Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/interesting edits

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 keep. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:UBeR/interesting edits

Not just an attack page, but a reincarnation of Uber's three previously deleted "hit list" attack pages - User:UBeR/Administrative watchdog, User:UBeR/WMC, User:UBeR/Raul654. Wik was previously banned for doing this. Raul654 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's more like a collection of edits made by others. ~ UBeR

While I still think that UBeR should in good taste blank the page and move on, seeing as it's Raul who's trying to delete it and by extension prolly has a vested interest, I'll abstain from this. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that- I cannot see how any of the diffs constitute a personal attack or an attack page. He's referring to names you called him, Raul. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, considering UBeR's first edit after I nominated this page for deletion was to tone down the commentary so it would come off less like an attack page. Raul654 21:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And even then he said "youknowwho". That is hardly an attack. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is to people who can't understand criticism :o) Kamryn · Talk 21:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, not remotely an attack page. Kamryn · Talk 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep i see no harm in a user maintain links to WP discussions that involve him. DGG (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in accord with others. The only attacks are those against me as clearly shown in the diffs that, unfortunately, will go unpunished with accordance to Wikipedia policy because those clearly violating Wikipedia principles and policies are administrators. In that sense, yes, it's an attack page: one against me. ~ UBeR 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "interesting edits" might have been used as an attack page except the user seems to have no desire to make it one. UBeR could have shopped it around to sympathetic editors, but user has never linked to it from another talk page at all. Nor has user even sorted the diffs by editor. I will assume good faith here and guess that "interesting edits" are just some private diffs that the user wants to save. Content is not remotely like the previously deleted pages, especially since most of the diffs seem to have occurred since the last attack page was deleted. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I understand other editors' concerns, I'd say this doesn't quite constitute an attack page. It's more like a collection of evidence, such as might be provided in a user conduct RfC. So there's no legitimate reason for deleting this page. However, if the user in question is suffering ongoing conflicts with other editors, I'd recommend that s/he tries dispute resolution. Walton^One 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If one forbids users from keeping userspace drafts of evidence, the result will be premature reports. Drafts help dispute resolution. THF 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - is not attack page, evidence gathering is necessary & proper. /Blaxthos 10:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, this page obviously has "no purpose other than to disparage its subject", per WP:CSD. Evidence gathering can be easily done on your own hard drive, unless the intent is to show one-sided allegations to everyone. >Radiant< 08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As noted, evidence gathering is a necessary and prudent function. I concur that the commentary may be out of line, but a collection of diffs is not itself disparagement - particularly given the fact that the majority of diffs apprear to be comments against the user (as the user indicated above). If that content is disparaging in itself, then - in all fairness to the individuals involved - the original comments would be, as well. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My commentary or the commentary in the diffs? If the former, point taken. ~ UBeR 13:36, 22 August 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.