Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption

User:Viriditas/Fox News Channel reverts and disruption

Unless this is being used for an RFC (which I'm highly doubt) this appears to be simply a hit list of those w/whom Viriditas has had disagreements with. Soxwon (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as being too full of negative wording abut editors (such as "false edit summary" etc). Would !vote "keep" if all identities were redacted, and negative comments removed. Collect (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Was the edit summary accurate in reflecting the edit made? If not, 'false' is the correct word to be using. My reading indicates that the edit summary was indeed 'false,' as in 'not true.' Also noting Collect's obvious self-interest here (I would likely have the same self interest; not a judgement). → ROUX ₪ 23:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - for now. This is an ongoing issue, as raised by Magog the Ogre at ANI. Viriditas needs to indicate what this page is being used for, exactly, before deletion is appropriate. That you doubt there is an RfC forthcoming is not evidence. Once Viriditas indicates whether or not there is an RfC or ArbCom case coming, deletion or not can be discussed. Suggest that if Viriditas plans on filing such a thing, it be done within a reasonable amount of time. Say, two weeks. → ROUX ₪ 23:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

comment IOW, if no action is filed by October 27 (3 weeks) using this as an evidence page, that the vote is "delete"? Collect (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Most likely. That would depend on what Viriditas has to say. → ROUX ₪ 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Wow, should I be scared that some random user is going to pop around my userspace and start listing things for deletion? This is ridiculous. He is completely entitled to his own opinion, especially within his own userspace. Please go do something useful for a change - please? Like I dunno, write an encyclopedia, and keep editor opinions be? ResMar 03:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions, yes, but the nominator is correct in saying that attack pages and/or laundry lists of people wot done bad things are not allowed in userspace, with the sole exception of such information being used to prepare an RfC, ArbCom filing, or similar. → ROUX ₪ 03:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note I should put these up for context (and for why I feel this is just a long-term laundry list rather than something productive): [1]. As you can see, they (PrBeacon and Viriditas) clearly believe that certain individuals (myself included) are obviously "working for someone" and that a mass check-user is in order. The material in question was rmved at the request of admin Gwen Gale after I asked her if the material was proper. I was then made aware of this page. Again, based on the editors comments, I can only assume this is being gathered as some sort of list for users who Viriditas thinks work for Fox News and wants to include for a mass check-user. Whether or not this is appropriate is for the community to decide. Soxwon (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RE^ Much of what Soxwon says directly above is simply untrue and apparently based on his own POV presumptions. Even though we usually disagree, until recently I've found him to be one of the more reasonable voices among the regulars at the FNC article. Here he is attempting to cast guilt by association with my talkpage and my own list. If he had looked at a previous thread on my talkpage, he would have seen where Viriditas advises me to "Please focus on collecting diffs and evidence." Later I asked Viriditas if anyone's ever considered that one or more editors camping the FNC articles may be working for the company, since FNC has a history of meddling in WP pages. He said he didn't know and again mentioned gathering evidence. So, on my own I made a list in order to look into this -- admittedly, a hasty list with comments on editors' general behavior patterns. An admin stepped in and asked me to remove it, which I did. I apologize to Viriditas for how my talkpage could make it look like this is some backroom scheme, if one were so inclined to see it that way. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is indeed for an RFC/Arbcom case, I will be glad to remove the AFD, however, as I stated before, what he has here is very vague and very hard to prove short of accusing the users involved of being "compromised" or something of the sort. I await to see what Viriditas has to say. Soxwon (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. If a user suspects that others are editing in ways that don't benefit the project, then it's certainly right and proper for him to be allowed to document that, and he should be encouraged to do so, not discouraged. To call such documentation an "attack page" is way, way off the mark. If anyone is worried that such a page might damage his online "reputation", I'd suggest he reconsider. You really have to go looking to find a user subpage like this one and the ones discussed above. Re the other comments, so what if someone wants to run checkusers? I actually wish that would be done routinely re all frequent contributors to a given page. Socks are the bane of Wikipedia: the correct response, the response that would most benefit the project, when someone suggest you might be socking would be something like, "I'm glad you're being vigilant. We need to do all we can to control socking. Please, by all means feel free to ask for a checkuser on my account." I can't at all fathom why anyone would feel they need to take such a suspicion as some kind of personal affront.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)