The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The keep arguments basically boil down to that the page is humorous and adequately marked as such, and that it documents historical patterns while fairly providing explicit diffs. The delete arguments are mostly covered by a thorough read of WP:POLEMIC.
10 to 6 respectively by the numbers (i.e. ~63% favoring keep). The deletion arguments are strong because they align with the aforementioned project content guideline regarding polemics. Conversely, the last keep argument posing the question "you cannot have a record of bad things other people have said about you?" was convincing. That aside, one !voter seemingly alludes to WP:OUTING but does not elaborate. Another cast a seemingly contradictory !vote (perhaps an unclear meme reference).
Should the framing of information about interactions with other editors housed in the userspace influence whether or not it is deemed appropriate? On this occasion, the community seems to endorse that it should. Unfortunately, because that adds more subjectivity, such a notion makes consistency increasingly difficult. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 12:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:POLEMIC states that: 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 diffs, especially at the bottom of the page, are from heated disputes with users who are still active, and this does not really fall under humor (except in the way of ridiculing users who said those things, I guess). Since this page has existed for months and K.e.coffman did not use any of it in the ArbCom case he filed, I believe it should be deleted. I asked him to delete it on his talkpage, but he politely refused. [1]
One ArbCom member cited this subpage as problematic in the proposed decision vote. [2] I have no problem with this page, if it wasn't for the diffs and stating who said those things. I've seen sections like "things said about me" on userpages in the past, but they mostly dealt with IP trolls or didn't mention any names. Pudeo ( talk) 14:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities; they are “attacking” himself. Whether you understand the irony and humor in it is irrelevant, but K.e.coffman is presenting the information like a self-assessment, no an attack list or something similar. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The keep arguments basically boil down to that the page is humorous and adequately marked as such, and that it documents historical patterns while fairly providing explicit diffs. The delete arguments are mostly covered by a thorough read of WP:POLEMIC.
10 to 6 respectively by the numbers (i.e. ~63% favoring keep). The deletion arguments are strong because they align with the aforementioned project content guideline regarding polemics. Conversely, the last keep argument posing the question "you cannot have a record of bad things other people have said about you?" was convincing. That aside, one !voter seemingly alludes to WP:OUTING but does not elaborate. Another cast a seemingly contradictory !vote (perhaps an unclear meme reference).
Should the framing of information about interactions with other editors housed in the userspace influence whether or not it is deemed appropriate? On this occasion, the community seems to endorse that it should. Unfortunately, because that adds more subjectivity, such a notion makes consistency increasingly difficult. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 12:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:POLEMIC states that: 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 diffs, especially at the bottom of the page, are from heated disputes with users who are still active, and this does not really fall under humor (except in the way of ridiculing users who said those things, I guess). Since this page has existed for months and K.e.coffman did not use any of it in the ArbCom case he filed, I believe it should be deleted. I asked him to delete it on his talkpage, but he politely refused. [1]
One ArbCom member cited this subpage as problematic in the proposed decision vote. [2] I have no problem with this page, if it wasn't for the diffs and stating who said those things. I've seen sections like "things said about me" on userpages in the past, but they mostly dealt with IP trolls or didn't mention any names. Pudeo ( talk) 14:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities; they are “attacking” himself. Whether you understand the irony and humor in it is irrelevant, but K.e.coffman is presenting the information like a self-assessment, no an attack list or something similar. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 16:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)