The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete after one week if no dispute resolution process is started. Pages of evidence are allowed in preparation for dispute resolution, which the author of this page has stated is a possibility. However, indefinite retention of this kind of page is also explicitly forbidden by policy, and the author of this page has given no timeframe in which he plans to start a dispute resolution process. One week gives the author enough time to start dispute resolution or move the information off-wiki.--Aervanath (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu

[edit]

Violation of WP:UP#Not - section 10 specifically - and WP:Attack page. See discussion at User talk:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu, where creator acknowledges no process is being actively considered for which this page may be relevant. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: I refer you to the question I asked here, which remains unanswered. How is a lack of action by a user on his user page distracting to anybody? How is giving the user time to continue compiling information distracting? How does not allowing this user fair time on what seems a large task show good faith? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we need to understand why an editor finds something distracting to take into account the fact that he does. Ive replied in full on your user page, .36 FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way- it is now 20 April; the page was started on 4 April and on 12 April, its author was asked for a timescale, but has not yet offered one. Furthermore, said editor made only one edit outside this topic between 4 and 12 April, and that was to correct an erroneous message he'd left for another user. He has added precisely nothing to this encyclopedia since then. The bottom line is precisely this: "how comfortable would you feel with a gun to your head when you know neither if it's actually loaded nor whether the holder is committed to pulling the trigger"? Hmmmm? Rodhullandemu 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no gun to your head. Don't overplay this. Information is being collected and there is no time frame. And were that user to use this info to put your contributions to an RFC or an AN/I, there would be ample time for you to respond to each and every accusation they made. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pivotal argument here is "providing that BQZ follows up on the proposed RfC in the very near future". Without looking into it, I don't know if you did that, but anywhere due diligence would suggest that some level of commitment, or reasonable explanation for lack of such, should be forthcoming. I don't see it here. Perfectly possible of course that User:DanielDeibler is compiling something offline as far as we are concerned, but he has yet to grace the rest of us with that information. That would be an allowable defence to this MFD, but thus far, I find his silence unconvincing. Please forgive my cynicism here, but I believe you should actually "put up or shut up", and that's the nub of this discussion. Obviously I have self-interest but that doesn't cloud my judgement as to the proper application and use of process here. I yearn to hear from User:DanielDeibler what his intentions are, but this far, his apparent silence is deafening. Rodhullandemu 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did submit for WP:RfC shortly thereafter. I disagree with "put up or shut up". We don't censor people in that manner. I would rather someone submit an RfC or other WP:DR process that is well-formulated and reasonable than hasty and full of inaccuracies. Being patient goes a long way. Additionally, we generally don't have deadlines...this is not one of those instances, but the principle (quality) is the same. Like I said, all I'm asking for is a basic idea of what they are thinking. A lack of feedback here is more problematic than saying "I just want it..." — BQZip01 — talk 03:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and the sole reason I !voted to Delete. I'm even willing to wait a while on such a timescale, as long as it isn't open-ended. This also shouldn't be used to vindicate any action of any party with whom he has a dispute. If he wants to keep it until later, the easiest solution is to simply blank the page and restore it if/when desired to complete such a process. Refusal to discuss is counter to WP:CONSENSUS; accordingly...my !vote. — BQZip01 — talk 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. Having this sort of thing hanging over one's head for an unreasonable time is inimical to being able to contribute here effectively. Hence my comment that the complainant should either commit or withdraw. He has been offered ((db-author)) deletion but apparently has just left it hanging like a corpse in the wind. That's unhelpful to anyone. Rodhullandemu 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how a user page that hasn't been edited significantly in 16 days is stopping you from contributing effectively. I still don't understand how you expect good faith from this editor in being up front with their intentions while suggesting deletion of this page: not showing good faith. I would suggest that since, as you noted above, you have your own self-interest at hand, and -since you've made your POV clearly known and since the editor in question hasn't weighed in while full well knowing about the Mfd, you should let the system you trust come to a fair and trustworthy consensus on this issue. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of understanding is no fault of mine; however, there is a real-life person at the end of this wire, for whom causes have effects. I trust the system to come to a fair and just result- but Magna Carta said 804 years ago "to no man will we deny or delay justice". Did she die in vain?. The editor could have come here and said "I am working on this offline and expect to make a proposal shortly": he hasn't. Rodhullandemu 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:UP#NOT, #10; and do you consider accusing your fellow-editors of, essentially, corruption is an assumption of good faith? Rodhullandemu 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I made it clear that my assumption was made in error, so I'm not sure why you are asking me this. While I'm commenting here, I'll let anyone who is interested know that I am in the process of adding more to this page, and should be done writing shortly. DanielDeibler (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not that surprised at your astonishment, the assumption of good faith requires some familiarity with the concept after all. I would comment that collecting the data with a view to reviewing whether there are sufficient grounds to process to some form of dispute resolution is not how the section is worded - the language is "preparing for", which implies intent. In my first response here I said that it was difficult to determine what process the information was intended to be used for, and your response even now does not indicate at which venue the substance may be discussed. While attempting to discuss this on the talkpage, I noted that this could be done off-Wiki and brought to the appropriate place once it had been decided upon. I now note that only when I have done as I notified you I would, by taking the matter to MfD, that you have seen fit to consider your position - and then only because you were not expecting two members of the community entrusted by their fellows to use the extra buttons in accordance with their responsibilities... have actually acted in accordance with the rules. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Suitable preparation for an RFC.
2) A fair investigation of the subjects overall conduct.
3) A fair investigation to determine whether a sanction possibly more severe than a slapped wrist at a RFC is called for.
The investigation is plainly overkill for purpose 1). The evidence that Rod occasionally makes mistakes is very clear – as recognised by Ellen, FolkBoy and others. You'd only have needed to gather 5 or 6 diffs to easily demonstrate your subject does indeed sometimes cross the line.
The investigation isnt suited for 2) or 3) as for those purposes fairness demands an even handed assessment of Rod's overall conduct – the good and the bad. The page emphatically highlights Rod's mistakes, but makes only a token effort to assess his huge constructive contribution. A fair formal investigation should analyse what sort of % of Rod's edits are bad. I'll briefly explain in case you dont have any form of analytical training. For simplicity you could classify a sample set of edits as either good or bad, taking care to ensure they are a reasonably accurate reflection of the users overall editing by populating your sample pool with edits taken at various dates and times, without any prior selection based on quality. For someone who's made about 40,000 edits , youd only need to analyse about 600 randomly distributed edits to determine the approximate % of bad edits, (with a margin of error of 4% and a confidence level of 95%) . I've took a few minutes to skim through and Im confident less than 5% of Rods edits are blatantly uncivil or overly authorative. In fact I didn't see a single bad one (there were maybe 2 borderline cases) Informally Id guess well under 0.01% of Rods edits are bad , but it takes a much higher sample size to formally achieve accuracy down to decimal places with any confidence.
Restating the above more loosely, fairness would demand Rods blatant but very infrequent mistakes are counterbalanced by a recognition of his much more numerous valuable edits. We ought not countenance witchhunts against anyone , especially not to folk who've made an immense net positive contribution to the encyclopaedia!
In conclusion , as on close inspection the article doesnt best serve functions 1-3 above, its fair to say its serves primarily to disparage its subject. Therefore it is an attack page. And , after a sensitive reading of Rod's recent comments , a spectacularly successful one. Occasional exceptions are allowed to the AGF guideline – Im beginning to suspect you may have some hidden motive for attacking Rod, have well above average psychological insight and may be deliberately pulling his strings. Accordingly Im changing my vote to speedy delete, and I wouldn't object if this increasingly dramatic AFD was purged from the record either.
Its quite possible that you simply lack the analytical skill to detect the flaws in your investigation, despite your obvious high intelligence as demonstrated by the presentation and internal consistency of your arguments . If thats the case I apologise for my suggestion of an ulterior motive and you have my respect for your determination to stand up to intolerant and uncivil admin behaviour. I hope you find this comment helpful for any future investigations you conduct.
Grrrrr! Hardly any time left for enjoyable content building or article rescue now. Started my day off nicely this has. Here's hoping someone steps in to bring this to a speedy close!FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On one point, whereas on-Wiki might be acceptable, "public" isn't, and DanielDeibler failed to apply ((NOINDEX)) to his pages. Hence they are now indexed by Google. When you're an admin, you are bound to make some enemies, rationally or not, and some people out there have it in for me and have attempting to obtain passwords on my Meta and Commons accounts, and issuing death threats. I don't know about anyone else, but I could live without that. Rodhullandemu 23:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misread the investigation. I only reviewed one instance of a quick block on a vandalism only account. I determined it to be perfectly acceptable and common practice, that it likely prevented further vandalism, and that its impact on the investigation was "None". I believe I only reviewed one other block, in which an editor who appeared to be trying to reorganize an article in an undesirable, piece-wise manner was blocked without warning after two minutes of editing on Wikipedia. They didn't appear to be vandalizing anything, just editing in a manner not IAW the MoS. I think I marked that one as needing further review. I don't really have an "issue" with anything. I'm just investigating user conduct. Can you explain what you mean by "Anything more would be somewhat fetishistic"? Thanks. --DanielDeibler (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:HOUND. If you're going to be serious, and consistent, you should in fairness cite and analyse every single edit summary and use page message of mine and come to an objective conclusion based on the totality; picking and choosing the ones you deem inappropriate isn't good, defensible, methodology. In those circumstances, whereas "fetishistic" might not be the correct terminology, the words "obsessive" and "unjust" certainly might spring to mind. Rodhullandemu 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not just investigating user conduct. You are publishing and discussing another's edits for all to see. This can be done just as easily: in your head, with bookmarks, on a .txt document on your computer, or even on plain old paper. The link from your user page is hardly keeping it hidden and is a way of attracting attention to another edits that you consider problematic (or not). There are already official forums for problems of this nature (RFC/ANI etc). Giving a play by play description of his edits is verging on wikistalking. You could be so much more discrete so easily. I can only suppose you put this here to invite others to see/comment on it, in which case - take it to RFC if you think there are incivility issues. That is the correct channel. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should clarify that I do not mean fetishitic in any kind of sexual manner (as could be implied!) but rather in terms of this definition: "An abnormally obsessive preoccupation; a fixation." Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem inconsistent with your "Keep" vote above; would you mind clarifying whether you are changing please? Rodhullandemu 00:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I prefer such things to not be deleted, unless the user chooses ((db-u1)). Blanking should usually satisfy all concerns. In this case, I don’t think there is anything so offensive to you in the page that would justify you insisting that the community delete it against the user’s wishes. I’d said “keep for now (01:48, 19 April 2009)”, now I say "blank, no further action (RFC or otherwise) warranted at this time". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with blanking is that it remains visible, through its edit history, to any editor. Now whereas you correctly point out that there is little of offence to me on that page, I am more concerned that it might be used in future to impugn DanielDeibler's good faith should he ever decide to pursue a similar exercise in the future, and on that point, I refer you to FeydHuxtable's above comments on the flaws in his methodology. Having studied the Chicago School in the context of criminology, I didn't want to get too technical, but I am not sure his evidence so far indicates a commitment to empiricism. It is, as stated above, a laundry list, and he should be spared the embarrassment of having it haunt him forever here. Meanwhile, it's late and I need some sleep, although I'm not optimistic. Rodhullandemu 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More