Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:James J. Lambden/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:53, 17 February 2020

−

User:James J. Lambden/sandbox

Divisive user subpage that is being used to shame editors by creating an alternative version of arbitration enforcement logs (WP:DSLOG), with implications that certain admins are part of a cabal. Violates WP:POLEMIC. The page creator has not contributed in more than a year and a half. - Mr X 🖋 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User is documenting history of enforcement related to AP2 topics. MrX is trying to have a page deleted for obvious reasons: MrX is one of the most active complainants at WP:AE in this topic area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Next personal attack in AP gets reported, Thucydides411. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SPECIFICO: Will you be reporting the one in the nom? Or is there some qualitative difference between being used to shame editors and trying to have a page deleted for obvious reasons? Levivich 20:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm not sure what our usual practice is with regard to deleting inactive editors' userspace pages, but the table I'm looking at bears no resemblance to the description in this nomination. It's data of AE filings; I'm not seeing any shaming or anything polemic. I can see the concern about the "Pro-Trump"/"Anti-Trump" column, but that describes edits not editors (the column heading is "Case evidence", not "Filer/subject's political stance"), so I don't see it as a reason to delete the page. By the way, before everyone gets all worked up about this, and in the interests of full transparency, please be advised I've forked this table into my userspace and plan on working on it myself. I say this so other editors don't invest too much time into arguing about whether this inactive editor's particular page is kept or not–regardless, the table and data collection will live on. I agree with Thucydides that this nomination seems to be a WP:POINTY attempt to silence valid concerns about DS enforcement on the project. Levivich 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cited policy based reasons for deletion. The page is being used to promote an alternative narrative that admins are corrupt, and motivated by their support or opposition for certain American politicians. Can you cite any policy-based reasons to support keeping this. - Mr X 🖋 20:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, WP:UPYES point # 2 comes to mind to me, "Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki." Doug Mehus T·C 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually asking Levivich, but since you interjected: Where did James J. Lambden write that he planned to use the information for discussions elsewhere on the wiki, and why would that drafting process take in excess of three years? - Mr X 🖋 21:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark historical or Userfy to Levivich's userspace to preserve the edit history per above. I'm not sure I see a polemic violation. It will be interesting to see what SmokeyJoe and/or Robert McClenon have to say if and when they make their way here. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete - This does seem like a WP:POLEMIC issue given the content and, importantly, its purpose/use. This is not simply a log. Those already exist in projectspace. It's also not material being prepared for use in a forthcoming case, as the author is absent and it's several years old. It is, as JJL said, a "research project" "investigating potential systemic bias in political topics on Wikipedia" (here, et al.). The author has organized various debates into simply pro-Trump and anti-Trump and seems to want to show that there's a sinister cabal of anti-Trump admins who only enforce rules against those categorized here as "pro-Trump". Even right now at AN there's someone pointing to this page as documentation of AE being "a tool for biased admins to rig the system." If there are really biased admins rigging the system, a case must be opened to address it. Maintaining a list of admins you want to accuse of being biased but never to be acted upon isn't what userspace is for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhododendrites: Where is there a log like this in projectspace? Also, consider that editors need to be able to gather and discuss evidence of problems in order to determine if there is any problem that necessitates a case request. This table (or something like it) is a prerequisite to a case request. Levivich 20:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no log like this in the sense of organized according to one user's pro-trump/anti-trump system. There is, however, a comprehensive listing of AP2 enforcement here. This sort of thing is a common tool used in preparing a case request... but is anyone doing that? If there's a case being prepared now, I'd likely strike my !vote above. It doesn't seem like it, though, as it's years old at this point. As per WP:UPNO this sort of thing "is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do have no deadlines, so can you say with certainty what a "timely manner" might be? I personally don't think it's less than five years. I note from the logs James J. Lambden had a favourable ArbCom decision in the editor's favour only in 2018 that lifted a user block. So, it's been less than two years since then, regardless of when the page was last edited. Doug Mehus T·C 21:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, we have an essay someone wrote at WP:NODEADLINES, predominantly about articles, but WP:UPNO is about userspace, and it's a guideline. Regardless, nobody has even claimed that anyone is using this to work on a case. All anyone is saying is that maybe we should keep it because theoretically it could be... when "timely manner" is even specific to those cases when someone is actively doing so. You can look through past MfDs relating to compilations like this -- a matter of years is far more than how I've ever seen "timely manner" applied (and, again, all of this presumes someone is really using it to produce a case). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, yes WP:NODEADLINES is an essay, but WP:UPYES is also a policy guideline in the same way WP:UPNO. Citing previous MfDs really has no weight, as each MfD is decidedly different in different ways from the one(s) that came before and, as such, prior decisions are not precedent setting, as I understand it. Doug Mehus T·C 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ? Yes, UPYES and UPNO are the same page. UPNO specifically concerns potentially controversial material which casts other editors in a bad light and the use of userspace to compile data related to alleged misbehavior of other users. Past XfDs are often relevant in how we have typically applied various policies and guidelines. They are not binding, though, it's true. I'm not really interested in wikilawyering this, though, so I'll wait for additional opinions to come in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I was thinking the same thing. I personally have no position here on such matters, as I haven't been editing as long as most of you, but, presumably, such a case would want to be developed by a community of users; thus, keeping all of this on-wiki is transparent and above board. I see, potentially, a need for editing here, but not deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 21:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DSLOG. - Mr X 🖋 21:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What about taking this out of the hands of aggrieved editors and asking the Admins to log in a spreadsheet format that allows cross-tabulated inspection. It's interesting that @Rusf10: was recently sanctioned for filing unsuccessful complaints when a cross-tab show he is by no means the most prolific such filer. Yes, the pro- and con- thing is not a good column, or at least needs some objective metric. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, what's that pro-Trump and anti-Trump column claiming anyway? Is it asserting that the filing party shares that political believe, or that the administrator(s) do? It's not clear to me what it means. So, definitely, this draft could use some editing, as I noted above. Doug Mehus T·C 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    
    For what purpose? No one should be creating a list on Wikipedia that links evidence of misconduct with pro-Trump or anti-Trump editing, nor should any of it be correlated to specific admins. The guideline is clear: "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." - Mr X 🖋 21:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but note that it says blanked as well. I'm not seeing the same sort of "negative evidence" and "collations of diffs" you're seeing. I'm seeing a list to potentially case threads from various areas of the project. In short, I'm not seeing anything that gives rise to warrant deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 21:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - WP:DSLOG is not a sortable table and doesn't have all the data that's in the table (for example, "Filer"). As to whether anyone is working on a case, it doesn't have to be an arbcom case to comply with UPYES. It can be any on-wiki discussion: an RfC, a VPIL, ANI, a WikiProject talk page discussion, whatever. But my understanding is that the editors who have recently been editing this page have been doing so with an eye of evidence-gathering to present either in an appeal or in some community discussion of AE (maybe at arc, maybe arca, maybe somewhere else). Levivich 21:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm currently undecided. I looked at it recently, and using the sort function was able to learn some interesting patters that I hadn't previously recognized (comment on the talk page there). It is clearly a valid concern however when editors add incomplete or misleading summary data to the spreadsheet. And that appears to have happened recently, perhaps precipitating this request? SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The stated reason for deletion is it violates WP:POLEMIC, how so? It simply documents the results of AE cases. It does not attack anyone or allege anything. Readers can look at the information and come to their own conclusions. @MrX: You accused me of making a "revenge AFD" and WP:HOUNDING you. How is this not the same? I updated this page yesterday and now you nominated it for deletion? (see [1]) I demand you either apologize to me or withdraw this nomination.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10: I already explained how it violates POLEMIC. I have no reason to seek revenge on you and I don't do that kind of thing anyway. I nominated the page after I saw that an entirely different user had violated their topic ban, to add false and disparaging information to the page. - Mr X 🖋 22:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You alleged that the page implicates that certain admins are part of a cabal. Where does it say that? I don't see anything on the page itself offering an opinion on admins. Also, If you are concerned about someone violating a topic ban then why nominate the page for deletion? That doesn't resolve the problem, you already removed the content that apparently upset you. I'm not buying it. If we are to believe this is a good faith nomination (even though it has invalid reasoning), then you must retract you previous allegations about me making a "revenge afd" where I actually provided a valid policy reason for deletion.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 makes an interesting point about revenge nominations for deletion. MrX, what motivated you to nominate this page for deletion at this particular time? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & update - would like to see this chart kept current. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not OK, due to naming subject users. This appears to be a side-logging of arbitration issues. If it were user opinion on arbitration or arbitration issues, it would be fine, but it is not. It is records of facts concerning specific users, some of it negative, and as such it fails WP:POLEMIC. The only place where I can see this being appropriate is as a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration, where it is nominally under the control of Arb clerks. It is not OK in userspace or in some random place in projectspace. Move it or delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see how this is in any way polemic, noting that, "[m]aterial 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[,]" is stated right there. "Timely manner" is purposefully vague, which, to my mind, means that consensus at a given time on a given case decides what it is. I would oppose moving it under the control of ArbCom or the clerks, though I would support moving it to the Wikipedia: namespace where a community of editors can decide, presumably, via the talk page on what should be included or not included. As far as I can tell, and consensus here so far supports this view, it may need some editing, but not deletion. Even Atsme, who is, arguably, one of the friendliest Wikipedians says it can be kept but should be updated. Doug Mehus T·C 02:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+−
 ====[[:User:James J. Lambden/sandbox]]====
 :{{pagelinks|User:James J. Lambden/sandbox}}<includeonly> – ([[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:James J. Lambden/sandbox|View MfD]])</includeonly>
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 *'''Keep & update''' - would like to see this chart kept current. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 01:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * '''Not OK''', due to naming subject users.  This appears to be a side-logging of arbitration issues.  If it were user opinion on arbitration or arbitration issues, it would be fine, but it is not.  It is records of facts concerning specific users, some of it negative, and as such it fails [[WP:POLEMIC]].  The only place where I can see this being appropriate is as a subpage of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration]], where it is nominally under the control of Arb clerks.  It is not OK in userspace or in some random place in projectspace.  '''Move it or delete'''.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
+::I'm afraid I don't see how this is in any way [[WP:POLEMIC|polemic]], noting that, "[m]aterial 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[,]"  is stated right there. "Timely manner" is purposefully vague, which, to my mind, means that [[WP:CON|consensus]] at a given time on a given case decides what it is. I would '''oppose''' moving it under the control of [[WP:ARBCOM|ArbCom]] or the clerks, though I would '''support''' moving it to the '''Wikipedia:''' namespace where a community of editors can decide, presumably, via the talk page on what should be included or not included. As far as I can tell, and [[WP:CON|consensus]] here so far supports this view, it may need some ''editing'', but not deletion. Even {{u|Atsme}}, who is, arguably, one of the friendliest Wikipedians says it can be kept but should be updated. [[User:Dmehus|'''Doug Mehus''']]''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">  [[User talk:Dmehus|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/Dmehus|C]]</span>'' 02:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)