Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:18, 13 May 2011

User:Colonel Warden/RIP

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP

This whole page is unseemly, and it's time to delete it. Barong 06:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous discussion of this was closed as Snow Keep. This page is just a memorandum list of defunct accounts. The reason for doing this is that account names can be hard to recall exactly - was it Gavin Collins, Gavin.Collins, GavinCollins, &c. This list records the exact format which was, in that case, Gavin.collins. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, it's an attack page. you just dress it up with the likes of a nobody to dodge this. Barong 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is another good example of an account name which is hard to recall exactly. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then keep a bookmark and don't be a troll. Barong 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the accounts listed is User:Firefly322. That user account was blocked indefinitely. Why? — for suggesting that another editor was a troll. User:Barong feels that he can use similar language and worse with impunity. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Tsk" yourself ;> Barong 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... no more an "attack page" than is Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. And being in userspace, and not attacking or saying anything derogatory or insulting about anyone, it is no violation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per resounding SNOW consensus for a keep at the last MFD just last September Not a violation of userspace. Simply a list. Nothing "unseemly" about it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Schmidt, and the previous MFD Snow Keep, included herein by reference. It's not an attack page. Passes WP:USERPAGE. — Becksguy (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
who are you? WP:TPG is for, like, talk pages. Barong 13:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant WP:USERPAGE, although there is overlap between them. I corrected. — Becksguy (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Becksguy. Its perfectly fitting to keep a memorial of much missed former editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You don't have to be a genius to see the common thread that links most of these users together, or why the Colonel might want to retain this info as an aid memoir. It's divisive, it's pushing a point, and it's not in the least bit needed by Warden for writing an encyclopoedia. I'll take applying the principle of NOT#MEMORIAL to user pages over any wikilawyering defences that it's purpose hasn't been explicitly stated, and therefore it must not have a nefarious purpose. Although I guess it all depends on your personal tolerance for being taken as a mug. I note he's been edit warring to include the nominators name on it. So that's a new concept on me, memorialising someone against their express wishes not to. With friends like that.... MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gigs at the last MFD. I wouldn't mind if the list had some context for each entry, or if it was an exhaustive list. However the latest edit war on the page indicates this page isnt just for 'retired' accounts; rather the list has some meaning to Colonel Warden, and the people listed may object to being listed without any clarity about why they are being listed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are accounts, not people. For example, User:Wageless was an account of the person Nicholson Baker. I have written related content such as American Newspaper Repository and it is a convenience to me to make a note of this account here. This is a personal user page and so, per WP:UP#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages, other editors should not be obsessing or interfering with it. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fuck that. I'm a person and I will not let you list me there. Barong 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CW: Perhaps if you had just been a normal, polite human being and respected Barong's request to be omitted from your little blacklist, you wouldn't have to go through this shit every few months. Ever think of that? —SW— ^confer 14:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no request. What happened recently was that an IP editor started editing the page without even an edit summary, e.g. here. This is not the process described at WP:UP#On others' user pages. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and indef block Colonel Warden for continuing his long-fought campaign of divisiveness and drama, and for perfecting his ability to deliberately find and push the limits of what is marginally acceptable behavior. CW represents all that is wrong with Wikipedia. —SW— ^communicate 13:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not all, just a lot ;) Barong 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Barong canvassed User:Snottywong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the prior nom; abort, retry, fail. Barong 13:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CW, I actually found it because your talk page is still on my watchlist, for god knows what reason (unwatching now). I saw Barong's message after the fact. —SW— ^verbalize 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intention of the page appears to be score-keeping and gamesmanship behaviors that don't contribute to building an encyclopedia. If you have to edit-war to keep names on the list, it becomes obvious that people find it offensive. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a poor rationale to delete something in another's userspace. An assumption of bad faith is not per policy. A list in userspace that cannot be determined to "not have a nefarious purpose", cannot simply be conversely determined as an attack page when no attack is made. A simple list in a userspace is NOT an Wikipedia ariticle, so a claim of a violation of policies concerning articles is inapplicable, else ever userpage that has a reference to a departed friend or pet would have to be deleted as well. We instead in look to the policies governing use of user sub pages and can see that they have not been violated. And as for the nominator not wishing to have the names of any of his former accounts listed in someone else's usespace... well, his use of multiple sockpuppet accounts is documented in detail in numerous places and across many edit histories. All we have here is a username in a userspace... and not an attack. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nope. fyi. Barong 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not know by which name to call you... David, Jack, Gold Hat... etc, or today's Barong, or whatever account name might be used next week. Your editing history as the person behind all those many acounts need not be rehashed, but there is perhaps more good in the mix than discernable bad. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh - At the end of the day does this really matter? It's just a list, and if anyone wishes to opt-out, the creator should honor that. Hell, seren has one too; User:Silver seren/List of Wikipedians We Have Lost. Let the ARS pour a forty for their fallen homies if they want. Though Warden, you really need to flesh out the Pumpkin King's entry a bit more, some of his other socks have more familiar names. Perhaps a Python-esque "not dead yet, I got better" sub-section for I/Okip as well. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hadn't seen that one. fyi, I know the truth re Phaedriel ;) Barong 14:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until now, I had never heard of User:Phaedriel and most of the others on that list. If they made a difference and were notable within the project then it seems good that they should be remembered. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose there could exist a WP:List of users who have declared use of multiple accounts, or WP:LIST of users caught abusing multiple accounts, but while interesting and informative, such lists would not pass WP:N. Perhaps a category for such instead? But those criteria do not seem to be the determining factor for inclusion on CW's userspace list, as I recognize a few names who were simply contributing editors who retired from the project. But as it is simply a short list of a few inactive/closed accounts in a user's subpage, what's the big deal? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, surely the common theme of the list is just accounts that seem to have a strong and interesting character? About half the entries havent used multiple accounts AFAIK. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't look to me like this is violating userspace policy in any way. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a peculiar nom. It fails to even assert any actionable problem. "Unseemly"? "Time to delete?" Quite bizarre. No violation asserted or present.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absent any implied or expressed negativity by CW related to inclusion in the list, and present a specific statement that it's just a neutral list of no longer active accounts, the assumption of good faith should keep away any implications that it's a blacklist, scorekeeping, or attack page, and is therefore keepable. That said, if someone doesn't want to be listed, then don't, as a matter of common courtesy. And RIP means requiescat in pace, something I hope people say about me when I'm gone. — Becksguy (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am a substantial contributor to the page requiescat in pace, which I came across at AFD and made some effort to rescue. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Colonel Warden revealed that its purpose is partly to gloat over departed enemies when he started edit warring to keep certain names on it. For the rest I agree pretty much with MicMacNee. Reyk _YO! 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a list of old users and doesn't violate any policy. Obviously the people involved here have some kind of history but that's not a valid deletion rationale. All it says is "RIP" (rest in peace) which is something you put on the gravestone of someone you love and will deeply miss. ColonelWarden admits he had "reasonably pleasant" relations with at least a couple of them. EdEColbert^{Let me know} 02:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep as an uninvolved editor, I see no valid deletion rationale here. There is obviously a history here I am unaware of but that doesn't mean that ad hominem attacks are valid reasons to delete. If this page has some nefarious secret hidden meaning it must be clearly shown before I vote for delete. Also for the record, reverting changes to YOUR OWN USERPAGES is almost by definition not edit warring. I would postulate edit wars are impossible on a page that you actually ARE allowed to "own" to a limited extent. Also the gross incivility here is on the part of those arguing for deletion not the page's author. If someone can explain to me in an unambiguous manner why this is a personal attack or to what nefarious end this page could be used then I reserve the right to change my mind. ~~98.209.39.71 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)~~ HominidMachinae (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea because uninvolved editors, with edit #2 under their belt, invariably find their way to MfD to contest an obscure wiki-battleground. So which name from the list are we being graced by at the moment? Tarc (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IPs can edit and comment, and some experienced editors either forget or purposely do not log in when they edit.[1] We can either assume good faith as guideline instructs, or ignore guideline and consider them all in a negative light. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're both quite correct. And, I might add, there are such things as dynamic IPs -- which result in some IP editors appearing to have only two edits, when they have in fact made many more, but through no fault of their own their IP number changes. I also wouldn't mind a rule requiring all users to sign up for a name, though for some reason I sort of like knowing that this IP hails from Michigan.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing, huh? Interesting, but not likely. I only know one person in Lansing and that's improbable. Barong 07:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my session expired, that was me, and I have a few hundred edits as IP actually before I signed up for an account to avoid losing my contributions log and to be able to create a watchlist. My apologies for failing to properly sign in, I was in no way attempting any form of concealment, evasion, ect. And as an aside, wow, the stunning amount of bad faith here is starting to get pretty toxic. I didn't mean to stir anything up but from the sheer animosity here is an MfD the proper venue? should we take this all over to AN/I or an RfC where we can look at the behavior that generated such bad will about this list? Again I feel like I'm just missing the actual crux of the issue. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your id. For more background, please see WP:ANI#Continuation of Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew). There's also related discussion at arbcom. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you forgot:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden ;> Barong 07:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to User:Colonel Warden/Defunct accounts. I cannot say I like the purpose Colonel Warden claims in his defense near the top of this debate, but I don't think it is beyond acceptable userspace guidelines. However, I see no reason to entitle the page "RIP" as that is an indication of death, not retirement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expressing an opinion either way, but I will say that ColonelWarden would have had an easier time if he'd chosen a better name. "RIP" is far too easily construed as sending a message of a "dancing on the graves of people I've outlived" sort of sentiment - given that the people/accounts listed aren't actually dead. Rd232 ^talk 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. the page name is a big part of my concern, as it is the only description associated with the list. A rename would help, if the page is kept. I'd also like the page to describe why the reason these account names appear on the page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the name was suggested by my work on the mainspace article such as this. I wasn't making a big deal out of it so just kept it short and simple. How is a bland "RIP" worse than the torrent of abuse, insults and bad language which the nominator produces, such as "shit", "dick", "fuck", "troll", &c? Are these retracted or deleted? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat chance. Good luck getting CW to do something he isn't being forced to do under threat of being blocked. And you won't be able to force him here, not with all of his cronies flocking here to do what they do best, which is to gang up on a deletion discussion to make it impossible to obtain a consensus. —SW— ^yak 02:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjak -- I agree with you that this is within userspace guidelines. Which brings us to almost a 2/3 consensus on that point. As to your suggestion for a rename from RIP to defunct, because in your view the accounts are "defunct" and not "dead", I would point you to the common definition of defunct, which is "no longer living; dead or extinct".--Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the second definition at your link: "no longer operative or valid" :-). Although the accounts which are not blocked are still "valid" (they can be revived as soon as their owner wishes to return), they are "no longer operative". The objection to the use of "RIP" was pretty much the same as what Rd232 said, in this context, the title gives the impression of figuratively dancing on someone's grave. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as I said. Barong 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjak--I would generally expect a phrase to be understood (unless there is a reason to understand it otherwise) by the first-listed definition. Also -- the definition of R.I.P. is not "I'm dancing on your grave", but rather that it is an abbreviation for requiescat in pace ("may he rest in peace"), a short epitaph or idiom used to express wishes of eternal rest and peace. Which is somewhat the opposite. In any event, I think we are wandering a bit afield, as all we've shown is that this suggestion, an admittedly mild non-central one, is rife with possibilities of varying interpretation, largely based on whether one wishes to AGF as we are asked to. To your initial point, as you and the 2/3 of the !voters have indicated, there is no reason to delete here under the userspace guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, it is so difficult to interpret "RIP" as something negative, wherever did we get that idea? I'm sure CW had the best of intentions when he created it. Just like the people who created this, who are obviously expressing wishes of eternal rest and peace to Osama bin Laden. Brush up on your wikilawyering, your technique is slipping. And CW wore out his AGF privileges a long time ago in my opinion. —SW— ^chatter 02:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much fuss over nothing. I don't see what harm the page does. There is nothing overtly uncivil or unpleasant on it. Lovetinkle (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a thinly veiled attack page. Period. N419 BH 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jack Merridew shouldn't be listed since he didn't retire though, just got yet another chance to start over. Also, the top of the page should explain why its there. No rule violated. As mentioned in the last AFD for this, it list editors he got along well with, as well as those he didn't. Dream Focus 12:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's never said he didn't like any of the users listed as far as I've seen. Which is odd, as that's largely what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if users are allowed to remove their names from it. That may seem like an odd compromise, but I think it's the best solution here. Colonel Warden wants this list in his userspace; Barong, formerly Jack Merridew, doesn't want to be listed on it (which seems reasonable to me). Why not let them both get what they want? (Jack/Barong obviously doesn't belong on it anyway, as he's not a vanished user...) Robofish (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of user names without derogatory comment is neutral content. "RIP" is not derogatory comment, and is used in all sorts of contexts, many highly positive. I notice on the list some people who have taken similar positions to Col.W, some who have taken opposed. I see no basis whatsoever for removing it, or why anyone should want their name removed. That this MfD should be done after the previous snow keep confirms a motivation that some of the comments make pretty obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if an editor wishes his name removed from the list, do you feel that Warden should be compelled to honor that request? Tarc (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"RIP" is not derogatory comment, and is used in all sorts of contexts - indeed, and on the internet, many of those contexts are snarky/sarcastic "good riddance" type contexts, when the abbreviation is used and not the full term it stands for. The ambiguity here is a substantial part of the problem (interacting with the issue of the list content). Rd232 ^talk 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and if I made such a list? ;> Barong 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 *:So if an editor wishes his name removed from the list, do you feel that Warden should be compelled to honor that request? [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 03:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 *:''"RIP" is not derogatory comment, and is used in all sorts of contexts'' - indeed, and on the internet, many of those contexts are snarky/sarcastic "good riddance" type contexts, when the abbreviation is used and not the full term it stands for. The ambiguity here is a substantial part of the problem (interacting with the issue of the list content). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
+*: and if ''I'' made such a list? ;> [[User:Barong|Barong]] 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)