failing to close one's curtains and people outside are peering in. Going "straight to" DR depends on where the DR is going to be. MedCom is the wrong venue, because they do not accept conduct cases. Given the DS that are in place, I'm guessing that it's for either AE or a new ArbCom case. I was the filing party at the GMO ArbCom case, and I can tell you it takes a surprisingly large amount of time. If you've never done that, it might look easy to do it quickly, but it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He could close the curtains by blanking the page between periods of working on it. If it is meant for ArbCom, he can make his evidence page a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, where it is subject to arbcom clerking including deletion. I think it is appropriate that filing serious cases of grievance against another editor should be both onerous and quick. The freedom, speaking generally not about the specifics here, to rake muck about others in your own userspace, without necessary rigor or timeline, is very unhealthy for the community. Userspace exists as a resource for the user to improve the project.

Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

that section of POLEMIC has served very well for a long time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He could "close the curtains", indeed. But the question here at MfD is whether we should "close the curtains" for him, or whether we should have enough self control to simply take some time off from looking in through the "window". I'm already aware of what POLEMIC says. And if you are going to say what he should be doing in re ArbCom, please get your facts straight. It is not allowed to create subpages of arbitration pages without having first formally requested a case, and second having ArbCom accept that case, and third having gotten permission from ArbCom or clerks to create the subpage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Came here from the ANI. Seems to be a legitimate use of user space as it is going to be used in a timely manner to start a case against others. A good chunk of deletes votes here are obviously doing so out of a grudge because of editing conflicts in political articles with MrX. Valeince (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've yet to decide whether to !vote here, but I'm quite sure about one thing. Nobody has to stalk MrX to be aware of the page under consideration. I was aware of it—I don't recall how, but I certainly wasn't stalking MrX. We all look at each other's contribs from time to time for legitimate and good-faith reasons. We are curious creatures by nature, and sometimes maybe a little too curious, but even that isn't stalking. Stalking is about the motives behind one's curiosity, and clear evidence is required to establish motives. This is textbook ABF, precisely what this kind of discussion does not need, and a few people need to refresh their acquaintances with reality in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the past since I am a horrible speller I used to take entire sections of featured articles I worked on and post them refs and all in WORD off-site to run spellchecker and then after corrections were made repost them to the article space with nary a single muff up. The argument that posting this off-site greatly increases the difficulty of formatting is a weak one.--MONGO 01:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do the same. But, diffs don't work, and they are a major part of AE complaints. O3000 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I came here from the ANI too. It is widely accepted that an editor can use Wikipedia user space to format a report that's going to be posted somewhere appropriate, but only for a limited period and it should not be kept indefinitely. As it was created only a month ago and edited as recently as yesterday, I think we're still within a reasonable timescale to permit its use. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just add that if this is kept, it should be on the condition that it is used promptly as a source for an actual report somewhere (and the closer can judge what the consensus for "promptly" might be). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is going to be am easy one for the closer. Especially since there is consensus that the diffs are claimed to be designated for use in some noticeboard filing. The only issue left to be decided is how long can you keep evidence against another user? The complainant says 30 days. Rhododendrites says 6 months. At this point we must look to WP:POLEMIC for guidance.
  1. "evidence ... is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."
  2. "evidence ... should be removed, blanked ...if they will not be imminently used"
It is obvious that the policy places potential harm to the target of the "evidence" above the convenience of the editor compiling the evidence. Many administrative processes have a duration of 7 days, or 30 days. A reasonable interpretation of "imminent" is 7 days; a resonable interpretation of "timely" is 30 days. In conclusion, since the consensus is that the page is evidence, and since 30 days is timely, the page should be deleted. – Lionel(talk) 10:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 30 days is one "reasonable interpretation", but it is hardly the only reasonable interpretation. Does it become "unreasonable" at 31 days, or 32 days? Does it become "mandatory" at 31 days? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lionel above: If the intent is to use this as a workspace for developing some dispute resolution request, ample time has already been given to do so; Mr. X could have already done with this if it were needed for that purpose. A month on, this is clearly a textbook violation of WP:POLEMIC and does nothing to build the encyclopedia. It's "shit or get off the pot" time. Either formally file the complaint these diffs are intended to be compiled to support, or don't, but this doesn't need to be kept either way. --Jayron32 12:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: Less than a month has passed since the last edit (April 20, if we exclude edits related to its deletion). Stuff like this is very common in user spaces, but MfDs for same are unusual. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perpetually adding incremental edits to the document so as to keep it forever is gaming the use of the userspace for this purpose. There was enough here that's a month old that there's no need to keep the page, just to periodically add one more new diff. If what you say mattered, we could build enemies lists like this just as long as we added something new every few days, to keep around forever. There's nothing here that needs to stay on wiki any longer. Also, MFDs for this are exceedingly common. I've participated in dozens. --Jayron32 12:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "unusual" I meant that such pages are normally blanked by the user, rather than through an MfD process. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and if he had blanked it, we wouldn't be here right now. --Jayron32 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. Presumably he isn't done yet. I agree MrX needs to get a move on though. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lionel and POLEMIC. One or two weeks is fine, but a month is too long. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lionel and POLEMIC. Compiling such lists can be fine, but they should be used in a timely fashion or removed. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 16:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various reasons stated above. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lionel spells out the case for deletion brilliantly above. Both the Author and the Nominator should be ashamed of themselves and probably IBAN’d. The accumulation of the list and it’s MFD were both clearly intended to bait the other person. If you two can’t play nice, like adults then you both should move on to somewhere else instead of wasting our time. AdamF in MO (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're making inappropriate assumptions and are most certainly not applying WP:AGF. As far as I know, we've never interacted before, so I'm not quite sure why you're judging anything or anyone here other than the nomination which was created solely on policy re: WP:POLEMIC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for the compiling editor - What is the eventual disposition of this list and when? Is this intended for submission to WP:ANI, to WP:AE under what discretionary sanction, or to ArbCom? If ANI:
  • 'Submit to WP:ANI now. Knowing ANI, there is no benefit to building a longer list. If AE:
  • 'Submit to WP:AE now. If ArbCom:
  • Delete from Wikipedia space to move to the C: drive. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for the nominator - What do you think will be gained by deleting this list when it presumably already exists on the compiling editor's C: drive? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This MFD is a tempest in a teapot. Break open the teapot and see if the Voice from the Whirlwind speaks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lionel. Time is up. Lepricavark (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I originally was going to go with delete but MrX does state "my intention is to work on it as I am able to and post it to an appropriate venue" - Whilst I can understand Winklevi's frustration if MrX is actually planning on going to Arbcom (or elsewhere) then really there isn't any valid reason to delete (Had MrX just planned to store it then yeah I'd agree with deleting), If I were Winklevi I would personally wait 4-5 months as realistically it doesn't take 5 months to go to a venue but because it's only been here a month MrX may well have intentions of going to whereever,
I would suggest this is closed as Keep but I have no objections if this is renominated in September (Hopefully it won't be here that long!). –Davey2010Talk 20:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add I'm not exactly sure if 4-5 months is too long but I recall when I was doing an Arbcom statement (that never made it out) I took a good few weeks days as I preferred leaving gaps instead of doing it ALL day in day out ..... It can be very time consuming so in my eyes we should allow editors to do it when they have a clear mind I guess but as I say 4-5 months may be excessive. –Davey2010Talk 20:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that editors who favor deletion need to make a case that there is a consensus that 30 days constitutes "too long", as opposed to making a case that they, themselves, consider it too long. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2018 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MrX/w&oldid=1138553207"