- 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 Kept - there's a lot of merit in complaining that three years is a long time to be accumulating such diffs, but it doesn't seem like that can overrule "it's in use" and the strength of numbers in this discussion. WilyD 10:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox
[edit]- User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This editor appears to collect diffs and links for ammo against users at ANI. This doesn't seem compatible with AGF or the standard reasons for having a subpage. My attempts to find out what this page is where removed without comment [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The page appears to fall under WP:UP#POLEMIC - a public view of negative information related to others. The page was created 26 January 2009 and there does not appear to be an effort to prepare the material for a dispute resolution process, so were left with a list of negative information about people. There appears to be some WP:BLP issues as well. Montanabw, you are an experienced editor, so I think you deserve the benefit of the doubt. However, I think IRWolfie's reuquest for more information on the page was reasonable and removing that request without reply was not. Without some sort of WP:UP explanation for maintaining the user page, the only option would be to delete the page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: I've been accumulating information there for quite some time, yes, but each time it was "timely" and not a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Originally I WAS developing an ANI against a user who has been causing me difficulties for about two years, but as I was sworking on this, was blocked (due to behavior on articles other than ones I was concerned about). I sort of forgot about the pate. However, within about 6 months, an anonymous IP showed up on similar articles with similar behavior. The IP was also blocked. For that reason, I strongly suspected that this user would appear again and again be disruptive, so then I was accumulating diffs for an SPI if needed. Sure enough, this editor appears to have reappeared, has caused minor problems, but until a couple weeks ago, was not causing major problems. However, due to recent problems, I recently edited the page (which, as IRWolfie appears to be stalking me and spotted it in my contribs) because that user's new identity is now in some trouble, and in passing, I noted two other possible sock puppets, which I added to the list. While wikipedia is public, this page had a NOINDEX tag to keep it off search engines. Thus, it is still relevant. However, I have not filed anything on this user because, so far, her behavior has landed her in enough trouble with other people that there is no need for a WP:GRAVEDANCE. Please also note that IRWofie and I are both involved in a content dispute over the article Organic food and I believe this action is an attempt to intimidate me and force me to back down at the other discussion, which, I believe, is also a violation of WP policy. I blanked his request and refused to respond to it because I deemed it to be harassment. Montanabw(talk) 16:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Question WP:GRAVEDANCE was deleted earlier this year as an "unlikely" redirect; which policy did you mean? --Pitke (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation Montanabw. I see all the keeps below, but I think that is an agreement that the information is valuable and has a place in Wikipedia. WP:UP does not permit long term gathering of information in a person's user page on another editor, essentially because it makes Wikipedia less friendly place. Perhaps you can copy the entire page and paste it in a SPI request. Then you can have that information maintained within Wikipedia. As you gather more evidence off line, you can open another SPI request (assuming the first one has closed) to post it. SPI is in Wikipedia namespace, which has different requirements than user namespace and more people will see the info if it is Wikipedia namespace. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ched, the nomination has no connectiont with any disagreement at another article; I noticed the user pages because I was interacting with the editor more than usual, but that is as far as it goes. If I wished, I could have waited to post DRN, I see no difference. Also note that the page isn't just general notes, but notes about how they believe a specific editor/editors is/are disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No need to remove workpages that are still actively in use. Besides that, one shout (a one liner) is not a serious effort to open a discussion. Especially because they oneliner does not clarify what the problem is and why it should be discussed. The Banner talk 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Ched mostly. It does seem odd that no one appears to have noticed this page before if it's been around since 2009. Tossing out AGF does nothing to change the perception that the timing of this request (per the dispute Ched linked) seems odd, as does the rather pointed note linked by Banner. One note is an attempt, not attempts. Intothatdarkness 17:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I only noticed it now because edits were made to it recently (the 8th) as though it's a long term compilation of diffs. I don't see why my note is pointed: "What is the purpose of User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox.", I asked a question and it was reverted without comment. I think commenting on a users page more than once after they have reverted your comment is generally a bad idea. I think MfD is a good venue for the issue to be dealt with. I fail to see how it has any bearing on what is occurring at DRN because it has no impact in any way at that discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry...that still looks pointy to me, or at least certain to raise a reaction. It's a single sentence that reads badly...almost like an accusation. In your third sentence you used the word "attempts," which implies more than one attempt at clarification when there was just one. Finally, I would hope you'd see how it does look odd to request deletion of a page created by a person who you're involved with at DRN, especially when you're on opposite sides. If the page is tracking activity of a serial problem user/vandal, I don't see a huge problem with it. Intothatdarkness 21:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The assumption then is that whoever is listed is a problem user or a vandal? It lists an active editor, User:Curb Chain, as a possible sock puppet for example. To me this is the sort of thing that someone could keep in a text file if they so wish but it doesn't belong in a userspace. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget to mention that User:Una has not edited the article platinum.Curb Chain (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This page serves no purpose for Wikipedia's purposes. Per nom's mention of this page not assuming good faith. Rather, this page is used as ammo as Nominator says, to cast aspersions on editors.Curb Chain (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many editors keep a sandbox for preparing RfCUs or ArbCom cases or similar. I'm willing to WP:AGF that the MfD nomination is unrelated to the content dispute with the sandbox's creator, but I'm not really seeing a good reason to deprive Montanabw of the opportunity to assemble supporting documentation in userspace for when/if she needs it for an eventual AN/I filing. 28bytes (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:UP#POLEMIC standard is "preparing for a dispute resolution process" and "will be used in a timely manner." The page was created 26 January 2009.
I think it's time to find a permanent home for the ANI sandbox information that is outside of user namespace. (see my iVote below) There's ton of noticeboards, many of which can receive all the information and Montanabw then can use User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox as a redirect to that page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what relevance the page creation date has; it's been updated as recently as five days ago and is clearly an ongoing concern for Montanabw. It doesn't seem unusual to me that documentation of a long-term problem would have begun long ago. 28bytes (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Hi, Uzma, and others: the reason I have not yet needed to file anything is because each time I've been about ready to do so, each previous suspected sock of this user seems to have either disappeared, been blocked or penalized without any help from me:
My current concern about sockpuppetry is shown here:
This current user has exhibited an ongoing pattern of mildly problematic behavior, similar to but not as severe as the other user names I suspect are linked to this account:
This is why I am monitoring. I first encountered this individual name in 2011, possibly in this discussion, where I recognized a familiar style of phrasing and argument, or else at my colleague Mike Cline's page here one or the other of which prompted me to go to this user's talk page, where I saw a familiar pattern of people complaining about said editor. At this point, I smelled a sock and continued to monitor. I have not personally had a problem with the current user yet, though I feel it helpful to maintain this page for the purpose of things like this, where I need to access diffs and data quickly. Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Montanabw has multiple, valid reasons to maintain the user page and has given careful and thoughtful consideration to the matter well beyond what WP:UP requires. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Based on the response to my earlier concerns, it's obvious that this is a well-intentioned and useful page. Not harmful or detrimental, though I am uncomfortable with the method of presenting the page's information. I would suggest revising to show the "bare facts"; that, of course, is not my prerogative as it isn't my user page. It also does seem to have a positive goal. dci | TALK 05:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - After close examination of the evidence on the page in question, it appears to me that Montanabw has a very valid concern, so the data on this page is a legitimate use of a page in userspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per the suggestion of DCI2026, I will trim some of the editorial content, leaving only notes that will help me remember necessary diffs, articles, and policies. Montanabw(talk) 22:26, 16 December 2012 (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.