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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Smearing Zeraeph 2 Recent additions 3 Should "problem user" watchlists be allowed? (moved from Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit) 4 Thoughts

[edit] Smearing Zeraeph

Psychonaut, I truly cannot believe my eyes. Both here and on Counter-Vandalism Unit, you are smearing Zeraeph by referring to a people, time and place quite unlike the present.... And you know that very few people are going to spend the hours necessary to sort through months of history to see why you thought it correct and necessary to bring it up now. Well, I was there and I know what went on and it was nothing like you suggest and nothing in the least similar to the present. Zeraeph is not at all intimidated by your brandishing that --with the subtle underlying message of, "I am an admin, you aren't, and I can get you banned"-- because it seems clear why this totally irrelevant bit of history has been brought up. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 20:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not even an admin. —Psychonaut 20:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really thought you would prefer not to be accidentally addressed as "psychonut", but, ultimately, it's your call. --Zeraeph 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to warn you once, Zeraeph: 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) 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your concern is understandable Wizardry Dragon, but this is clearly not any kind of personal attack. Despite your good intentions, it's possible for warnings like that to actually exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it. Thanks for trying anyway :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, they've all been at each other in the (not so distant) past. I'm trying to do some self-imposed mediation between them so it never has to go to any sort of higher binding judgment such as a block or arbitration. They both seem to have a history of going at each other, which may or may not go back before the MfD. Either way, they both need to start being a little more civil and stop taking shots at each other. The language on both sides has been indicative, and although simple text can often be misleading, in many cases it's clear "I cannot believe my eyes", "psychonut", and Psychonaut getting agitated over the provocations. It seems to threaten to spiral out of control if they don't start remembering WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:WQ. (I'm have a sneaking suspicion Kiwi might be a sock of Zaeraph, but it's just a suspicion and unless the situation disintegrates further, one that doesn't need worrying about). -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless Wizardry Dragon has misunderstood what happened, I haven't a clue what that was about. What happened is this (see history page for relevant edit summaries):

1. Psychonaut copied A Kiwi's comments here with an unfortunate typo thus [1]
2. I fixed the typo because I felt it might otherwise inflame what was an already overheated discussion, thus [2]
3. Psychonaut, for some inexplicable reason reverted that thus [3] and seemed (see edit summary) to be open to taking the typo as an actual slight (which seemed beyond unlikely to me)
4. I tried to compromise by fixing the typo with a strike out.[4]
5. Psychonaut reverted again [5]
6. So I posted this to try and bring the whole issue back into proportion. [6]

That certainly was not any kind of personal attack either in intention, or effect, and I do not feel I should be accused of, or warned, for something I have not done in this way. --Zeraeph 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to be aware of the tone in your messages, Zeraeph, as there is a threshold any user has as to what can be accounted to the fact that this is the internet and intentions can be misread, and what cannot be. Your tone has suggested on multiple occasions the latter - but I have extended you the benefit of the doubt (assuming good faith). I think everyone involved needs to read Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing. It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong in an edit war, they're still disruptive. Also, could the two of you both peruse WP:3RR? Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely insist that you produce evidence to support your allegations against me (including evidence of personal attacks and a sock check) or retract them, I am sorry but they are far too serious to be just let slide. --Zeraeph 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really obligated too, no matter how much you chafe about them. I'm an uninvolved party, it is not my page up for deletion, and it really doesn't affect me. Let's get some facts straight though:

* Your tone in several messages, such as the one I'm replying now, has be unduly harsh. Please remember WP:CIVIL, [{WP:WQ]], and WP:AGF. I've relayed this to you several times now, yet you have not seemed to change. If you did not mean to be so harsh in tone then apologize and move on. As in WP:EQ:

In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.

* You and Kiwi both seem to share similar opinion and your edits have been very similar. I was making no accusation, I was simply being honest and open about my thoughts on the matter. (Damned if you do damned if you don't, really. If you don't be open, then when the time comes to look back, people always ask, "why didn't you say something?")

* Neither you nor Psychonaut can deny that you have both said and done things in this disagreement that have not been in good faith. Pyschonaut himself admitted it on my talk page User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon#Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit_discussion. Let's use this as a learning experience and move on, rather than continuing to get upset about something.

* I'll admit some bias in the matter - Psychonaut, though he has done wrong in his dealings with you, has admitted as much, and has at least tried to move on in the matter. You, on the other hand, I have seen no such sentiment from. Again, let us use this as a learning experience and not let it blow out of proportion.

Hopefully that at least explains things. Before you say anything, I've been watching this since it was posted on MfD, I've only gotten involved now (ironically) for taking Psychonaut to task for getting out of line. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer on your talk page where it rightly belongs --Zeraeph 23:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WQ? That kind of comment is exactly what it cautions you to avoid. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel offended by my comment. To explain, I do not feel this discussion is relevant to the page topic and can only serve to distract from it. I feel it is far more appropriate to continue the discussion on our User Talk pages. --Zeraeph 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, what I was saying was, if you're going to be citing the guidelines to me, at least make sure that you follow them yourself. This kind of wording is what I have been getting at, however - it's problematic as many people can take it the wrong way, especially since not everyone has the kind of thick skin I do :) -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you provide me with diffs to show where you feel I have "done wrong" in my dealings with Psychonaut, so that I may reconsider them, because having never intended him any wrong, I honestly cannot think of anything. I would also be very grateful if you would point out for me exactly where, in your opinion, WP:WQ cautions against comments like "Answer on your talk page where it rightly belongs" because I cannot see what you mean. --Zeraeph 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions

Could I suggest that pages such as User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor aren't very different from setting up a user page to prepare for a RfC, which is entirely reasonable. I would suggest that is substantially different from having a page that accuses editors without evidence, in an unnecessary manner. Addhoc 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That page isn't actually part of this MFD, just one of many pages Psychonaut suggested should be part of it. I haven't even looked at it, I don't intend to add any more until this MFD is resolved.

However, as you have raised the issue it is an interesting aspect to discuss. I don't suppose I could trouble you to post a couple of examples of user pages set up for RFC to compare? --Zeraeph 01:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in the case of Ste4k, Will Beback set up a user page to prepare for the RfC that allowed other users to contribute, but I'm not aware of any current examples. Addhoc 11:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should "problem user" watchlists be allowed? (moved from Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit)

The Miscellany for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist may be of interest to CVU members. This MfD proposes deletion for a number of "user watchlists" which users have created in their userspace for the purpose of monitoring vandals, policy violators, and other controversial editors. The issue is whether such watchlists are acceptable on Wikipedia or whether they contravene policies such as WP:AGF and WP:PA. —Psychonaut 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a misunderstanding. The issue of the MFD is actually that some of these pages would seem to contrave both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA in specific circumstances where there is negative personal commentary on specific named users. --Zeraeph 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've voiced my opinion. EVula 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think you've got it backwards—it isn't my responsibility to prove that my actions aren't in violation of a policies; rather, it's the responsibility of the complainant to show that my actions were in violation of some policy. As for Zeraeph's "carefully considered" and "substantiated" points, he or she appears to be applying deletion criteria whimsically, refusing in many cases to explain why some "user watchlist" page should be deleted and why others should not. (Yes, in some cases his criteria are fairly clear-cut, but in others the only explanation given is that the watchlist is not "appropriate" for discussion.) If I'm protesting too much it's only to get this user to be upfront and specific about what it is that bothers him about certain pages but not others. It's only then that steps can be taken to either counter those arguments, modify the pages in question, or delete them. Note that Zeraeph has previously been blocked for making vague accusations to WP:ANI and other venues. I don't know if his vagueness is deliberate or if he's just not capable of expressing himself fully. However, I don't harbour any ill feelings towards him and have even helped him file his MfD and suggested similar pages that appear (to me) to meet his criteria. It's curious that you see the latter as simply trying to excuse my behaviour with "But everybody else does it!" when in fact I was the one who took the initiative to get "everybody else" listed in the MfD as well. If I and "everybody else" is possibly doing something wrong, then I want all of us to be judged. —Psychonaut 19:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I really don't think there is any policy that requires an explanation of why I am not currently requesting deletion of a page. I really wish you would try to be calmer. This is not personal in any way.--Zeraeph 19:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but it's probably policy, or at least common courtesy, to explain why you are requesting deletion for a page. I and at least one other user have asked you repeatedly on the MfD to indicate what specifically about the pages violates WP:PA and you have so far made only vague references to "negative commentary" without pointing out what text you consider to be negative commentary, and why this negative commentary constitutes a personal attack. Later you even refused to elaborate. Why do you persist in these vague accusations instead of being open and addressing your fellow editors' questions? —Psychonaut 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an MFD this is a policy discussion. However I will point out that I have answered all questions put to me as fully and honestly as I can, even to the extent of adding 10 similar pages to the MFD at your behest, so that you would not seem, or feel, in any way personally "singled out". I think that, in itself, went way beyond common courtesy. I really believe that many of these watchlists, some of which are soley intended for making negative comments about other editors, are probably, in effect, personal attacks, if unintentionally so, that contravene WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA. I have opened an MFD on those pages on those grounds, as is my right. You have opened two policy discussions on this topic, and I have requested comment from Jimbo himself (which, if given, I will abide by scrupulously whatever it may be). I would ask you to please let these discussions, on the issues involved, take their course, instead of trying to persuade me to withdraw an MFD I firmly believe to be valid. --Zeraeph 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your phrasing strongly implies that I have been obstructing the MfD discussion. This is a pretty serious accusation. Either file an abuse report or RfAr with your evidence or stop poisoning the well. —Psychonaut 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that is what I meant, can you try to explain why you feel I meant that? --Zeraeph 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

instead of trying to persuade me to withdraw an MFD I firmly believe to be valid. is pretty clear wording to me. Crystal clear, in fact. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I cannot, for the life of me, find a way to share or relate to it.--Zeraeph 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You infer that he is somehow trying to coerce you from your MFD, which is a somewhat loaded accusation.. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intention to infer that. --Zeraeph 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much :) I think Psychonaut needs to assume good faith. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychonaut has been assuming good faith very patiently for a long time with this user over the past few days. However, given mounting evidence to the contrary and in conformity with WP:AGF, I am now ceasing this assumption. —Psychonaut 02:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatics 101: If someone says, "Bob, I ask that you let X occur instead of doing Y!", that strongly implies (a) that doing Y prevents X from occurring, (b) that Bob is doing Y, and possibly (c) that Bob was intentionally doing Y for the purposes of preventing X. Anyone who claims not to understand such a basic English nuance is likely lying or not a fluent speaker. If the latter is the case, then I apologize for being so curt with you earlier. —Psychonaut 01:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what your point is or how it is relevant to this discussion, which is "Should "problem user" watchlists be allowed?"?--Zeraeph 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, Psychonaut, not a discussion board. Please keep your discussion to the topic on hand, and remember to be civil. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Apart from speculating that Zeraeph might be lying, nothing I said was off-topic; I answered the very same question you did. But you are right that my speculation was incivil, so I apologize to Zeraeph for the incivil remark. Regardless of whether his question was made out of malice or genuine ignorance, it was not appropriate for me to speculate about his motives here. —Psychonaut 02:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course your apology is gratefully accepted Psychonaut. I know you may find it hard to take my word for this but I really am a person who tends to means literally what I say, and my concern about this issue is totally genuine and not remotely personal to you. Wizardly Dragon I am so sorry, I feel that I too should have looked at the article before posting anything here at all on this topic...I just assumed...and we all know what the good Dr Lecter says about "assuming". Thank you for your tolerance. --Zeraeph 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wizardy Dragon. I just now looked to see just what the talk page's purpose it (had been curious about the article's title). I found this - The Counter-Vandalism Unit (CVU) aims to help in cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia by producing tools to assist in removing vandalism, provide advice on dealing with vandals, and to share information with other Wikipedians dealing with the same issues. Removing vandalism is a task open to all members of the Wikipedia community, and the CVU intends to make that task easier. Wow. Yes, a discussion about whether UserTalk pages should be dedicated to or have lists of suspect members to be watched and/or investigated IS pretty far off topic. I am sure Psychonaut regrets disrupting your talk page like this and will be happy to return the discussion to the proper venue. Frarwell --A green Kiwi in learning mode 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I moved that part of this discussion not related to the initial announcement (everything after "I strongly agree with Zeraeph…") to the Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist? It was never my intention for this matter to be discussed here; all I wanted to do was to post an announcement so that interested CVU members could visit the MfD debate. —Psychonaut 02:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a very good idea to me. --Zeraeph 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

I think it would be best, at least until the dispute between these individuals is resolved, that the MfD be postponed and the individuals involved recuse themselves from discussion on this topic, at least with each other, as it has become quite clear that there is a clear divide between the two. Also, as Saxifrage explains in his Keep comment: {cquote|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.}}

I think the case is clear here that the crux of the matter is over the wording and content of User:Psychonaut/User_watchlist. I find it difficult to see why, if they had an objection with wording, they did not edit it themselves to a more acceptable wording. I think a lot of this has become overly confrontation and needlessly advesarial because of the use of the MfD as a forum to express displeasure with the article.

I find this is premature, at least, since I have seen no prior communication about this before. There seems to have been no prior dispute resolution over the article content before it was put up on MfD. This makes it difficult to find good faith in the nomination.

If you have a problem with this article, Zaraeph, this is not the appropriate forum for it. The type of article itself is not inherently in contravention of policy. If you so strongly feel that the article is a personal attack on other users, let me suggest you post it to WP:PAIN - but only after communication over the article has occured. A suggestion, however - if you want a WP:PAIN notice to be taken seriously, then please refrain from using the harsh tone that you have here. Otherwise, you might be the one that ends up the subject of intervention. As I have reminded Psychonaut in the past, the bad conduct of another editor is not free license to act poorly yourself. As WP:WQ states:

Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if other editors are not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than they, not less. That way at least you're not spiralling down to open conflict and name-calling by your own accord, you're actively doing something about it: taking a hit and refraining from hitting back - everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).

Thanks for reading. Hopefully this is a little more clear and a lot more on topic than other discusion has been here. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is interesting, thank you for taking the time to post it. However, I do not agree with it. I believe this MFD should be allowed to take it's course to conclusion per nom --Zeraeph 00:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, you must have missed that -

If you have a problem with this article, Zaraeph, this is not the appropriate forum for it. The type of article itself is not inherently in contravention of policy. If you so strongly feel that the article is a personal attack on other users, let me suggest you post it to WP:PAIN - but only after communication over the article has occured.

-- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is tangential, but important I think: it's not clear that removing the offending text would have been the correct course. Removing blatant personal attacks is controversial as it is, so I don't think it's useful to offer it as the "right" way to have dealt with this dispute from the beginning. I do think Zeraeph's concerns have some weight, but this is really two issues, neither of which belong at MfD. One is the specific content of such pages, which is already covered by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (which don't justify deletion). The second is whether such pages should exist at all, which is a policy proposal discussion that should be taken to the wider community through the Village Pump and other venues. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I, myself, just find it premature to be doing anything "official" without first at least informing the editor that you have a problem with their page. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to post your opinions, I do not, however agree with you. I believe this MFD should be allowed to take it's course to conclusion per nom. The Policy proposal is already under discussion through the village pump and wider menus. This was the first such page I had ever seen and I was amazed it could exist in the face of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF --Zeraeph 00:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate: why? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already done so here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist it would seem excessive to repeat myself on this page. --Zeraeph 01:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Humour me, and just about everyone else, since there seems to be confusion. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider yourself humored to the best of my ability::

"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 [7]: 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)"

--Zeraeph 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And this is not an issue for WP:PAIN, why? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be an issue for WP:PAIN , but I do not personally see any need to bring it there. I feel the editor was acting in good faith reinforced by the unchecked proliferation of other, similar pages. I do not see a problem with the editor, just with the page, which is why MFD seemed a far more appropriate option than WP:PAIN.--Zeraeph 02:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)