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 no consensus. @ harej 00:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The result of the discussion was: I'm closing this now. The page appears to have been nominated in bad faith. I see no reason for this discussion to continue. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 09:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I take full responsibility for this nomination and am going to go ahead and relist, striking the above close but leaving MZMcBride's remarks. This was originally nominated by a sock of a banned user, and we tend to discount those noms. However their reasons were sound. In particular, they point out that this is an attack page. I think there is enough merit in that claim that it should be discussed by the community. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep I doubt that. Abce2| This is not a test 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep not an attack page; contains useful info. And: you're a sock. Whose? William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion was from prior to the close by MZMcBride. I have taken responsibility for the nomination. I've modeled this reopen after the recent reopen of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) by Cool Hand Luke. I may have bobbled it, and invite correction, but I do think it's a valid nom.

The following discussion is from after the reopen ++ Lar: t/ c 15:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I think a heading of "Fools" with a list of (even one) name(s) counts as an attack. That's sufficient reason right there, in my view, for a delete. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Change to Refactor or delete - criticism of arbcom actions needs to be allowable. We just don't need to call people "fools" directly, I don't think. Present the information and let the reader draw their own conclusion(s). If WMC is not willing to so refactor, then delete. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Note also this exchange [1] (which I believe WMC cites as justification, below) ... although perhaps it might not be a direct request to remove the page, the way the sock alleged in their nom, it certainly is questioning the page. There may be others in WMC's talk history, I didn't extensively check but that one should suffice to show there is concern about the page. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • WMC I think, if I am parsing him correctly, has stated at my talk page that the referenced section of his talk page isn't "justification" for the subpage remaining. I reviewed it, and it read like justification to me but I'm happy to clarify that it's a matter of opinion. The sock's assertion that there were requests to remove it (multiple, and direct, requests) is not one I have found support for in my reviews, admittedly inthorough as they may have been. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Refactor or delete Whatever If this admin cannot find a way to record information without it being in the form of an attack then we should delete this. I am sure anyone who can hold a mop by the right end can figure out how to refactor this page so that it is in line with community expectations. Chillum 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• To clarify my point, I would far rather that William simply refactor the page so that the information is not presented in the form of an attack than the community take any action of its own. I would think this is a reasonable thing to ask of any reasonable person. Chillum 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I had hoped this person would do the right thing, however it seems that is not going to happen. Other people can take away your admin bit, but only you can choose to act in way that justifies it. If you can't change Foolishness to things I don't agree with that just tells me that you don't know the difference between the two. My expectations have been lowered. Chillum 22:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Or perhaps he does know the difference, and doesn't consider this to fall under the category of "things I don't agree with". I don't agree with using our civility polices or whatever others to say we can't negative calls like this against someone. Sometimes it's better call a spade a spade, and stating that a decision was foolish is not a personal attack. Harsh criticism is perfectly acceptable at Wikipedia within certain bounds. Calling people fools is outside those bounds; calling their decisions foolish is not. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• If you want to call people a fool, do so outside of Wikipedia. Giving specific criticism towards an action is fine, but pointing to some actions and saying "foolish" is not the same thing. Frankly I consider it rules lawyering. As I said I expect better from an admin, but my expectations have been lowered. Chillum 14:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• keep again. There is discussion at User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Your_ArbCom_userpage_comment. Per arbcomm decision, editors are allowed to insult blocking admins, and I believe that extends to desyopping too; though in this case since it is backed up by diff this is more robust commentary than insult William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, we normally do allow blocked users to blow off steam and childishly carry on express themselves, because we recognise that those blocked might be annoyed by it and it's best to let them throw a tantrum express themselves... however I think it's appropriate to expect higher of admins. Unless you want to remain a permanent ex-admin? Because your fight to keep a page where you attack arbcom probably would come up at any re-RfA request. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Errr... aren't you missing the point, even on your own terms? Your "delete" now appears to be based entirely on me being an admin, but by the time this closes I won't be. So your vote will have become invalid. If, to the contrary, so do acknowledge my right to do this (I notice you discretely declining to engage in the arbcomm decision that permits this, perhaps you fear to anger them?) as you appear to, your vote becomes incomprehensible. Your wording conveys something of the patronising suggestion that you are doing this "for my own good". If so, your "help" is unwelcome; please take it away William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply
      • You're not a blocked user, at least not at this time. We are talking about remarks made over loss of adminship, so I am not sure the analogy to allow venting applies. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply
        • So you're arguing that a temporary block is less serious than desysopping? William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply
          • I'm arguing it's different. I make no particular judgment about the seriousness of either. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Page is cited in RfAr discussion and should remain as accessory evidence. It may be courtesy blanked and protected; however, if it is deleted, only administrators will be able to read it; access should be maintained for all to review in history, should WMC request return of his sysop bit. We don't require revision deletion of uncivil comments on User talk pages (of similar incivility level to those here), and a user page is analogous to user talk. If the comments are uncivil, then WMC should be sanctioned for them, but deletion actually protects him from the consequences of his actions. It could be argued that he shouldn't be able to request deletion, but I wouldn't go that far. He should be able to retract the remarks if he chooses. -- Abd ( talk) 18:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep, although I wouldn't mind if it were deleted. We signed up for this. I do not support trying to squelch ArbCom criticism of any stripe. This MfD is a Streisand effect problem; I think we'd be better off closing it. At the same time, I also think that WMC would be better off rethinking how to best present his position. "Fools" doesn't seem especially clever. Cool Hand Luke 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - these sorts of personal attacks aren't allowed elsewhere, why should they be allowed here? It appears as though WMC is upset that ArbCom has the temerity to consider some form of desysopping and is lashing out. In any other user, particularly a non-admin, this would result in a block. That's obviously not going to happen here--why is an exercise best left up to the reader--but this nonsense should absolutely be deleted and WMC warned in the most strenuous of terms that if he does it again he will be blocked to prevent recurrences. →  ROUX  ₪  20:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Doesn't matter to me - as one of the people identified by name on the page, I can't pretend that I am truly "uninvolved". Nonetheless, as my colleague Cool Hand Luke points out above, we signed up for this and, given last year's history, were well aware that criticism of the Arbitration Committee in general, and individual arbitrators personally, was endemic to the role. Risker ( talk) 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I've noticed that in the past lists like this (Misc arbcomm-y stuff) and Whinging have been removed; at times referred to as inappropriate, hit-lists, attack pages, ABF editing, disgruntled spite, and more. Personally, I think that users should be allowed a great deal of leeway in their own user space, but I'm rather surprised that WMC would choose to have that material on wiki. Often editors are advised to keep such things either on their hard drive, or a blog of some kind. In my opinion it paints a rather unflattering picture of WMC, but I do understand that there may be some resentment harbored by him at this time. Personally I'd hope to see WMC take the initiative of either refactoring, deleting, or courtesy blanking the page(s), but I won't !vote to force-ably remove them either. — Ched :  ?  00:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep as a lasting reminder why the fools and cowards were right. ATren ( talk) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Do you care to make an argument based in policy, or at least one I can understand? Chillum 00:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

He calls them fools and cowards for desysopping him, but in doing so, he reminds us of the kind of attitude that makes him unfit to be an administrator in the first place. Not to mention, when he runs again for adminship, I want this page around so I can link to it in my oppose rationale. As for policy, I seldom agree with deleting personal expressions of evidence or frustration in one's userspace, unless it is egregious. In this case, there are certainly attacks (fools and cowards), but they are directed at editors who are secure enough to take the abuse so I'm not as concerned about it as I would be if it were directed at a newbie. ATren ( talk) 09:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I closed the initial filing of this request for deletion, but I don't think that precludes me from voting here. I also share some of William's experiences (an ArbCom case and controversial user subpages. I agree with Lar that some of the content isn't particularly helpful or constructive. That said, I think a simple request to tone down some of the writing (perhaps in a few weeks when emotions have settled a bit) would not be met with hostility by William. Also, as Cool Hand Luke notes, criticism (even if presented poorly) is vital to a well-functioning Committee. I vote to keep the page, for now at least. If someone wants to re-visit this in a few weeks or months, I think that would be reasonable. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think labels like "fools" and (the now-struck) "coward" reflect poorly on William, an intelligent man perfectly capable of expressing his disgust without resorting to such name-calling, and it would be nice if he would voluntarily decide to refactor the inflammatory labels and insults, but either way, I don't think it's strong enough to be dubbed an attack page. We allow criticism in userspace and within reason we try to give blocked users some space when venting on their own talk pages. This, to me, is the desysopped admin's version of venting and I just don't think it rises to level of warranting a forced deletion. Sarah 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep and tone down. While the substance of the comments is correct, the words will put people off. You'll have a better chance of getting people to hold arbcom accountable for their incompetence and refusal (not inability) to communicate by using more temperate language. Don't play into their hands. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Tone Down not because it is an attack page (because it isn't) but because the point it seeks to make about ArbCom is being obscured by needless sound and fury. WMC, don't offer up a side issue that can be used to create a smoke-screen. By the way, Lar would be well advised to sit and carefully think about why this nomination was necessary at the time it was made. It was obvious the page was and will undergo further development, it was obvious that overlapping with the close of the ArbCom case was acting at a time when WMC was likely feeling sensitive, and it was obvious this nomination was not urgent. Lar, resurrecting this nomination so quickly may have been technically permissible, but it seriously lacked class, in my view. EdChem ( talk) 05:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• tone down, or if not done, delete the point can be made without the vitriol or personal attacks. Viridae ^Talk 06:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• I don't think it violates the policy on attack pages, but it does violate the NPA policy. So, instead of deleting the page we should attempt to correct the behavior of the person who posted the page's content. That is, if he is unwilling or unable to do so himself. Cla68 ( talk) 07:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yes, the accepted practice is to pretend civility while on-site and to hurl insults from the safety of an external forum. Some would see that as a particularly cowardly form of hypocrisy but I suspect you disagree. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep and Improve per EdChem. -- BozMo talk 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep and encourage less heated wording of the opinions expressed on the page. Deletion that makes the comments disappear so that ordinary editors can not see them is going to far. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per UP#NOT (bullet 10). I suggest that this is not the "reaction" to the desysopping, or even particularly the process that lead to it, but a considered airing of a grievance. Unless it is intended to form the basis of a process - although I cannot think of one, apart from an appeal to Jimbo - then there is no basis for it to remain upon Wikipedia space. I should comment that this is the same basis under which I filed a MfD on a page devoted to the "problems" of another admin. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The obvious process is for referral for people who cannot remember which Arbcom members disgraced themselves next time there are Arbcom elections. In the end the whole thing is our fault. If we weren't apathetic the current Arbcom members would not have made the current decisions.-- BozMo talk 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I have responded on the talkpage. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 18:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nothing but an attack page, which is not a valid use of our server space. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You do realize, right, that deleting pages doesn't free up server space? And are you worrying about performance? I'm not saying you shouldn't vote delete ( you can vote however you like), but server space isn't really a valid reason. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Arbs are open to criticism and examination that is spared of other editors. If Arbs don't want to be criticised for making bad decisions, then they should stop doing it or resign. Verbal chat 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

wtf? {citation-needed}. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree that both this, and Abd's "Cabal" pages need to be deleted. Neither improve the encyclopedia. Both of them are likely to engender ill will. In other words, both of them are attempting to continue a war that is over and done with. Please note, a limited amount of notes is allowed to be kept for dispute resolution purposes, for a limited amount of time. I think both have no use at this place and time. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• I understand the WP:NPA concerns here, but in these particular circumstances we should let the man speak his mind. The day Arbcom becomes above criticism on Wikipedia is the day when all intelligent discussion about Wikipedia's governance moves off this site, likely to places like the Wikipedia Review.

  I wouldn't be happy with this content if it were about ordinary editors, but if someone steps up to the Arbcom plate, then they are accepting that some of their actions will be controversial and attract criticism.

  Let's have no doubt here: Arbcom is a small group of people and while I've no reason to doubt their good faith, they're capable of being wrong. That is not to say they were wrong in this case, but it is to say users directly affected by an Arbcom decision should have wide latitude to criticise Arbcom if they feel the need to. Anyone else should be free to criticise Arbcom too—though perhaps not in quite these terms.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Constructive criticism is good. Outright attacks are not. This page is the latter. →  ROUX  ₪  03:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Neutral It's far from the worst kind of page we have kept around. It appears to be actively in use by wmc. I'm definitely in favor of deleting material like this (meaning I think I take a stricter stance than many in the community). But we do grant some latitude for users whose sub-pages are criticism of "the powers that be". Regardless of the wisdom of that, we offer the latitude. As such I am neutral. Protonk ( talk) 02:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per S Marshall. Stifle ( talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete or blank the foolish and total rubbish attack page that serves no usefulness to Wikipedia. Healthy criticism and rant resorting to personal attacks are totally different stories.-- Caspian blue 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• So, just to be clear: you're allowed to fling around insults that you deem others shouldn't (I don't see any proposal for you to blank this page) William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I only made a comment about the rubbish page consisting of a series of personal attacks against ArbCom members in good standing. As for your bogus accusations, well read the page and "uninvolved people"'s comments here again.-- Caspian blue 17:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Of course you didn't attack WMC, but you should know by now that WMC plays by his own set of rules: you calling his stuff rubbish is a personal attack, while him calling committee members' stuff rubbish is simply true in his eyes. ATren ( talk) 18:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep, but please to find another way to put these criticisms. I'm afraid I agree with a lot of WMC's criticisms (notably the one where he links to an edit I made), but calling people "fools" isn't helping (by contrast, seeking to illustrate that their actions were foolish is quite fair and enlightening). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep (but reword/refactor). Being insulted is not a reason to insult back (let alone, what I see on this page, again insult back), but I totally agree with William M. Connolley's feelings here, and I do believe that strong criticism is here certainly in its place, and there is nothing wrong with using a page in your own userspace for that. -- Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep he has a right to keep it. The arb case is there, and there is no reason this shouldn't be. it's no worse. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Doh! Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete Attack page. I can't believe some administrators here are pushing blatant double-standards. If you insist there is no cabal, then why are the usual suspects overwhelmingly fighting tooth and nail to make sure this petty attack page remains? Vodello ( talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, cabal members like Abd, FloNight and CoolHandLuke better watch it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep Deleting criticism of ArbCom sends the wrong message. That doesn't mean I would support any page containing any criticism of ArbCom, but I didn't see anything in this page so egregious that warrants deletion. That said, none of the barbs were directed at me. If any target of a barb feels that the charges leveled by WMC are too much to bear, I'd support selective oversight, but I think our arbs have sufficiently thick skin to withstand the commentary. It's not a pleasant chapter in the history of WP, but excising unpleasant history is not the right remedy.-- SPhilbrick T 01:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep but tone down. Mathsci ( talk) 06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. We need more criticism of the Arbcom, not suppression of it. The current Arbcom has gone so far off the rails that it needs to be burned down to the ground and something better put in place. -- ChrisO ( talk) 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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.