Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was closed as improper. The addition, and subsequent removal, of so many pages from this MfD has made this debate hopelessly flawed. This is closed without prejudice to relisting any page individually again; however, the nominator is encouraged to pursue mediation and allow for "cooling-off" time before renominating the original page again. Xoloz 14:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

 A formal Request for Mediation related to this article
was filed with the Mediation Committee on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist.

Please see the discussion on the case's request page.
All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.

[edit] User:Psychonaut/User watchlist

This page would seem to contravene both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA
These pages would seem to contrave both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA--Zeraeph 17:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC) This request for deletion includes the following articles:

--Zeraeph 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn all additions for later consideration on a case by case basis as they deserve, but retaining the original User:Psychonaut/User watchlist, for individual consideration. I was too eager to reassure Psychonaut that I was not singling him out and I made a serious mistake listing these together. I have also realised that I probably shouldn't remove the page tags myself, I hope someone else will asap. --Zeraeph 03:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Many or most following watchlists also probably meet Zeraeph's criteria, but he has declined to list them in this MfD:

In the interests of fairness it might be best to tag these pages as well, but then again that might be a violation of WP:POINT. Opinions? —Psychonaut 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am saving this list on my hard drive with a view to considering MFD, where it seems appropriate, perhaps on a case by case basis, later, pending conclusion of the various current discussions on these issues. --Zeraeph 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Although it does seem the users listed have given enough reason to assume bad faith, these kinds of notes shouldn't be kept on Wikipedia. I suggest Psychonaut save a copy on his hard drive and have us delete the page. Don't feed the trolls. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if Psychonaut still wants it; I don't care what people make lists of in their userspace. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis for possible context. Opabinia regalis 07:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a bit different than that situation, in that in this situation the user is basically "attacking" other users. From what I can see this is actually somewhat justified in the sense of vandalism tracking (but I haven't looked too deeply into it). However, keeping records on such vandalism can come back and bite ya in the butt for vandals that seek attention. User pages aren't a free-for-all. -- Ned Scott 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that I feel strongly enough to endorse deletion, but I would recommend that he keep such notes externally from Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 09:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel I should point out that although, of course, I actually stumbled upon this page as a result of the cited AFD, my feeling that it should be deleted is unrelated.
I am sure we all have some kind of personal watchlist of editors who concern us, and so we should have, but to post that list in the public domain, not only seems unnecessary, but also has very different effect on those so listed. Just as posting some of our more negative feelings about other editors would be a very different matter to feeling them privately, however understandable they might be.
WP:PA clearly states [2]: Note: There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Arbitration Committee. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.
This page seems to exist and define itself in a manner oblivious to that aspect of policy, even if it's use is confined to unambiguously identified problem editors, such as, at least one named editor would clearly seem to be. However, beyond that degree of certainty it also becomes hard to reconcile the page with WP:AGF. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project.. --Zeraeph 14:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment by author. I have three comments to make.
First, the page in question is designed to help editors (myself, and possibly others) monitor users which have already been identified by the Wikipedia community as having a history of controversial edits or acting in bad faith. The page is composed almost entirely of text from and links to existing Wikipedia articles, including Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration and Wikipedia:Long term vandalism reports. For these two reasons I don't believe the page can be considered a personal attack.
Second, pages of this sort are commonplace on Wikipedia. Besides official and semi-official pages such as Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations and the subpages of Wikipedia:Long term abuse, many editors and administrators maintain their own user watchlists to monitor editors which they and/or the community at large considers problematic. Examples include the following:
Finally, this is about the twentieth time this page has been nominated for deletion or speedy deletion as an attack page. In all previous cases the deletion requests were dismissed out of hand as vexatious and vindictive vandalism. I suspect that this case may be little different, as User:Zeraeph appears to have a vested interest in protecting one of the users I am monitoring.
In conclusion, now that he is aware of the long tradition of userspace pages for monitoring problem users, Zeraeph cannot in good faith continue to pursue this request for deletion without either (a) explaining why my page is qualitatively different from all the other existing user watchlists, or (b) requesting that every other user watchlist also be deleted, either one at a time or via a policy proposal. —Psychonaut 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am glad you provided that list, because in no way do I wish to single your list out from those others. I actually saw references to other lists and tried (unsuccessfully) to find one or two last night. Let me make it very clear that I am uncomfortable with the principle of "User Watchlists" of this kind in general, for the reasons stated above.

I do feel that you may have become subjective and over-zealous in the AFD you mention, I also feel that there may be an element of the same in the use of this watchlist, there is certainly a potential for it in any such watchlist, but to me, that is irrelevant, as I feel any watchlist of this kind is incompatible with existing policy. --Zeraeph 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Then either withdraw this MfD request and file a new policy proposal, or revise this MfD request to include every other similar user watchlist which I have posted and which you can find. Otherwise you are unfairly (i.e., in bad faith) singling me out for behaviour which is commonplace on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In terms of this AFD there does not seems to be any need for a new policy, as I feel the page contravenes existing policy.
Equally I do not see any reason to withdraw this AFD, or to request AFD blindly for every page you have listed. I am checking them now and so far most of them have a totally different tone to your page, (one, so far, is a list of potential candidates for adminship).
I will list as I find them:

--Zeraeph 15:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting criteria you have for deciding which watchlists should be deleted and which shouldn't be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
  • If a watchlist contains other information besides commentary on users (such as humor), it should be kept (User:Mirv's page).
  • If a watchlist is on a user page rather than a user subpage, it should be kept (User:ColonelS's page).
  • If the watchlist is currently blank but its history contains considerable information, it should be kept. (User:Shreshth91's page).
  • If there is a commentary, then the page should be deleted. Article titles such as "Abusive users" count as commentary (User:Beowulph's page), but section titles such as "Problematic users" don't count as a commentary (User:A.J.A.'s page). Calling someone a spammer also doesn't count as commentary. (User:ChrisRuvolo's page).
  • If the watchlist is created by User:Linuxbeak, it should be kept.
  • If the watchlist is created in the Wikipedia: namespace instead of the User: namespace, it should be kept (Wikipedia:Long term abuse and subpages).

—Psychonaut 16:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


  • If a watchlist contains other information besides commentary on users (such as humor), it should be kept (User:Mirv's page).
Not necessarily, it is just unsuitable for this MFD --Zeraeph 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Do you believe that if the creators of all these watchlists simply added some additional, non-watchlist related humour to their pages, that would suddenly exempt them from deletion? —Psychonaut 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If a watchlist is on a user page rather than a user subpage, it should be kept (User:ColonelS's page).
Of course, I don't see how a whole userpage could or should be deleted, but the watchlist may need to be considered for deletion elsewhere, though it is unsuitable for this MFD. --Zeraeph 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? What leads you to believe that it's impossible or inappropriate to delete a user page here? —Psychonaut 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If the watchlist is currently blank but its history contains considerable information, it should be kept. (User:Shreshth91's page).
Not necessarily, it is just unsuitable for this MFD --Zeraeph 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is a commentary, then the page should be deleted. Article titles such as "Abusive users" count as commentary (User:Beowulph's page), but section titles such as "Problematic users" don't count as a commentary (User:A.J.A.'s page). Calling someone a spammer also doesn't count as commentary. (User:ChrisRuvolo's page).
If there is negative personal commentary I wish to request deletion, I would consider "problematic" to be a term that could be considered neutral, however if you feel differently feel free to include pages containing the term in this MFD --Zeraeph 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily, it just seems to be a seperate and complex issue unsuitable for this MFD --Zeraeph 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How, specifically, is Linuxbeak's user watchlist different from the others listed in this MfD? —Psychonaut 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If the watchlist is created in the Wikipedia: namespace instead of the User: namespace, it should be kept (Wikipedia:Long term abuse and subpages).
They are a totally different case irrelevant to this MFD --Zeraeph 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Question. What specific wording on the pages in question is considered a personal attack? If these alleged attacks can be identified and removed, then this matter can be settled without resorting to deleting the entire article. —Psychonaut 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding, although I am not sure such an approach would ultimately solve the whole problem. That's a bigger issue --Zeraeph 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think such lists are very clever, if somebody objects to being labelled a POV warrior, it creates a problem for the community. Instead of claiming someone is a problem, it would be preferable to report them or raise an RfC. However, while I would consider not supporting a candidate at RfA for this, I don't support the deletion of these user pages, unless their content is demonstrated to be unreasonable. Addhoc 16:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm 100% in favor of having such a list, but a bit less confident about their existence in out in the open. In my opinion, a user on such a list should just take it on the chin as part of the penance for their actions. Flagging them as a past problem editor doesn't violate AGF or PA (as it is a verifiable fact that the editor did, in fact, vandalize pages in the past); we're not assuming that they will most definitely vandalize in the future, we're tracking them to make sure that our assumption they'll become good editors is actually correct. If they have become good editors, their edits will reflect that. EVula 17:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd like to hear some specific comment on my page to justify it going poof. Its usefulness to me has slacked off in the past year so I don't have much at stake, but I think the precedent this would set should the result be "delete" requires that clear arguments be made about specific problems that the pages share. (On the note of precedent, too, I'll be happier seeing my page deleted if there are more people participating in this discussion—right now there are just a handful. The opinion of a few people isn't very informative if I want to know how the community feels about such pages.) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason why these should be deleted. It seems to be a misunderstanding of civility policies, which are totally irrelevant to problem users. Also, deleting these lists is not going to prevent people from using them. —Centrx→talk • 18:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I try to express on my user watchlist that the causing of offense is not intended, and if the users quit after a few edits (or stop editing for a long time), I take them off. In addition to this, I also use the page to honor exceptional editors and place a wikidefcon template. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 18:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but caution those involved to be very careful about neutrality in stating the case and only to "out" people when evidence is readily available in the public domain. There is clear evidence of these accounts editing tendentiously and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. When dealing with repeat offenders in the sockpuppetry department, it is good to have a few people around who know the puppetmaster's edit pattern and can document it and help with diagnosis. Guy 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't believe this page violates any of the policies mentioned. It appears to be a legitimate usage by a serious contributor. While I have no doubt at all that this was a good faith nomination I would strongly caution against more nominations like this as the AfD debates are more harmful to the community than the pages themselves. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment But where do you draw the line between something like this [3] (the reason I noticed the problem) which is negative, subjective and far from proven in any real sense (particularly the word "pseudoscientific") and a personal attack? I cannot see a difference. --Zeraeph 18:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's pretty easy. Making remarks about a theory by definition cannot be a personal attack. —Psychonaut 18:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I do not share your opinion (particularly the context of an established Academic in a science discipline). However I would be very interested to know where you would draw the line between any of the comments on your own watchlist and a personal attack? To put it another way, can you explain and give (hypothetical) examples of what you would consider to be "crossing the line"?--Zeraeph 18:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I'd be happy to do so once you answer my original question above: "What specific wording on the pages in question is considered a personal attack?" Your earlier response did not refer to any specific wording, but rather made vague remarks about "negative commentary". Please list the exact phrases you take issue with and explain why you consider them to be personal attacks. I see from your previous incidents on WP:RfM and WP:ANI that it can be well-nigh impossible to get you to be specific in your allegations, and that you have been blocked once already for making vague accusations. So either be upfront and specific about what it is that's bugging you or go find a more productive use of your time. —Psychonaut 19:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I have given you my only considered answer to your question already, I am afraid. I think it would be in the best interests of all sides in this discussion if you tried to answer my question now, though, of course, you don't have to if you don't feel like it. However I would ask you to please try and avoid incivility, particularly in your edit summaries.--Zeraeph 19:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Further clarification I would be happy to withdraw MFD for any page that confines itself to positive, constructive or neutral comments upon other editors and verifiable, cited, past facts stated as past facts (not future speculation) about other editors, as I do not feel any page meeting these criteria contravenes the spirit of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF or WP:PA which is at the center of my concern.--Zeraeph 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd like to hear something more specific too. Could you at least explain what you mean by "negative commentary"? Certainly you can't mean anything that isn't puppies and roses, since the negative behaviour of somes users can't be described except by using negative terms. For instance, is the hypothetical phrase "is a vandal" negative in the sense you mean? Can I assume that you mean unnecessarily or incivilly negative commentary? Some clarification is really needed here. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Could you please just answer the question about the talk pages in contention (not just yours, the others too). Instead, both here and on Counter-Vandalism Unit (now relocated by Psychognat - see third category down) , you have now traded tactics, smearing Zeraeph by referring to a people, time and place quite unlike the present. Knowing that few will spend the necessary hours to sort that history out. It was nothing like you suggest and nothing in the least similar to the present. Could there be a subtle underlying message of "I can get you banned again". I wish you simply could, for once and for all, defend these types of pages by referring to Wiki policy, et al. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Psychonaut has just brought it to my attention that having user pages that put others on a list of users under suspecion, being watched, suspected guilty of ___ are not only allowed, but everyone at Wiki, not just admins, are allowed. So that means I could create such a page, and my friends could mirror it, and I could put whoever I liked there, annotate the listing with my suspicions and conclusions - and I'd be totally within my rights.
                  • Now, please explain to me again why Wiki will allow me to do this and supports my right to do it. THAT is what I want to learn. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • What are you talking about? I have neither been asked a question nor been involved in the pages you cite. All I want is the core complaint of this MfD clarified. I don't think that's unreasonable or requires "trading" answers to get. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • I have honestly done the best I feel I can to explain the principle here, but I feel I owe it to you to try and meet your request for clarification in terms of your own page. So let me try. You are making some serious allegations and presumptions about other editors. I can see an excellent reason for you to keep notes of these allegations on your hard drive, but to make them on permanent record without irrefutable proof is a very different matter. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with 66.66.69.79 or 60.226.16.170 but making negative assumptions about the bias, motives and future choices of other editors could be construed as a personal attack (though I must commend the neutrality of your political assumptions I must still question the propriety of such speculation in any form). If you can either remove the assumptions edit or convince me that they cannot be construed as personal attacks I will be happy to withdraw your page from this MFD. Though I would ask you to give calm, objective consideration to what positive benefit Wikipedia derives from the page in it's present form where a large part of it's declared purpose is to comment negatively on other editors, compared to how the page would be if all negative personal commentary were removed in a manner similar to [4]? --Zeraeph 21:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Kiwi, you, and everyone else, is "allowed" to do this because there is no policy against it; these pages can and do serve useful purposes. As I mentioned before, these debates are far more damaging to the community (due their rancorous nature) than the existence of the pages themselves. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis that Psychonaut keeps the page's wording civil and only identifies persistently problematic editors who are highly likely to be bad-faith contributors as vandals. (That's not to say that experimenting newbies shouldn't be watched to make sure they don't become vandals, but one must remember to assume good faith.) --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 23:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anchoress 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the nomination of a large number of pages in a single MFD discussion. If "watchlist" pages are being used to track users who have engaged in actual vandalism and/or other serious disruption, they should be kept. If the pages are used to defame and/or harass legitimate contributors, they should be deleted. Consideration should also be given to whether a particular page uses civil language, or describes the users listed in a manner amounting to personal attacks. Each page needs individualized consideration, which a bulk MFD nomination simply does not provide. John254 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That is now my feeling too, I think I was too eager to reassure Psychonaut that I wasn't singling him out...I don't think I thought it out properly. They really SHOULD be decided case by case, not this way. I think I'll delist the extra pages and save them for consideration when I have time to give them the attention they deserve. --Zeraeph 03:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it's way too late into the discussion to start adding or removing pages. Since you now admit user watchlists are, in principle, OK, but haven't yet developed a rigorous and objective criteria for deciding what's OK and not OK to have on them, I suggest that you follow my original suggestion of developing an official policy guideline. Otherwise user watchlists are going to be deleted with inconsistent criteria, based on the whims of whoever happens to be around when the deletion discussion is launched rather than community consensus. —Psychonaut 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Correction I am afraid you have misunderstood me, I did not, at any time, "admit user watchlists are, in principle, OK," and if I said anything that mislead anyone into believing that I did, it was not intentional, and I am sorry. I just considered some of those you proferred to be unsuited to this particular discussion. I have now removed the pages for later, case by case, discussion. Community consensus will take a lot more than my opinions and a lot more discussions than this particular MFD, which are beginning elsewhere. --Zeraeph 03:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm.. I'm sure that you (Gray Porpoise) and many others are very well meaning and honorable people and are demonstrating faith in Psychonaut's willingness to no longer amend negative connotations to any of the users he is investigating. But he is only one of tens of thousands of editors, so to suggest that admins or vigilant editors should now take time to file MfD's on User sub-talk pages that violate neutrality. Well, I guess that is a way to fill our empty hours.
    • Which reminds me that someone (several someones?) has/have repeatedly demanded that "negative connotations" be defined and/or its meaning explained. Having the time and inclination right now, thought I would oblige since I've known this since 9th grade, but in case anyone should doubt me, I will defer momentarily to the books of authority in defining words for the ultimate in objectivity and impartiality.
    • connotations means, as used on this MfD, "that which is signified by words or expressions" - i.e., what is conveyed to the thoughts and imaginations (ie, the impression left on the reader)
    • What kind of connotations are specified in this MfD? Well, the adjective Negative in this context means lacking positive or constructive features, and in this specific MfD, means specifically, unfavorable or detrimental (with detrimental meaning "detrimental to an individual's reputation")... Which is, after all, the sum total any of us have here. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 03:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, John254. I would refer you to Psychonaut (on Zeraeph's talk page?) who was the one who pressured Zeraeph, right after they were filed, to coalesce all the MfDs into a single one -- which I noted, of course, would almost certainly result in retaining all of them. So I wish it to be crystal clear that Psychonaut ensured that individual consideration would be impossible. And I considered it a particularly bad move if Zeraeph's cooperated in deference to his stated concerns. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 03:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Curses! You've seen through and foiled my cunning plan to rig this vote in my favour! Now all I have to rely on are pathetic "logic" and "reason".  ;) —Psychonaut 03:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Psychonaut said to Zeraph, I think it's way too late into the discussion to start adding or removing pages. Like I explained on the other talk page where you took this discussion, one cannot go directly from ONE person suggesting such a thing to accomplished goal. Change comes slowly. That is why a steady growth in consensus must be gathered. As an editor, and as the one who filed this MfD, Zeraeph has the right to proceed as seems most expedient. --A green Kiwi in learning mode
This quote of mine (Kiwi) is imported here from the Counter-Vandalism_Unit history page - this was my first contribution to this discussion.
  • 'I strongly agree with Zeraeph and the carefully considered points she has made and substantiated. Psychonaut, I do believe you doth protest too much. You are nitpicking her to death, constantly trying to derail the discussion, carrying a very large bucket of red herrings along. Rather, you should be defending your actions by specifying just how Wiki precepts fully sanction and support your doing what you are doing? And how those specific guiding principles, the pages Zeraeph cites, are totally unapplicable to you? That is not an attack. It is a request.
  • This is the only thing Zeraeph is contesting. Not that various admins might keep track of various users for reasons either manifestly "good" or "problematic", nor that some discussions of users are not on USER pages, but on WIKI administrative pages - not the same thing at all. And your defense has, to date, been the equivalent of "Hey teacher, she's picking on me just because she doesn't like me" and "But maw, everybody else does it!"
  • I agree that Wiki quickly cobbling together a specific "law" that specifies that pages like have been presented are, from now on, officially in violation go Wiki precepts would make you feel much better. But things don't happen that way in the real world. We'd still have segregated buses, separate water fountains and a unisex restroom labeled "Coloureds", diner doors with the legends, "no niggers allowed" and our continued top to bottom instituitionalized apartheid -- except for the fact that Rosa Parks decided to sit where she wanted to sit. And refused to move.
  • I am brought to mind (pardon my politics) with the continual degradation of our constitution - not by changing the constitution, but by administrative short-cuts and our system of national admins who decide what rules should apply where and when. And to whom. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 18:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You have made a point excellently that I noticed myself. Wiki administrative pages are a very different case to individual user pages, if only because they are edited and constantly regulated by consensus of the community rather than a single individual, so that there is far less chance of error or any suggestion of abuse.--Zeraeph 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course by now, all of Zeraeph's carefully considered points have been drowned and forgotten. And you still have not, to date, explained in the tiniest degree how your User Watch page was supported by wiki since it goes specfically contrary to several wiki precepts. --A green Kiwi in learning mode
Since the one link to the specific (and lone remaining) user page for which this MfD was filed is what is being debated and what "negative commentary" referred to, I give you that offending statement.
Anthony Benis, M.D
  • Anthony M. Benis appears to be using Wikipedia to promote his pseudoscientific psychological/genetic theories.
Pseudoscientific is one of those loaded words that says FAKE FRAUD PHONEY DECEIVER. And in that, I demonstrate the meaning of "negative commentary". There are non-loaded words that would have more appropriately been chosen such as "his psychological/genetic theories don't appear to have scientific validity." --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It is one thing for a Wiki admin page to have such assessments posted, for they have a job to do and there is already considerable evidence accumulated before they tackle a job.
The question, the issue, as originally addressed in this MfD was whether the tens of thousands of editors at Wikipedia should have the right, as volunteer detectives, to pass judgement this way, or if they should phrase things more judciously - unless, of course, the editor in question has a long verified history of proven abuse of Wikipedia.
That's all. Not to ban such pages, but whether to have Wikipedia guidelines for appropriate use of such pages. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (Inserted due to edit conflict)I ABSOLUTELY agree, the is no evidence offered for this statement, and the relevant AFD [5] is being based on lack of notability, not "pseudoscience". In addition, the inclusion of ABenis (who is only guilty of quietly posting his Theory and bio after much prompting from friends) on a page of serious vandals, is, in itself highly, questionable and very hard to excuse, particularly as a precedent for other, similar inclusions. --Zeraeph 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you feel so strongly that the only negative commentary on the watchlist page is the phrase "pseudoscientific theories", and that it would be more appropriate to replace it with "psychological/genetic theories which don't appear to have scientific validity", exactly what is stopping you from making that very change? Wouldn't making that one little change yourself have saved you all the hours of time you've spent commenting on this and other pages? Wouldn't that completely moot this entire discussion (at least from your perspective) and allow the watchlist page to continue serving its purpose as a tool for monitoring vandalism and controversial edits? —Psychonaut 05:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
???????? Just any Joe Blow wandering through can have a go at botching up YOUR user page? You may do such things, but most of us WikiCitizens would never even consider presuming to do such a thing. And what if you came back through and saw your words changed? Run to Zeraeph's talk page and thanked hime profusely for demonstrating that he thought you were being rude?? Ah ha. Tell me another one. :o)) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
User:A Kiwi, please refer to the official Wikipedia:User page#Removal policy, which makes it perfectly clear that any user may remove objectionable content from another user's page, and that listing a user page for deletion should be reserved for "excessive" cases. —Psychonaut 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think his suggestion was more directed at you than me...I muddled things again inserting a comment because of an edit conflict...I was thinking much the same thing anyway. --Zeraeph 05:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • While I had no problem with the word "psuedoscientific" it seemed to be a major part of the problem regarding this page so I removed it. I hope that this might be acceptable to all parties. You're all good editors and I really think the best we can do at this point is try to move on. How about it folks, can we have a truce? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Psychonaut, I would have no way of knowing that editing the user pages of others is advocated, as I have seen such fury - when even bots come through, wikifying. And not ONCE has anyone ever come back with "it's allowed by wiki, so quit your gritching." And it was counter-intuitive to proceed to a category about deleting a page when what was at the top of the page was EXACTLY what I was looking for.
When I went to the Wiki user page earlier today, the third category down is "What Can I Not Have on My User Page?" Here is what I read.
if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption.
Forgive me for this observation, but if someone cares about one's disruption to the community or gets in the way of encyclopedia building (and look at how many people neglected that today), then it would seem the right thing to do on your own. And given your earliest comments today, I know you knew this was directly related to your your deletion review of Benis yesterday.
Regardless, I thought Jimbo said it best and made it clearer than anyone when he said in that same category - so near the top of the page. And strangely enough, I stopped reading at that point.
   
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist
 libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea
   
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist
- Jimbo Wales[6]
--A green Kiwi in learning mode 06:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. (Besides, I have a list of my own, if you must know.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Vandals are vandals. Anyone I've listed is blocked in my list (see "Sockpuppetzen" under my user page). There is no civility issue - it's not a hit list. There is no AGF issue - Assume Good Faith is about assuming the edits are with good intentions unless they're proven not to be (innocent until proven guilty. There is no personal attacks issue - and if you posted to the PAIN noticeboard complaining about being on such a list, and you were there with good reason, then you'd probably not meet anything more than suspicion. (I'm posting this here, and at CVU, since some watchers watch MfD and others watch CVU. Many admins keep such lists, too, you know. See HereToHelp, for example. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Such lists are not inherently against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, though some of their contents might be. As such, deletion is not an appropriate remedy. Instead, specific incivility and specific attacks should be objected to, either by asking the user to change or remove the offensive language (and not do it again) or by enlisting help through WP:PAIN and other venues. A user's talk page may contain incivility or personal attacks and this doesn't warrant it for deletion, since the page's purpose is otherwise. In the same way, pages like this are not designed to attack other users though they may contain examples of such due to lack of consideration. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Wikipedia%7EMiscellany_for_deletion_User%7EPsychonaut_User_watchlist_7141.html"