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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:43, 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] -- 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]
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!!- Mr X 🖋 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *'''Delete''' Per shit or get off the pot. It's been a month now, use them or store them locally. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 *'''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 {{tq|...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 {{tq|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. <sup>[[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">Atsme</span>]][[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 18:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
+**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!!- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)