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: keep. Consensus is to keep the page but allow it to remain courtesy-blanked. —ScottyWong— 21:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not need this kind of nonsense on Wikipedia. --Bduke (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the reason for the existence of this page is the portals dispute which culminated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals, and indeed this page forms part of Vermont's initial submission prior to acceptance and is linked in the evidence presented by AmericanAir88 and Northamerica1000. As the title suggests though it was created as part of the ANI discussion about BrownHairedGirl and portals (now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Portals) where Vermont stated Specifically in regard to BHG's conduct, I've created a page listing a few highly uncivil quotes written by BHG in this ANI section. (User:Vermont/BHGANI). So, the nomination is incorrect in the purpose of this page - it exists document personal attacks made by BHG as part of the formal dispute resolution process, not to perpetuate grudges held by Vermont. Whether it is still needed though, given that the arbitration case concluded in January 2020 I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is an attack page then I'm not its target. I am mentioned only in a quote from the ANI archive linked above, which is unlikely to be deleted. Like Thryduulf, I'm unsure whether we be deleting evidence linked from an ArbCom case. Please bear in mind that a sanction resulting from that case may prevent the author of the quoted comments from contributing to this discussion. Certes (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete its purpose is over, as it exists today it is functionally an attack page other users. Dronebogus (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not an attack page in any way. Was never intended to attack and until now never classified as an attack page. I don't agree the "page exists solely to atack users" since it was clearly created as a good faith attempt to document bad behavior during an ANI discussion, and used specifically as part of evidence in a formal proceeding by Arbitration Committee members and clerks. I'm not certain that any positions we take in this MfD are binding to Arbcom's higher need to maintain transparency in formal processes. I see no reason why this page could not be blanked instead (as some Arbcom cases are after closure), so no attacks seem apparent and all the relevant material is still available for research. Deleting linked evidence is a bad way to proceed, and since Arbcom has a priority interest in such matters, I'd like to hear what the committee has to say about its disposition BEFORE closure here. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far more concerned about a brand new user account whose very first edit is to correctly tag this (virtually unseen) page for speedy deletion and then after denial correctly begins a formal MfD process. Pretty advanced knowledge for a newbie. How in the world does an editor with no Wikipedia history even know about this user subpage and why do they have any interest at all, since they've expressed zero interest otherwise about Wikipedia? My question is not about biting newcomers; the nom itself raises legitimate issues of sockpuppetry. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points. Their second and third edits were to create blank user and user talk pages (presumably for the sole purpose of turning them blue to appear as not a new user). Also their signature is non-standard, not including a link to their talk page. These are not the hallmarks of a brand new editor. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf their signature is standard. It was accientally deleted by Bduke[2] and partially restored by Certes[3]. I have fixed it. Other than that this indeed looks like an typical WP:SPA or sock. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I accidentally recreated the sig in a non-standard format. Thanks for fixing it. GeneralNotability has indef blocked the nominator; the reasons may be relevant to this discussion. Certes (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're a harassment LTA, don't think we have a common name for them. They've used other accounts to harass parties to the recent arb case. Definitely evading several blocks. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 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. This clearly has outlived its usefulness. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me; 15:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what feels wrong here to me is this being stored as a user subpage without any context. Keeping but courtesy blanking might be reasonable. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me; 22:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not “without any context”, especially when blanked. When blanked, it can be assumed that newcomers won’t be stumbling onto it, and all wikiarchiologists know how to use Special:WhatLinksHere to look at context. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was offered as evidence from a past dispute resolution which has long concluded. BrownHairedGirl already paid a price for it, so why keep this around as a painful reminder? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but courtesy blank per developments since this nomination. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The dispute resolution case was dealt with and closed over 2 years ago. This page has served its purpose. Oxi (talk|he/him) 15:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but courtesy blank per new developments. Oxi (Contact me) 09:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have beem editing anonymously on and off for years and seeing this attack page is what prompted me to create an account, since asking for deletion would have more weight from a registered account. It is unfortunate to see senior editors like BusterD, Thryduulf and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ assuming bad faith and calling me a sock. Gustin Kelly (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gustin Kelly: you should read WP:ALTACCN to prevent future things like these from happening. As there are very few links to this page [4], I think it would be a wise choice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about checkusers who can see your other accounts? GeneralNotability (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Suggest that users intent on sock-hunting open up an WP:SPI instead of casting aspersions in the middle of an MFD.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WaltCip: We do have WP:DUCK for a reason, the outcome of this MfD is not going to change either way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm so confused. I created this as part of my ANI submission in November 2019, listing personal attacks made by BrownHairedGirl. Reporting personal attacks is not a personal attack, and I'd urge any reviewing admin to disregard !votes that attempt to argue otherwise.
Additionally, we keep ANI archives for a reason. This was a pivotal part of my ANI post, and deleting it would be akin to deleting the work put into presenting evidence that resulted in previous warnings. We are not in the business of covering up people's past sanctionable conduct, and it would require wider community consensus than this to argue otherwise. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 20:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the point made by Maddy from Celeste is not applicable here. That refers to creating pages of this sort before a dispute resolution discussion, which could be disruptive. By no means does this say that you need to delete evidence after such a discussion happened. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 20:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait I forgot, I had also linked this in my statement for the arbcom case that resulted in BHG's desysop back in 2019. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 20:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems consensus is moving towards courtesy blanking. I have no objections to that, and if that happens I'll add a note for context about when this was created and why, to avoid further confusion. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️🌈) 18:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, please do so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I understand correctly, this page was created in order NOT to clutter the ANI page discussion, so deleting this page would have the effect of deleting part of the always preserved ANI archive. Surely there's some precedent for that and I'd be interesting in seeing it, even if I'm shown to be incorrect. I still expect Arbcom or members thereof to weigh in (but only on the subject of deleting parts of case evidence, where such could easily be blanked). If I stand accused of casting aspersions, it would be the first time in my 17+ year wiki-career. DUCK surely has application here and under these circumstances, there is obviously more going on than the nominator has revealed to date. BusterD (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this discussion but in no way do I feel comfortable giving an opinion as an individual arb about the arb side of things and as this comment notes you don't want my opinion as an editor. So here's the comment we end up with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, Barkeep49. Apologies to all in this process if my wordings have been suboptimal; I'll confess my feathers felt ruffled by good WaltCip's reasonable chiding. I strive NOT to be that guy, and I fall short of my own expectations from time to time. By "but only" I intended not to draw arbs unnecessarily in the context of the conflict, but to learn common practice about the committee's needs and goals regarding archives. This seems a meta-question, and above the debate itself. I would like to see comment from that perspective. I am not surprised that the nominator has been blocked, but that gives me little satisfaction, this SPA's purpose now in play. I prefer DENY, but here we are. BusterD (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize in my retrospect for my commentary. I was mostly trying to avoid having a distracting side discussion within what would otherwise have been a legitimate deletion discussion. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came to that understanding after the blood left my cheeks. You are appreciated for your directness. BusterD (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but courtesy blank. This strikes the best balance between preserving history, allowing people to move on and not preserving personal attacks against editors unnecessarily. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only as an individual arbitrator, I don't see any harm in deleting it. All the quotes are pulled from ANI, which is archived, so it has served its intended purpose and there is no benefit I can see to retaining it. If it should somehow come up that the committee needs this specific page for some future ArbCom proceeding, restoring it would be a trivial matter as it is linked on case pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very much appreciate your willingness to opine. My preference for keeping and blanking is already clear. May I pursue this briefly? For fuller transparency to the future off-wiki historian community, I'm interested in keeping such history in plain (non-sysop) sight, but I sense from your comment that, as a person actively responsible to the community, you are satisfied that is not necessary in this case, since it's a formulation of material already available in ANI history and red-linked at Arbcom. Is that a correct understanding of your comment? BusterD (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for myself and not for the committee, it is not evidence that is linked in the proposed decision. Instead it is evidence linked to in some evidence submissions and is linked to in a diff in the final decision. That is a step beyond what is necessary to preserve from a wikihistory perspective from my point of view. I will note, without regard to what the community should do here, that the Committee has either itself or allowed others to courtesy blank entire cases in the past. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but courtesy blank per Madeline and Thryduulf, as a compromise which keeps a record without advertising it, although I'm reluctant to reward a LTA sock by taking any action at all. Deletion would achieve a similar effect for sysops, but others may legitimately be interested too, and it's policy that Deletion should not be used for archiving a page. Certes (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and courtesy blank – Documentation of personal attacks for the concluded Arbcom case does not then magically transform the page itself an attack page afterward. North America1000 12:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thryduulf provides a good summary of why this exists and why was it needed. Just add the context at the top of the page by using ((mbox)) and move on. It might look like an attack page, but it wasn't actually meant to be one, and the addition of context will adequately clarify it. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 13:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking is second preference by a long shot, but against deletion. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X}) 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but blank. These were serious considered poor quotes in a high profile forum and they (mostly the tone of these comments in my opinion) resulted in an ArbCom case and desysop. There were three that year and collectively they were a milestone in the changes in the community’s response to incivility. Some of the details are ugly, but they are of historical importance, and should be available, although keeping it all blanked (in the history but available) during periods without active discussion is appropriate. North America‘s opinion above should be given special weight. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as troll bait. The fact that it was nominated for deletion by a blocked troll is confirmation that it is troll bait. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: If we do delete this, then wouldn't we be giving the "troll" what they wanted? I mean it looks like they started this AfD with a goal in mind to see it deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted to !vote "keep" per WP:DENY, but I think courtesy blanking is a reasonable compromise. Lots of pages attract trolls, notably biographies of controversial people, but that's not a reason to delete. Certes (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2022 (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.