Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/WMC

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 that it was speedy deleted as an attack page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:UBeR/WMC

Attack page on User:William M. Connolley --Aude (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. attack pages aren't cool. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It serves as a notice board that "will serve as a notice board that will be updated when necessary. The evidence gathering process is ongoing and, along with other users, I have begun this process." I've been consumed with the vexation of particular administrators who consider themselves above Wikipedia's policies. This is the sort of desecration up with which I will not put. It serves as a watch list, as it is titled, to my abettors and other users who wish to be cautious and watchful of such activities that I have observed and begun to document. It serves to no other purpose. Banefully, it is without proper evidence/references at the current moment, for which I apologize (and quite frankly, may abet in the appearance of personal attacks). Real life activities detract my availability on Wikipedia, but my "watchdog" activities will continue, and, with further aid, the notice board shall be complete with references, etcetera. The goal is not to attack the editor, but rather the particular edits by that user that have been contrary to Wikipedia policies.

As full well seen, many dissent against the edits made by this specific administrator. My regards, ~ UBeR 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If the criticism of User:William M. Connolley did have substance, which in my view it doesn't, then it should be done in a much more constructive way. As it is, it is just an attack page and could be speedily deleted as such. Sam Blacketer 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If the user has concerns they should file an RfC. If they feel a need to compile difs, they are welcome to comile difs on a page without the personal attacks and civility-free remarks. If the user needs to make a list to remind himself what users to watch, he can do it off-wiki. JoshuaZ 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the pack is not an attack page. Its publicly available so that other users may abet me in compiling ongoing evidence collection for the infractions of Wikipedia policies that William M. Connolley has engaged in. ~ UBeR 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• If your intent is to solicit additional review of a user's conduct, that is what WP:RFC is for (specifically WP:RFC/USER and WP:RFC/ADMIN. While WP:APAGE states "It should be noted that this guideline is not meant to apply to good faith reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior," it does go on to cite an RFC as a specific example where such conduct reports may be appropriate. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely. That page states that the guideline of making attack pages is exempt (i.e. non-applicable) to pages in which reports on a user's conduct or pattern of behavior is being cataloged, which is precisely what I'm doing. ~ UBeR 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's a big difference between you compiling diffs in preparation for an RfC and running a "noticeboard" encouraging other users to submit complaints about a particular person. By the way, the word "abet", which you used two posts above, means "to encourage or assist someone to do something wrong". --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed it is commonly used negatively, as in the criminal charge to "aid and abet," but for all itents and purposes here, it means, quite literally, "to approve, encourage, and support (an action or a plan of action); urge and help on." Thank you for pointing that out though. ~ UBeR 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• That sense of "abet" is obsolete. More to the point, this discussion shows that the community thinks that what you're doing is wrong--therefore the negative sense of "abet" applies here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Then you will have to take it up against the American Heritage Dictionary. As for the more pressing points, the pages have been edited remove any ambiguity of my purpose. My intent here is gather information directly related to infractions of Wikipedia policy so that we may dissent against those in power who view themselves as above those policies. This, of course, is not exclusive to WMC, as it applies to any and all administrators who act in a similar fashion. ~ UBeR 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete speedily preferred - Definitely an attack page. Vsmith 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD#G10 (attack page). John Reaves (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per John Reaves - complaints and evidence like this have their place, and it isn't in the user space. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:50, 1 March 2007 (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.