Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination)

User:Ash/analysis

This page is clearly in violation of WP:UP#NOT. I withdrew the earlier MfD after Ash claimed they were about to file some form of dispute resolution. That was a week ago. Ash seems to feel that I am attempting to set a timetable here, but I am simply trying to encourage them to file the RFC/U or ask for their "neutral analysis" page to be deleted until such time as they are ready to do so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This is a tit-for-tat nomination as per Delicious carbuncle's comment on ANI only 28 minutes before raising this MfD. The reasons to keep this page raised by multiple editors in the first nomination still apply (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ash/analysis), particularly as the dubious ANI that Delicious carbuncle raised against me is still open and another editor has since raised this WQA against Delicious carbuncle for his/her uncivil behaviour. Until these related dispute resolution processes are concluded, it would be inappropriate to raise yet another dispute resolution process creating a multi-forum discussion. As per the guidance of WP:USER, this analysis page is a way of openly gathering evidence that several editors are now involved with, taking this off-wikipedia will only create the opportunity for claims of secret collusion, which is the opposite of my preference for open and transparent resolution processes. Ash (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep As the user who opened the WQA, having such information prepared for an RfC, ANI, MedCab, or any other dispute resolution process presents itself as more and more necessary. Dc has made clear he is unwilling to participate in the WQA, (noted also by an outside party that it "appears from his talk page Delicious carbuncle is choosing not to participate), nor will he admittedly participate in an RfC relating to his editing behavior. With the inclusion of the WQA added only hours ago to User:Ash/analysis, it is completely protected and an appropriate use of userspace. The page has been removed from search engine indexes and plainly noted that the page is not an accusation of poor behavior in and of itself. If anything, that Dc views the page as an attack is only evidence of his failure to AGF. Perhaps a copy-and paste of my WQA against him added to the page in question will supply the diffs in a more blatant way, to assure Dc that there is, indeed, a dispute resolution process forthcoming (as if raising the WQA weren't enough)? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Link to 1st MfD is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a non-productive laundry list. Either take it off the wiki, or move it all to an WP:RFC/U. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment To move it to WP:RFC/U when it is still not fully ready would be a waste of everybody's time. The longest period of inactivity to the page has only been 5 days (during which a very detailed WQA was created relating to the same subject), so I wouldn't really say this is "non-productive" at all. It is a fully fair, developing, work-in-progress. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of userspace to stage an RFC/U is to avoid the time limit controls of RFC/U and is unfair on the accused. You have a case, I presume good faith informal DR has failed, go to RFC/U and see if you have support. If you don't, it didn't belong in your userspace. IPs who get involved in this sort of stuff should register and account, is my considered opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UP: "Common uses of userspace: ...to-do lists, reminders...collaborative works, draft proposals, (constructive) thoughts on Wikipedia articles or policies and how they should be changed, etc....Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki....Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages)...Drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest or major proposed changes...Drafts being written in your own user space because the target page itself is protected, and notes and working material for articles (Note some matters may not be kept indefinitely)." Seems like according to all that, since this is undoubtedly a work in progress in active preparation for a more formal DR, this page should be acceptable. Also, regarding my registering an account, please see WP:WAE and WP:SOP (particularly #3). Thanks! 38.109.88.180 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the uses of userspace you mention are positive things. Compiling a case for DR is a negative thing, and so is treated differently. We place time limits on it. WP:WAE and WP:SOP (particularly #3) are clearly written with the editing of mainspace in mind. Engaging in DR is to get deeply intwinned in the backrooms of the project. In these backrooms, it is important to have some sense of how is how, and IPs that change, even infrequently, are a problem for most of us. The WP:SOCK rules are also poorly defined for managing committed IPs. Do you take care not to comment when you are at a different IP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying as far as a time limit. But, as I mentioned, the userpage is still active and developing. As Ash mentions below, there are DR processes already in place (both at the ANI and the WQA). Given Delicious carbuncle's seemingly unwillingness to participate in those two places already, this userpage is most appropriate as it will expedite the quick advancement of the DR process and hopefully encourage Delicious carbuncle to participate where it stands and "nip this issue in the bud". I understand the wanting to know who is whom in "backroom projects", yet, this doesn't eliminate WP:WAE. I don't agree that WAE and SOP are "clearly written with the editing of mainspace in mind". Besides, I've been a productive and non-disruptive editor with no history of blocks and wish to have more of an understanding of WikiPolicy, and wanting to IP edit shouldn't affect that...especially since I've offered to allow the user whose behaviour IS in question to Checkuser on me. (Twice: [1] and [2].) I mean, it's not like I have any cause to need to request WP:EXEMPT here since I'm not in any threat of being blocked... But for convenience of everybody's knowing, I quickly linked both my most recent static IP's together via their talk pages [3] and [4] as soon as I noticed a change. (And if we could keep the discussion about me having an IP vs. an account on my current talk page and keep this discussion about Ash's Userpage, I think that might help focus the rest of this discussion.) 38.109.88.180 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case there are multiple editors involved in experiencing either direct abuse or abuse of process by Delicious carbuncle. As linked above there is an open ANI against me from Delicious carbuncle and an open WQA against carbuncle from 38.109.88.180. Raising a DR process whilst 2 others are still open is not advised. At the end of the day, we (the involved recipients of what we feel is Delicious carbuncle's bullying behaviour) can, of course, be forced to work together in secret off-Wiki. I would have hoped for a transparent process that Delicious carbuncle could comment upon, rather than such an automatically confrontational one.

As for your opinion that IPs should not be getting involved in DR, you are welcome to hold such views, but please note the guidance of m:Founding principles point 2, which specifically protects the interests of such editors to contribute here. Ash (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the details of your case. You appear to have one. I think you would be best served to file it now. Filing it now will more properly lead to outsiders giving opinions. It may even lead to a quick resolution. The laundry list in userspace is very unlikely to lead to an amicable resolution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

With due respect that is a bit naive and wishful thinking. Delicious carbuncle has been wikiharassing multiple editors over many months. Working through issues of whether it's just a civility issue, also an abuse of the admin boards how to reconcile their attempted OUTing of other editors, near presumption of bad faith, alleging cabal, reviewing if they also need a topic ban, etc are not simple black/white issues. Currently their is an ANI thread that Delicious carbuncle keeps posting to apparently keep it from being archived. No Delicious carbuncle knows how to game things here so making an RFCU that will cut to the quick of the cost/benefit analysis of their behaviours and disruption to the larger community need to be worked out and presented in the the most productive way forward. In each of the cases of Delicious carbuncle interactions with other editors, including myself, Delicious carbuncle was the pursuer and antagonizer often asked by those Delicious carbuncle apparently had an axe to grind to leave them alone. Delicious carbuncle simply doesn't wp:Hear it and continues to rain WP:Grief. In fairness this page should be left to be developed in good faith for at least as many months as Delicious carbuncle has harassed other editors in bad faith. -- Banjeboi 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's avery serious allegation. Please either refactor it or provide diffs where complaints of harrassment have been upheld somewhere. Personalising your comments in this was is unacceptable and a personal attack on DC. ArbCom have banned a couple of users recently for habitually making claims of harrassment without evidence so its time to put up of shut up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a serious situation unfortunately. If you could specify which statements you feel need to be backed up with diffs maybe that's a good place to start and may help direct the case forward. -- Banjeboi 10:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PK, please evidence "Delicious carbuncle has been wikiharassing multiple editors over many months" with diffs of discussions where there was a clear conclusion that this was the case. I see lots of allegations but no actual evidence that there has ever been a consensus that this is the case. As I said, this is a serious allegation and serious allegations require serious evidence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Use it or lose it but don't leave it hanging around. Thats the rule... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

CommentAs I mentioned above, it IS being used in a wholly timely manner...with the addition of the WQA info just the other day (and with the longest period of inactivity since its creation being only 5 days), it has proved that its intent is still quite unquestionably in progress. It is not "just hanging around". 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, if it takes that long to draw up a case then there is no case to answer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, it would seem. The more detailed the behavior of possible abusive editing may be; the more possible violations in question; the longer the possible history of such editing history: the longer it takes to collect diffs, compile them in an organized manner for presentation.38.109.88.180 (talk)

Delete being used to keep the threat of an RFC hanging over another editor without filing the RFC. File an RFC; if you want to keep attack pages/gather for an enemies list do it off line.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• To be clear, Delicious carbuncle is not my "enemy" and the page is not an "attack" page (particularly as I have made a point of making it unindexed). Ash (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I been enduring various accusations and insinuations from Benjiboi and Ash for months now and I have grown tired of it. I have asked both of them to stop making unfounded and unsupported attacks, but the accusations just keep being repeated and inflated. I recently started a thread at ANI when Ash posted what I felt to be a clearly deceptive and disruptive thread. There was no productive result. Although the claim has been made that I am attempting to discourage an RFC/U, I have encouraged both Benjiboi and Ash to start one so that their accusations can be put to rest. There is no reason why this could not be started immediately, or as soon as the "evidence" can be prepared. As the phrase goes, put up or shut up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting both Ash and I have felt the exact opposite is true. That you have been needlessly wikihounding our edits and have made every attempt to delete content in this one subject area ignoring consensus and simply escalating everything to ANI and other admin boards when you didn't get your way. Seems like tendentiousness is an issue and that remains highly disruptive. The reason this hasn't been started already, IMHO, is that it's pretty complex and showing the interconnectedness to what seems to be your offsite activities should also be made clear for all to see as well if that is to be a central part of the evidence. Frankly your on-wiki conduct by itself seems alarmingly poor and overly hostile to those who you apparently disapprove so the offsite conduct might not matter that much. There is also a lot of diffs and edit summaries than need to be reviewed. If there is a pattern it may be helpful to note when it seemed to start or at least become noticeable. Then there's the statistical anomaly that so many of those who you seem to be in prolonged disputes with are active in LGBT subject area, arguably all also tied in some way to gay pornography content editing. This could simply be yet another astonishing coincidence or an indication of a subject area that a basic topic ban could alleviate. When a handful of users all express the same issues with a single editor in a single topic area and that same edit has been topic banned for similar conduct there's a reasonable leap of faith that the handful of users may actually be targeted by that one editor. -- Banjeboi 14:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, this is the crux of the matter. You and Ash take any opportunity to make allegations like you just have above. You offer no evidence for your assertions, yet you feel that this is somehow acceptable. I know from much past experience that there is little point in rebutting them here or asking you to stop, but editors who are unfamiliar with the situation will likely be influenced by them. These types of accusations are characterized as personal attacks by WP:NPA but I know full well that taking this to ANI will result in the more of the same long-winded bickering that no sensible editor bothers to read, but for the record (again) please stop asserting that I am involved in some sort of off-wiki conspiracy against you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet you seem perfectly comfortable ignoring early dispute resolution processes, such as my bringing Wikilove to your doorstep or filing a WQA. Perhaps if you would give those some validity, others would see your willingness to change what (now at least) 3 editors see as an editing in an unfair manner. Just a thought. Oh, and I'm a "sensible editor", and I bother to read the ANI. Are you saying you aren't reading the ANI threads, even the ones that you begin?38.109.88.180 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling here isn't going to help your case any. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment for Ash If you will check the recent history of the page in question, anybody will see that it is quite close to becoming ready to be filed. Ash, perhaps stating a time frame will settle everybody's nerves. Any idea on how long before you're ready to submit? Perhaps within this work week? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as just "my" RFC, I can get my statement ready this week but I would like it to be seen as being presented on behalf of more than one editor who has been falsely accused of something by DC. Consequently it needs to be drafted and then discussed and consolidated. I would prefer to present an RFC that I see as completely unambiguous as we have noticed the challenging behaviour of a number of editors interested in the gay-sexuality and gay-adult-entertainment-industry area with interests potentially more to do with making Wikipedia "safe for children" rather than addressing this topic in an encyclopedic and uncensored way. Frankly I would rather not bother and let DC carry on acting uncivilly and attacking other editors (s/he will probably get bored hitting me with the big stick of ANI eventually) rather than file an RFC with a typo in it that leaves me open to accusations of COI, lying, fraud, personal attack... in fact all the things that I have been repeatedly accused of in ANI since starting to contribute to gay pornography articles this year.

Comment temporarily hidden whilst DC's claim of "personal attack" by mentioning a background matter of WikipediaReview attracting editors to comment on a related ANI raised against me by DC

Banjeboi raised another (very) tricky area, that of WikipediaReview.com (WR). It does not take much Google searching to discover that an ANI DC raised against me was practically advertised for comment by members of WR (not by DC I hasten to add) or that a number of editors (and administrators) that have got themselves involved around DC have expressed opinions on WR deriding the subject of gay pornography as an encyclopedic topic on Wikipedia for various reasons (again, I hasten to add that I am not implying homophobia on behalf of such writers). I do not know if there is any guidance about off-wiki public statements made by administrators who then get involved in ANI or other disputes without declaring their previously existing interests. However I have no particular plan to raise these concerns directly in an RFC/U about DC as I have no evidence that DC is personally deliberately manipulating WikipediaReview or vice-versa and I am keen to assume as much good faith as possible. It should be noted that members of WR relate their Wikipedia accounts to their WR accounts and so even where a WR account name differs, the evidence of who is who is unambiguous. Ash (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Ash, I am not completely sure what is being alleged here or about whom it is being alleged, but this is getting ridiculous. I have repeatedly asked you to stop trying to associate me with Wikipedia Review which you know to be a site viewed negatively by some Wikipedians. This is a discussion about whether or not to delete a page in your userspace, not a forum for more of your unsubstantiated personal attacks against me and un-named admins. Please remove your comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC) I will be happy to remove my comment if I can understand why it is a personal attack. Your member's page on WR clearly associates the account named "Delicious carbuncle" with the member's card on WR for "carbuncle" (a fact I did not refer to in my previous comment but your claim of personal attack has forced me to clarify). The WR member called "carbuncle" discusses issues related to the RFC/U under discussion here. Mentioning WR here does not appear to breach OUTING as none of this is personal information as I understand it. The statement appears wholly factual and directly related to how contributions to ANIs that you have raised against me have been discussed on WR and then those same writers have made comments in those ANIs. I repeat however, if it can be explained why this is a personal attack I will immediately remove any such information. Ash (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • So, rather than removing the statement after my request, you have chosen to re-assert the attempted association I have repeatedly and clearly asked you not to make? Your statements, although unclear, seem to be alleging some form of conspiracy or malfeasance organized at Wikipedia Review involving myself and Wikipedia admins. You don't see this as a personal attack? Please delete your statements. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Your comment does not seem to relate the original comment I made. There was no personal attack, and on review I still see no personal attack, in fact I made it clear that there was no assumption or implication that you were involved in any sort of conspiracy. Perhaps you should read it again, particularly where I point out about my assumptions of good faith. Could anyone else apart from DC advise as to the issue here? In the meantime I have temporarily hidden the comment as an act of good faith. Ash (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
            • • OK, this is tiresome enough that its now appropriate to call time on this. Allegations of conspiracy are also serious and I urge you to either refactor yur comments of file an RFC. Otherwise you are simply using this discussion to further blacken DC's name without offering to test this serious allegation in the cricible of an RFC. I'm completely uninvolved here and am sickened by the behaviour I see in this RFC. Put up or shut up Ash. Enough is enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)