Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Editnotices/Group/User talk:Coffee: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:45, 30 January 2018

Template:Editnotices/Group/User talk:Coffee

This is a WP:POLEMIC list and is amplified by this page: User:Coffee/NOBAN violations is tantamount to an enemies list. I am listed because twinkle dropped a required notification, just as this will generate a notification. DHeyward (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer that during this discussion, Coffee moved the page to User talk:Coffee/NOBAN. It is just as problematic and violates WP:POLEMIC. --DHeyward (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: What have I said that attacks you or anyone else in that notice? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the implication that I, or anyone else, has wronged you in any way. We have DR to resolve disputes. This isn't personal. I too have tried to keep diffs of conflict and it is the community's view that such things belong off wiki unless you are using them to immediately create a case. I don't know why you feel I shouldn't post on your talk page but I respect it. I don't need to be on a shame list though. It also won't prevent notifications such as notices that a deletion discussion is ongoing. You listed this notification as "violating" your TP ban and that is not acceptable, especially if that is your criteria for being on the list. --DHeyward (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is simply an attempt for me to be able to reduce my stress-levels from being increased by interactions with certain users (one of which opened this MfD)... I placed it in a very secluded location (an editnotice on my user talk page) specifically because I did not want it to be a "enemies list", just a request that WP:NOBAN permits to be made. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An edit notice of your talk page is not a very secluded location; it's the first thing seen by anyone trying to edit that page. If you want to keep someone off the page, make a notice of this either in the discussion which triggers the request, or in a new message on his/her talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the argument that listing specific users in an edit notice meets the definition of Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws, considering that other editors might not know why Coffee wants to ban these editors from their talk page and thus might seem as if those editors had harrassed him or worse. While I usually am quite liberal with what people can have in their own userspace but I don't think WP:OWNTALK justifies this, considering that this guideline explicitly states: User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. IMHO, this includes behaviour that is designed to discourage certain editors from said communication and collaboration. Also, I believe WP:NOBAN applies to user pages, not user talk pages, which has its own guideline in WP:OWNTALK that takes precedent. N.B.: I sympathize with Coffee's intention of trying to avoid conflicts and stress, however, this does not mitigate the fact that keeping such a list might lead to others, like myself, assuming that those editors did something wrong. Regards So Why 11:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting way of reading WP:NOBAN, so let me quote it here with added emphasis on what you must have not read:

Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages

In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request, although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to.

Further information on this area is at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, in particular the sections on appropriate conduct, inappropriate conduct, and norms related to editing your own and others' comments. These apply to user talk pages as well as all other discussion pages on Wikipedia.

That is the policy, which literally allows me to make a request as I am in my own talk page's editnotice. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both Wikipedia:User pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines are guidelines, not policies. I interpret WP:NOBAN to refer to the static content of user pages and user talk pages, while WP:OWNTALK refers to the dynamic part of the talk page, i.e. the messages. I'm sorry if that was unclear in my comment. Regards So Why 11:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that guidelines are not representative of community consensus in an equal manner as policies? My use of the word is informal in this context, I'm sorry if that was unclear in my comment as well. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not my point. Usually the community places policies above guidelines in importance, which is why if one of the pages were a policy, the conflict could be solved by it taking precedence. Since both are on the same level so to speak, we need to solve the conflicting information in these guidelines (one says you mustn't ban people from your talk page, one says you may) another way. As I said above, I think the conflict can be solved by interpreting the guidelines to apply to different parts of a page. I'm not claiming, however, that this is a correct interpretation. Fortunately, this is not important if another part of the guideline applies. Regards So Why 12:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per POLEMIC, (Redacted) –Davey2010^Talk 11:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to Coffee (as well as others here) for the now redacted comment and for the edit summary that went with it - In my defense I'd only that minute woken up so to see 2 pings and then that edit notice didn't really go down with me (that and I took an offense to the fact I was banned all for one comment), As I said on my talkpage some things are better left unsaid and my preceding comment after the POLEMIC was one of those things. –Davey2010^Talk 13:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not on the list but having recently been ridiculously accused of badgering the Admin concerned [1] when I have never had a previous dealing with them, I am sure that I would be a candidate for what is quite clearly a visable hit list. Not acceptable. Leaky Caldron 11:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Leaky caldron: Just so you know, the list also means I do not intend to act in any administrative capacity against these users. It does not include you because the list is not indiscriminate... in fact the reason you're not on this list is because it is in absolutely no possible way a "hit list". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chilling effect. Would certainly put me off challenging your hostile attitude at your TP had I been tempted to. Leaky Caldron 11:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Leaky caldron: I simply am trying to reduce my stress levels... that is all. Why some people seem so determined to raising them (not implying you by any means... I think you got caught in the cross-fire a couple days ago) I have no idea. This is literally the least aggressive thing I could possibly do, and it even means I'm WP:INVOLVED in all matters they do henceforth. Shouldn't they be happy that I can't take any administrative action on them ever again? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Coffee:Crossfire? Your kidding me. Don't take your other issues out on totally innocent contributors. Take a break - and delete this. Leaky Caldron 11:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if Coffee took this as a pretty good indication that this probably didn't come off the way they intended it to and deleted it themselves. If nothing else, consider that a new user who comes to your talk page to ask a question is going to get a pretty massively confusing template and no real indication why exactly it is that these people in particular don't seem to get along very well, maybe also with the general impression that Wikipedia isn't quite as welcoming as they may have thought. GMG^talk 11:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @GreenMeansGo: I've moved the page to a user-talk subpage, based on your advice. My intent is not to make anyone but the exact people listed not comment on my talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's definitely a step in the right direction. So thanks for that. I get that the message you are trying to send is probably something along the lines of: I'm exhausted, and I really don't want to argue anymore. Please give me some space but it looks a lot like the message people are receiving is more along the lines of: I've categorically given up on you, and I'd like everyone to know that you can go fuck yourself for the foreseeable future. That's... not really a message that's going to help make that list any shorter any time soon. And you know, Wikipedia is like heaven for the type of folks who really enjoyed their college debate team. Sometimes we argue just for the sake of argument, and it looks like there's quite a few people here who honestly didn't think there was any real bad blood between you at all, and you just had a run-of-the-mill disagreement, which may have seemed more relevant to you just at the time because you've been stressed out. GMG ^talk 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I hope that !voting Delete doesn't get me put on the list ;) it's a risk I'll have to take. I do agree specifically with the suggestion that such a page has a wholly WP:CHILLING effect—even if unintentionally so—and also suggest that as a way of reducing stress levels, it's clearly imperfect, as the current situation demonstrates. I'm not sure if WP:NOTTHERAPY applies—but, que faire? Something must be done. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well: apparantly it did suffice to make my bones :D This is certainly all more fun than watching West Ham. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Coffee may be justified in asking each of these 19 users, including 6 admins (and 2 of these admins have advanced permissions), to stay away from his talk page - posting this on the edit notice is certainly inappropriate; and I find it hard to believe that an administrator has that many users in good standing who he needs to keep away from his talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem appropriate - a warning was just issued to one of these users a couple of days ago [2] and the user doesn't seem to have posted on Coffee's talk page since this warning was given, though it would be understandable if they wanted to. Another admin SoWhy was added to this template after supporting deletion here [3] and I agree with User:Od Mishehu's comment, it is unusual for an admin to request that other admins not post on their talk page...Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for reviewing administrator - Literally every editor who has commented here (except one), has in some way been WP:INVOLVED in a dispute with me at some point in the past. I do not believe their opinions (nor mine) count as "objective", and therefore can't be considered in any way unbiased. Several from the anti-infobox movement alone. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely interested to know when you and I had been involved in a dispute because for the life of me, I cannot figure it out and the interaction tool is not helpful either. Regards So Why 12:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have mentioned on my own talk page message to Coffee, what's very odd is that not only have I never posted onto his talk page, to the best of my recollection (and the interaction tool), I've only ever had a direct discussion with him once. Strange that I should be pinged and formally told not to edit the talk page I've never visited and have no intention of visiting! In a spirit of warm collegiality, however, Coffee may feel free to post to my talk page whenever you want, as long as it is in line with the aims of improving the encyclopaedia.

I should also point out that rather than this permanent page (which does have a rather WP:CHILLING and threatening effect), I suspect the message has been received and understood by all those listed on the page: the page is, therefore, no longer needed and can be safely deleted. Per GMG, I think it would be best of Coffee deleted it himself. Best wishes. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You seem to be forgetting that wonderful interaction between us at Talk:Cary Grant#RFC on Inclusion of Infobox. Odd considering it was literally just last month... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten it at all, which is why I said "I've only ever had a direct discussion with him once". That was the discussion. This now makes two. Either way, my substantive point remains: those pinged by the page now know they have been formally requested to avoid your talk page, rendering the need for the page obsolete, and, per GNG's suggestion, it would be better if you took the decision yourself to remove the page. Best wishes - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are creating more scrutiny and likely more TP stalkers and therefore more "badgerers" than if you simply told the individuals (which you have) instead of this pointless WP:POINTY magnet. Leaky Caldron 12:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So how was I supposed to tell them exactly? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have told them. It is not likely that they will forget! Leaky Caldron 12:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non sequiter, regressive fallacy and post hoc ergo propter hoc all wrapped into one small reply. I'd like an actual answer to my question, please. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smart words! "Stay off my Talk Page" (please is optional). Leaky Caldron 12:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said pretty much that in this editnotice, so I'm getting quite confused as to where you stand here. Are you saying I shouldn't warn people who I think cause me undue stress to stay off my talk page, or shouldn't I? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that it is just not very nice -- doesn't meet the wording of POLEMIC per se, but certainly keep the list to yourself, shove it in Google Keep or somewhere. Don't place it on-wiki. !dave 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @My name is not dave: Being consistently harassed and gaslighted isn't very nice either. Have you considered that I might have good cause to suddenly create such a list? I've been here since 2007... there might be a chance I can assess when/why people are suddenly appearing in conversations to sully them, or my reputation. Especially when I've been notified off-wiki that many users have been discussing apparently "increasing the heat" on me. This simple notice (no longer even on my editnotice) should not be deleted purely as measure of "politeness" when it is attempting to request just that... formally, and firmly. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Coffee: Does retaliation ever bring a happy ending? !dave 13:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @My name is not dave: In what way is requesting to not be bothered, retaliation? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was responding to Being consistently harassed and gaslighted isn't very nice either. Have you considered that I might have good cause to suddenly create such a list?. !dave 13:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- so I find notifications this morning that I have been mentioned by Coffee and I find myself on a list of people banned from his talk page. This is like getting a notification that you have been barred from entering Brazil when you have never been to Brazil and had given no thought ever to travelling to Brazil. I have never posted on Coffee's talk page and had no reason to think I was ever going to (until now, it makes me want to break this stupid ban just to be contrary.) I had no awareness of Coffee or any interaction with him until just over a month ago, on 19 December, in the discussion on an infobox on the Cary Grant article. This is indeed an "enemies list" and includes some of the most sensible and level headed admins as well as a member of the Arbitration Committee. Can he really ban them from his talk page? Perhaps I should feel flattered to be included in such elite company. Coffee keeps complaining that his activities on WP are stressing him out, in that case really the best thing would be to do something else with his time.Smeat75 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 ::::*Not my point. Usually the community places policies above guidelines in importance, which is why if one of the pages were a policy, the conflict could be solved by it taking precedence. Since both are on the same level so to speak, we need to solve the conflicting information in these guidelines (one says you mustn't ban people from your talk page, one says you may) another way. As I said above, I think the conflict can be solved by interpreting the guidelines to apply to different parts of a page. I'm not claiming, however, that this is a correct interpretation. Fortunately, this is not important if another part of the guideline applies. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 12:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' per POLEMIC, I'm not sure what's more hilarious - The fact you've "banned" me all for one comment or the fact you've also included well-respected admins!, Hopefully someone soon will take {{u|Coffee|you}} to Arbcom and right actions will happen!, How you became an admin is a fucking mystery!. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per POLEMIC, {{redacted}} –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
+:*I apologise to {{u|Coffee}} (as well as others here) for the now redacted comment and for the edit summary that went with it - In my defense I'd only that minute woken up so to see 2 pings and then that edit notice didn't really go down with me (that and I took an offense to the fact I was banned all for one comment), As I said on my talkpage some things are better left unsaid and my preceding comment after the POLEMIC was one of those things. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 13:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' I am not on the list but having recently been ridiculously accused of badgering the Admin concerned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAdministrators&type=revision&diff=821747656&oldid=821479923] when I have never had a previous dealing with them, I am sure that I would be a candidate for what is quite clearly a visable hit list. Not acceptable. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Green;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 11:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 **{{re|Leaky_caldron}} Just so you know, the list also means I do not intend to act in any administrative capacity against these users. It does not include you because the list is not indiscriminate... in fact the reason you're not on this list is because it is in absolutely '''no possible way''' a "hit list". <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a</font> ☕️]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 11:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)