Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/Duck box

User:Montanabw/Duck box

User:Montanabw/Duck box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates WP:POLEMIC, specifically point 3, " laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems" Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep For the following reasons:

1. Per WP:POLEMIC: "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."
2. I have done this in the past and the pages kept following AfD per previous attempts to remove similar pages here. I can as easily accumulate links and diffs offline, but it's easier to do it on-wiki due to ease of wikilinking.
3. Per item #1 above, I might also point out that one of the users I am accumulating diffs for has an active SPI open trying to determine if they are the banned user User:ItsLassieTime, and two of the others were subjects of SPI concerns that they were socks of ItsLassieTime, who was a highly problematic editor with a penchant for copyvio, close paraphrasing and was a massive sock drawer where I was involved in the "bust" and the massive CCI cleanup that resulted. Specifically, this case (user currently blocked for other reasons); and this user (still under investigation). Further, the third individual is currently accumulating diffs and links about me here.
4. I presume one of these three users has emailed you about this; I am aware of at least one of them is emailing admins in hopes of getting their block lifted.

• • That is my preliminary statement. Montanabw^(talk) 02:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC).

• Lists are allowed if you are preparing for an Arb case or AN/I case ("timely manner"), but medium or long term storage of lists has never been permitted. I don't think you are trying to be a jerk, and I'm not commenting on the merits, but the format is exactly what the policy excludes, making it inappropriate for onwiki storage. As I said on your talk page, stuff like this is best stored off-wiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Needed to be onwiki so that others can contribute. There is a continuing problem here re worries that ItsLassieTime has returned. There should be an on-wiki way of collecting info as suggested by SandyGeorgia that there should be a central place to keep evidence on ItsLassieTime. She said this after a recent SPI on ItsLassieTime was filed and dismissed for lack of behavioural evidence. Since then at least one other SPI was filed, the one by Diannaa closed and then requested to be reopened, against ItsLassieTime and is failing for the same reason. This is needed for community peace of mind and in the long run will save community time and angst. Others can contribute to this so it can be a community effort to collect that behavioural evidence on ItsLassieTime in one place. EChastain (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: I did not know this existed but have found it enlightening. An editor that is being tracked has interacted with me in a menacing way and I now leave them alone. Whatever is happening here, it is a useful gathering of information and should be left to exist. I trust that this gathering project will reap its intended consequences in due time. Fylbecatulous talk 13:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons articulated by EChastain. Also, this sort of behavior (passive/aggressive superficially civil bullying) is one of the greatest deterrents to editor participation in Wikipedia. Preserving examples for others to see is important. Intothatdarkness 14:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep + Comment. If this request (or suggestion) came from a 3rd party, I'd rather see that on wiki. No reflection on Dennis; but rather, I make that statement as someone who was pointed to the "Duck" page by an editor in email. Also: IFF the "timely' part of this expires, I think a simple blanking of the page would suffice. I don't see anything more than a collection of diffs which actually happened - so I don't see a need to expunge things from our collective history. — Ched :  ?  14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I really don't care if this is kept or deleted. As one of the subjects of this "investigation" I know I have nothing to hide, and Montanabw can keep all the diffs she wants. Here's my question though. If this is supposedly about trying to root out socks of ItsLassieTime, why aren't all the diffs being compared to that editor or proven socks? A lot of it is just examples of uncivil or POSSIBLE questionable behavior. And, there are five editors being brought in on this, not three, and everyone is being compared to each other. Really, is there a point to this? There is an SPI in progress, yet Montanabw has not publicly contributed one thing to it. Can anyone point to anything on this page that's actually leading to some kind of valid investigation? I know that I'm a suspected sock of RationalObserver, who is currently blocked. Fine. Just like I told the blocking Admin, I'd be fine with anyone doing an SPI and IP comparison. And, all of us have already been cleared of being associated with SeeSpotRun. So, nothing on this page is going anywhere. It's grasping at straws. Wet, soggy straws at that.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment on User SheriWysong: Really? You need to be aware that you aren't coming into this with clean hands yourself, you are clearly accumulating diffs on me. And by they way, how DID you know about the SeeSpot Run SPI anyway? And how do you "know" you are a suspected sock of RO with no SPI filed? And you "told the blocking Admin" about "doing an SPI and IP comparison" when and where? RO edited logged out and geolocated to Las VegasCalifornia; you twice edited logged out and geolocated to twothree different places Las Vegas and two in Utah; well within the range of dynamic IPs of ISPs in the American west (as I discover by what Google ads pop up when I'm in a coffee shop- ). And how DO you know they compare IPs if you haven't been accused of socking in the past and you are a "new" user like you have sometimes claimed? Nice try, but I think, Wysong, that you just outed yourself as a user with a previous undisclosed account! Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I think I was just "outed" Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• As a sockpuppet of Rationalobserver or ItsLassieTime? @Dennis Brown:: Wysong above pretty much demonstrates why I'm making the list. Montanabw^(talk) 00:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep As a violation of this policy: wp:outing Please do not delete this page. It is evidence of ongoing harrasment. Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You are the person who edited while logged out. I have no interest in who you actually are in real life, and I am only pointing out that you and RO geolocated within a day's drive of each other. "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. " And frankly, your comment there is very similar to what Rationalobserver said. And you are hiding your tracks. Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Whatever Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected, it was Wysong's first edits to the wild horse and burro Act article that geolocated to Las Vegas, I corrected my statement above. I can provide diffs, but best not to do so here, or now. Montanabw^(talk) 06:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Dispute resolution evidence or filing drafts are best compiled on wiki user subpages, since all of the related diffs are on wiki. This complies totally with wiki policy and there is no reason for editors to be forced to compile such drafts off-wiki. This is a user subpage, not in plain site and not titled with an editor's name. There is no problem here. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)