Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deuterium/Bad edits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete, take it to RfC or any other formal steps of Dispute Resolution. El_C 14:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Deuterium/Bad edits

attack page PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should revise WP:NPA. As I say on the page, this is a list of edits that I consider objectionable. I'm not making personal attacks; I'm factually commentating on content in a civil manner, which is specifically condoned by WP:NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack—it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user." Deuterium 04:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Then here's my problem with it: What's the point? How does this page help you, or anybody? What good does it do? I feel that your page is a personal attack, as all it does is point out people who you single out for screwing up. This page doesn't assist the mentioned editors in becoming better WP contributors, nor does it show/tell other user what to do (there are plenty of help pages for that). So why even have this page? Simply listing a bunch of bad edits is not beneficial to anyone on WP. -- Kicking222 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As far as I can see, this is a list of edits, and complaints (almost entirely or entirely) about the edits, not about the editors. That is the bright line here. These complaints may well be unjustified; but if so, the proper recourse is editing the page (as Timothy Usher did) or an RfC, which will give room to discuss the matter. Septentrionalis 02:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While one could argue that this page is not in violation of WP:NPA (which may really be prefering form over substance), this page certainly seems to be contrary to WP:CIVIL, and certainly in spirit. Agent 86 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you check the complaints they are justified. Deuterium 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I did check the complaints before posting my comment here. Many of the allegations appear to have some justification, but I do not think they all are "justified" or are what you characterize them to be. Your editorial comments do not let those incidents speak for themselves. Many of the summaries on your page are value-statements. It is also a matter of which incidents you pick and choose. Why some editors and not others? I've seen a number of similar offenses as those you've listed, but not every mistake, error, breach, or failure needs to be listed. A page like this certainly goes against many of the statements found in WP:CIVIL. I also wonder if this page is contrary to WP:AGF, especially when it looks like some of the "bad edits" may be mistakes or made without thinking them all the way through. This reads more like a grudge list than anything. Agent 86 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Which statements in WP:CIVIL does this page supposedly contravene? Deuterium 04:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only question here if it its accurate, which it seems to be. If you don't want to be listed as doing action XYZ, then don't do it, or live with having it listed. Transparency. Herostratus 05:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It's not attacking the people, it's criticizing their actions. Anomo 05:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the page has absolutely no redeeming social value in my opinion, I don't think that that alone warrants deletion. I've never thought for a moment that WP:CIVIL means that you cannot ever be critical of another's actions or that critique is forbidden. To delete such a critique sets a bad precident that I feel is worse than this page -- it presents Wikipedia as a community that tries to silence its own critics from within. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I think WP:CIVIL allows you to call people a troll all you want, though, at least that's what everybody does. Anomo 08:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a form of paublic harrasment and desgined to create an enmvironment in which free editing is preturbed. Zeq 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as an attack page. Pecher Talk 08:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While keeping a list of this sort is a bit weird, so be it. These are clearly not personal attacks; they comment on edits. This is exactly what WP:NPA encourages us to do. As regard s WP:CIVIL, it seems a lot more civil than some of the other discourse we see here. Martinp 12:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep... I see no violation of WP:CIVIL. Ultimately, it's not an attack page... all it does is draws attention to edits that have already been made and are visible anyway per edit histories. Herostratus puts it best, in that if you don't want to be called out on something not-so-smart, then don't do it. This is coupled with the understanding that the criteria for being listed here are subjective and dependent on the judgment of Deuterium, as to whether the highlighted edits are made in bad faith, so the information here must be taken with a grain of salt, and possibly even in a tongue in cheek manner (not unlike citing WP:STUPID in an AfD). --Kinu t/c 14:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that by "not so smart" you mean doing anything that Deuturium does not agree with because according to wikipedia policy and indeed common sense there was nothing wrong with the edits that Deurt has listed. He just has found ways to spin them into something that has no relation to what was actually written. Also, even if his claims weren't the outright lies that they are, the page would still be inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, attack page, what's the point of it apart from making users look bad?--Andeh 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Herostratus. Kusma (討論) 09:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just what good is this little list meant to achieve? If those arguing for keep can't find a better reason to keep it, despite the bad feeling it obviously causes, than "it doesn't violate policy" then I suggest speedying it. If any of the editors on the list have performed enough 'bad edits' that they need to be sanctioned, take it to RfC or RfAR. If they haven't, then this is just pointless venom. The fact that "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions" is irrelevant - if Editor X makes a bad edit to Article, then saying so on Talk:Article or in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Editor X is perfectly appropriate in those contexts, but building a shrine to commemorate the editor's perceived mistakes for all time is uncivil, as it does nothing except to create bad feeling. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I could not agree more. -- Kicking222 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is an attack page, public harassment of other editors. --TheM62Manchester 10:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep These are not personal attacks. BhaiSaab talk 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I see no value in lumping together edits which you consider objectionable. If you have a problem with an edit someone makes, take it up with them on their talk page. There is absoloutely no point to keeping this. ViridaeTalk 01:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep First off, it is seemingly a list that would be a record in case of a rfc. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision it states that you are allowed to keep a record of other users actions if it only a record. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andeh. --tickle me 03:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly an attack page. Evolver of Borg 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If these users did something wrong, then Deuterium should follow the proper processes, but merely listing them while implying they might have done something wrong seems at the least to violate the spirit of policy. TewfikTalk 04:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a shitlist. Keeping a list of examples of bad edits would be one thing; attaching them to editors' names is where the problem is (and, yes, on Wikipedia it's hard if not impossible to do the former without the latter.) If there were no names attached -- if it were just a generic list of examples of bad practices -- it could work toward the betterment of Wikipedia. However, as it is, it is divisive instead of unifying, potentially causing more problems than it could possibly help fix. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Attack page. Seems to have no other purpose. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Attack page/faeces list. If you need a page to list your antagonists there is something wrong with your wikilove module. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 6 August 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.