Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Delete as contrary to the guidelines at WP:UP#POLEMIC. Extended explanation below.

First, let me erase any doubts about my counting abilities: the number of editors in this discussion favoring a keep outcome is at least twice the number of those favoring deletion. The quality and policy-relevance of the arguments is another matter. The delete side of the discussion has a clear and consistent message: they view this page as a violation of the guidelines at WP:UP#POLEMIC, which I will quote in full as it currently appears:

  • Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).
  • Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
  • Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

The keep arguments are a bit more variable. Some even seem to say that the page is a compilation of "perceived flaws" in other editors, but either consider it a justified compilation of real flaws, or seem to think such compilations are not worth deleting. Although tallied as "keep" in raw counting, these sorts of comments might as well have had a boldface "delete" at the front of them when it comes to considering the arguments, since they implicitly support the key argument for deletion.

The strongest arguments against deletion are those that question whether the page is in violation of the guideline, or at least whether it can be confidently judged to be in violation. The page does not announce its intentions, no one has produced any direct statement by WMC about it, and some of the linked diffs are hard to interpret as a cataloging of flaws or wrongdoings. There is no guideline against keeping neutral or positive-themed lists of diffs as reminders or for some other constructive purpose.

Unfortunately, the case for considering the nominated page to be outside the guidelines is strengthened by a number of factors:

  1. Although he has not explicitly referenced the page, WMC has made edits where the context strongly suggest he files information on it to document behavior that he disapproves. For example, this edit was followed immediately by this edit. The guidelines for article writing prohibit original research and inferences as sources of mainspace material, but we are not forbidden from making such inferences as part of projectspace decision-making processes, and the inference in this case seems clear enough.
  2. The guidelines do not require explicitness of intent or a general agreement that the material collected is negative to justify deletion. As clearly quoted above: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is disallowed. That WMC negatively views the behavior documented in many of the diffs seems clear from his own comments and edit summaries in the linked pages. It is also clear from the MFD comments that many editors view this page as an attempt to collect such flaws, and while their interpretation may not be conclusively proven, it is a reasonable one based on the evidence.
  3. Suggestions that the material is being collected under the exception for preparing for dispute resolution are not credible. The page was started over a year ago, and does not seem to have been directly referenced by WMC in any of the disputes that he has been involved with during that time. If it was indirectly used in any of the climate change disputes, then it should have already been deleted per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Deletion of evidence sub-pages.

I should note that there were a number of comments in the discussion that are either not especially relevant to deletion or which are poor arguments one way or the other. For example, discussions of WMC's edit summary practices, or debates about whether this or that editor should have been blocked, have been disregarded in my evaluation of the major arguments for and against deletion. I also take no position on whether WMC is in general being treated fairly with regard to blocks, bans or other restrictions that have been placed on him. If there is some perception that he is being "kicked while down", I can only say that is no part of my intentions, and throwing an XFD close in his favor would not make right any wrongs that might have been done to him. The right thing for me to do in this particular discussion is to follow the arguments based on policy, which are clearly tilted in one direction in this case, and that direction is Delete. --RL0919 (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]