This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John254 (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 15 August 2008 (fixing my comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:16, 15 August 2008 by John254 (talk | contribs) (fixing my comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)User:Stormie/DRV notes
As of time of nomination, this page ONLY lists DRVs that I started and omits the many others the users participated in that I did not start. Thus, the page appears to be some kind of evidence page against me or some way of monitoring just my DRVs, which the user almost if not always opposes. We should not be keeping evidence pages on other users in our userspace. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The page does not even indirectly attack anyone, excepting that intimate investigation would reveal that the same user was responsible for all such DRV requests. Evidence pages have been upheld to be legitimate in the past, assuming that their purpose is for use in process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- The difference there was that Abd was keeping a page against someone who was proven to be a sock account. Would you like if I kept a page only of AfDs you started and then used it to monitor your AfD activity? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming the intent were process-related, and not evidently an attack page, I wouldn't be in a position to argue, given precedent. Again, this is not outwardly disparaging, and would appear to relate to very current project discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Given precedent, you argued to delete the page you link to above that wound up being against an account who correctly proved to be a sock account, but you're okay with this one... If he kept a page on all the DRVs he was in or all the DRVs that went his way, okay, but keeping a page only on DRVs started by one particular editor and making a point to oppose that editor in every single one of those DRVs seems a bit stalkerish and calls into question whether the opposition in those DRVs is actually against said user than the user's arguments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you are aware of the direction in which time flows? I disagreed with the purpose of that one. This one comes after the resolution of that one, in which it turns out that I was wrong. I learned from my lesson. The situation is little different, except that the deletionist/inclusionist roles in the protagonist/antagonist are reversed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Don't people always say "consensus can change" around here? As you know, I agreed with Abd's suspicions about that user; however, I did not argue to keep that page. Again, though, what would you think if someone who almost if not always opposed you in any deletion thread you started kept a page tracking your deletion discussions? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- That would depend on the purpose of said tracking page, as I've already indicated. If it's for the purpose of making a case about your DRVs, it wouldn't appear to be inappropriate right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Don't people always say "consensus can change" around here? As you know, I agreed with Abd's suspicions about that user; however, I did not argue to keep that page. Again, though, what would you think if someone who almost if not always opposed you in any deletion thread you started kept a page tracking your deletion discussions? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I assume you are aware of the direction in which time flows? I disagreed with the purpose of that one. This one comes after the resolution of that one, in which it turns out that I was wrong. I learned from my lesson. The situation is little different, except that the deletionist/inclusionist roles in the protagonist/antagonist are reversed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Given precedent, you argued to delete the page you link to above that wound up being against an account who correctly proved to be a sock account, but you're okay with this one... If he kept a page on all the DRVs he was in or all the DRVs that went his way, okay, but keeping a page only on DRVs started by one particular editor and making a point to oppose that editor in every single one of those DRVs seems a bit stalkerish and calls into question whether the opposition in those DRVs is actually against said user than the user's arguments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Assuming the intent were process-related, and not evidently an attack page, I wouldn't be in a position to argue, given precedent. Again, this is not outwardly disparaging, and would appear to relate to very current project discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- The difference there was that Abd was keeping a page against someone who was proven to be a sock account. Would you like if I kept a page only of AfDs you started and then used it to monitor your AfD activity? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- Misplaced Pages userspace is not intended to be used to disparage other users, imply that other users may be subject to requests for arbitration, or otherwise create a disharmonious editing environment. If you absolutely must collect evidence against other users, outside of the context of legitimate dispute resolution processes, please do so off-wiki. John254 02:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I further note that Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Laundry_lists_of_grievances provides a solid precedent roundly condemning this sort of user subpage. John254 02:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This sort of pages should only be allowed as temporal storage for preparing evidence for RfCUs and arb cases, and not for keeping permanently on userspace laundry lists about other users. Stormie should clarify if he is planning to start a RfC with that evidence. Also, per John254's comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- (god I hate replying to everything) this page was 43 hours old as of nom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, it does not appear that Stormie has articulated any pending use for this page. John254 03:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what purpose the page is supposed to serve, but it's bad enough per this thread, "Somerandomadmin" admits, "One of the problems is that you have some rabid inclusionists (Le Grand Roi de whatever springs to mind) whose arguments at AFD and DRV are so frankly ludicrous (see this for an example) that they actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose their stupidity. Personally, when I see such inane crap at AfD, it spurs me to close those AFDs as delete regardless." Thus given this userpace page and that off-wiki remark by someone claiming to be an admin, I am starting to be curious if some are actually showing up at DRVs I start just because I started them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- An interesting point. The use of this user subpage as a means by which to solicit vote-stacking against Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' deletion reviews would be highly disruptive to the project. John254 03:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- (god I hate replying to everything) this page was 43 hours old as of nom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)