Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MrX/w: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:26, 17 May 2018

User:MrX/w

This laundry list of perceived wrongs has been in existence for a month. Nothing has come of it, therefore it's continued existence is a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC. Said policy refers to such laundry lists in userspace as "Excessive unrelated content". Policy on such clearly states, "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Material 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. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. 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."

I asked the creator/maintainer of this list to remove it in a talk page message nearly a week ago [1]. He responded only to state that because I'm not specifically named and he had originally intended to use it immediately/imminently, there is no violation. However, "imminently" ("likely to occur at any moment") is a key word here and "used in a timely manner", a key phrase. Because the list has not been used in a timely manner and it is obvious that nothing is imminently going to be done with it (even after requesting it be removed), the subpage remaining is a violation of policy for userspace and should be immediately deleted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can be saved just the same on their own hard-drive.--MONGO 16:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- MONGO, you are right, of course, it can--but this is one of the things that we have allowed in user space. It is possible that the community decide to change this whole idea, of course, and if it does, that's fine. Until then, we get to use Wiki server space to write these kinds of things up... Drmies (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Politely disagree. It has all the looks at this point of an attempt to intimidate since nearly a month went by and no use of the evidence at a noticeboard or elsewhere. I'd suggest this path is a slippery slope.--MONGO 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Preciate the politeness. I don't disagree, BTW, that the slope is always slippery here, but a lot of these things are. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed it is an attempt to intimidate, MONGO. I was told by one of the "Keep" !voters when I requested earlier the list be deleted that if I kept quiet and behaved, the list would eventually go away. If I did not, the editor in question would rightfully have reason to take it to a noticeboard. [2]. Theres also him "boomerang" comment below. And SPECIFICO has done the same in his comments below: "If you act obsessively here or wherever this story is headed...". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — clearly fits the description of "laundry list of wrongs". My only concern is that the nominator is apparently an involved party. Nobody would (or could) object if MrX kept this list off-wiki, but accumulating it over any significant duration of time on-wiki is a violation of policy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised to find my recently created sandbox page nominated for deletion. It most certainly does not violate WP:POLEMIC as my intention is to work on it as I am able to and post it to an appropriate venue when it's properly fleshed out. I, and three other editors (Drmies, SPECIFICO, and BullRangifer) have explained this to the nom. My time is currently limited and I am a volunteer. It's not posted to my hard drive because my hard drive doesn't connect to the Wikipedia database that houses the diffs. I suppose if consensus arises to delete this, I will have no choice but to bring the evidence to a noticeboard, AE, or Arbcom, somewhat prematurely.- Mr X 🖋 17:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging three editors who supported the editor's creation and maintaining/keeping of the laundry list even though keeping it is a blatant violation of policy re: WP:POLEMIC is also a violation of policy re: WP:CANVASS, is it not? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't copy/paste it into a WORD doc or even a DOCX file offline?--MONGO 18:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bad faith nomination by the involved party. This calls for more eyes on their activities and collection of more diffs. Time to take action, since they insist on kicking the sleeping dog. Do I hear the sound of a boomerang? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepThe nominator here is trying to censor legitimate claims regarding his own misbehaviour. If he is so concerned about POLEMIC, perhaps he should look at his own user page first. Calidum 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Calidum, I don't usually subscribe to whataboutism, but you have a bit of a point. Just a bit, though--Winkelvi's user page contains no names and diffs (not that I saw anyway), and that is usually a big deal for us admins. Also, please don't just throw around the C-word like that; no one benefits from overblown rhetoric. Let's discuss the matter on its own merits, and let's try and believe that the truth will set us free. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MrX is obviously working on a clear and thorough documentation of a good faith and apparently well-founded complaint. It so happens that the complaint concerns OP Winkelvi. There's no requirement that MrX work around the clock to complete his work in a needlessly short time span. Better to have a clear well-presented set of evidence, if such evidence exists. Winkelvi should not be preoccupied with this preparation. If a complaint is filed, it will be decided on the merits. Until such time, it's best OP ignore this and work on other matters. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking administratively here, it is proper to have some concern over these kinds of pages, but here, I don't see some long list of longstanding griefs, some indiscriminate collection of perceived wrongs. If the oldest diffs are indeed from 2015, one would hope that the editor would actually do something with them in whatever forum they use this content, and I would be worried if that diff had been listed back when it happened. But as it is, the document is fairly recent and I don't think many of my admin colleagues will have a problem with it. Having said that, I think I speak for many of us admins when I say that digging too deeply into someone's editing past is troublesome and usually doesn't help one's case. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE It should probably be pointed out that both MrX and BullRangifer are threatening me in what appears to be a form of retaliation for bringing this policy vio page to MfD. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

another note Winkelvi, you're experienced here. You know how this movie ends. Apparently MrX is documenting what he believes is obsessive behavior. This will be decided on the merits. If you act obsessively here or wherever this story is headed, it's only going to come back to bite you. So take a page out of Trump's book and turn the other cheek. It works for him! SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per shit or get off the pot. It's been a month now, use them or store them locally. PackMecEng (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncalled for. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this page violates HOUNDING. Jeepers, MrX - while I appreciate your measured civility, (and humor), this month-long collection is clearly overboard. I don't know of any editor who actually likes opposition, but it certainly doesn't justify an individual collection of diffs for more than, say, a couple of weeks if that long, especially if the purpose is to get your opposition TB at AE or AN/I. Even if there was cause to do so, it shouldn't take a month. WP:HOUND policy advises editors ...to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. It also states The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.... I think we can safely say Winkelvi feels distressed and that their level of editing enjoyment has been substantially reduced. The latter is reason enough to have the page deleted which may even include a warning to not do that again - hopefully making the keep iVotes aware that such a page is inappropriate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you fucking kidding me?! You have the balls to accuse ME of hounding, when I am the one who has compiled evidence of hounding, stalking, and battleground behavior by the OP direc ted at me? How did you, Mongo, and ψλ even know this page existed? We're you all stalking my every edit? I never discussed this pafe with anyone; I never linked to it; I never mentioned ψλ's name. I'm so fucking thoroughly sick of the constant drama and battleground bullshit on Wikipedia that I could puck. How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!!- MrX 🖋 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the most bizarre and desperate interpretation of "hounding" I've ever seen. Totally off-base. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puck? Did you mean "pucke"? You must really be upset. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems as though only reason to maintain this in WP space is for Mr. X to advertise his grievances against Wink, and that doesn't seem like a good use of project resources.

To anticipate possible accusations: I became aware of this posting via looking at people's edit histories and Winklevi has never discussed this issue with me.

Additional comment: accusations of stalking against those voting "delete", and hostile remarks like "How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!" suggest that this is more of a personal grudge than anything else. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per PackMecEng. If you have a grievance with another editor, there are appropriate venues at your disposal. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stretching the bounds of evidence-gathering ("shit or get off the pot", per PackMecEng ). Seeing the above uncivil remark to Atsme, I would advise MrX take a wikibreak to cool down. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Gratuitous vulgarity, neither meaningful nor amusing. Speaking of wikibreaks... Your own hiatus you tout on article talk pages, I assume looking for "welcome back" notes, doesn't seem to have done you much good. If you're so stressed out, don't jump in to disputes with nothing to say. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page is a month old. Had it been around for months and linked to, that would be another matter. But, I don't see the need to rush a wide ranging complaint. Some complaints are filed too quickly as it is. O3000 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It seems you two have been antagonizing each other for a while now, and that this is simply the latest battleground in your ongoing dispute. I am not particularly happy about that, but since we are here, I will attempt to deal with this as constructively as the circumstances permit. I would encourage you both to give it up on the grounds that this simply is not worth it. In particular, Winkelvi, I would like to in good faith remind you that you are currently the subject of editing restrictions for more or less exactly the behavior that MrX is complaining about. I fear that if this does go to ANI, the community may interpret it as evidence that your initial six-month block was not long enough. MrX, Winkelvi has expressed concerns that this page is being used as a weapon to coerce good behavior, and from an outsider's perspective, his concerns seem to be valid. This is not entirely your fault—the comment by BullRangifer that Winkelvi cites above was not at all helpful in this regard—but some of your own statements have not helped either. Please keep in mind, both of you, that I am not trying to take sides here: I am just noting what I see as an outside observer, and which I expect are things that anyone reviewing an ANI post will also notice. This dispute reflects poorly on both of you.

Returning to the topic at hand, my current inclination is delete. The reason is that MrX's justification for maintaining this list is that he is compiling diffs and other evidence, yet he has not added any diffs unrelated to this MfD since April 20, and failed to add any unrelated evidence whatsoever save for Winkelvi's previous ANIs. Because he has been adding evidence as it has appeared, I interpret this to mean that Winkelvi has not done anything ANI-worthy since the 20th, which would imply that MrX is simply sitting atop a completed pile of evidence. Furthermore, he maintains that he is compiling this evidence because he will eventually file this at a noticeboard, but he has failed to express this sentiment consistently and also failed to state when he will file this, despite the fact that he appears to have a completed pile of evidence for the reasons I explained above. If MrX can provide some reasonable date, tentative or otherwise, by which he intends to have posted this, then I might be willing to cast in favor of keep and revisit this later if he fails to act on it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is being used as a weapon" ?? Is there no limit to this nonsense? Winkelvi created this page and the predictable tail-chasing. Your outside perspective makes no sense. Every minute of distraction with this stupid MfD delays the ultimate use and erasure of the inventory. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This page" in the quote you refer to above refers to User:MrX/w, not this MfD. Obviously this created drama, and I began my comment above by stating as much. But seeing as we're all here and us MfD regulars need to vote on this, I believe the correct position is to delete the page, unless MrX can demonstrate that he actually intends to use it soon, for the reasons I listed above. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so who would even know that page exists, unless they were, uh, I'm just saying, in case they possibly were stalking MrX's edits -- and I have no idea obviously whether that's the case. These evidence dumps are very common, and they stay up for 1,2,3 months and then they go away. Some of them stay up for much longer. So what? Who even knows they're there. I'd have no objection if they were outlawed, but I can tell you from editing in some of the same topics as MrX that he files lots of AE and other complaints, and they're generally well-documented and result in disruptive editors being redirected to more fruitful endeavors. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Users must be allowed to use their own user space to sandbox anything they are working on that will be introduced to the community at large in the future, including preparations for investigations into user conduct. There's no violating content, so what's the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 :*"This page is being used as a weapon" ?? Is there no limit to this nonsense?  Winkelvi '''created''' this page and the predictable tail-chasing. Your outside perspective makes no sense. Every minute of distraction with this stupid MfD delays the ultimate use and erasure of the inventory.  [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 20:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 ::*"This page" in the quote you refer to above refers to [[User:MrX/w]], not this MfD. Obviously this created drama, and I began my comment above by stating as much. But seeing as we're all here and us MfD regulars need to vote on this, I believe the correct position is to delete the page, unless MrX can demonstrate that he actually intends to use it soon, for the reasons I listed above. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
+:::*OK, so who would even know that page exists, unless they were, uh, I'm just saying, in case they possibly were stalking MrX's edits -- and I have no idea obviously whether that's the case.  These evidence dumps are very common, and they stay up for 1,2,3 months and then they go away. Some of them stay up for much longer. So what? Who even knows they're there. I'd have no objection if they were outlawed, but I can tell you from editing in some of the same topics as MrX that he files lots of AE and other complaints, and they're generally well-documented and result in disruptive editors being redirected to more fruitful endeavors. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 21:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - Users must be allowed to use their own user space to sandbox anything they are working on that will be introduced to the community at large in the future, including preparations for investigations into user conduct. There's no violating content, so what's the problem? -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 20:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)