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:

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

User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say

Violates WP:UP#POLEMIC "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" The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 17:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Attack pages are not allowed. If he really needs to have such a list, he should keep it strictly on his own PC and not publicly visible. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep I can't say that I feel very attacked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep because it's not an attack page. It's just a list of things he wants to remember, most of which are not negative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:UP#OWN: "Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." It is this page here that was created for attack. / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 18:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • He has referred to it as a "twat list". How is that not an attack? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Serious question: by this argument doesn't it mean that if I call the List of presidents of the United States a "twat list" in an edit summary, it means that I'm attacking the presidents on that list and we should therefore delete that list? jps ( talk) 19:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Come now, that was hardly a serious question. The list of presidents is an actual encyclopedia article - this is after all an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, so encyclopedia articles are more what we are here for, rather than personal "twat lists" of Wikipedia contributors. Weakopedia ( talk) 08:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
        • That's not the rationale Baseball Bugs gave. jps ( talk) 16:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Boris. Guettarda ( talk) 18:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Not an attack page. A bad faith nomination. Mathsci ( talk) 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't agree that it is an attack page. Cardamon ( talk) 18:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep. This is a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia page. You see, WMC refers to keeping a twat list, but only a bad faith editor can conclude that this page is the twat list. There is no evidence that this page is the twat list. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I was waiting for someone to make that bogus argument. Congratulations, you win the cigar. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Bogus? It seems perfectly legalistic and justifiable to me. Kinda reminds me of this argument. jps ( talk) 19:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Inappropriate list, but an even more inappropriate AfD. Let's not kick WMC while he's down. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 19:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a cop-out to me. If you think it's inappropriate, you should vote "delete". -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 19:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. We have obviously reached a point where good, but vague ideas like WP:CIVIL have been perverted and are now used as a nuisance tactic. Wikipedia needs more free speech and less fake "I'm so hurt, somebody has been uncivil by expressing an opinion I disagree with". -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 19:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• I'm much more concerned about the user who created it and what this says about their approach to this project. This page is just another symptom of his poisonous, nasty, condescending attitude towards all who aren't part of his faction. This comment was added by User:Beeblebrox. Well, I guess that was obvious anyway. Bishonen | talk 01:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC). reply
• Strong delete and warning to editor. There used to be a clear policy prohibiting making lists of "enemies" or editors with whom one disagree - a list of people who vote "keep" in an AfD is a clear violation of this policy - that I unfortunately can't remember the name of. In any case it is clearly promoting a battle ground mentality and serves only to promote conflict within wikipedia. This is not the kind of thing we should use our bytes on. Whether or not it is a "twat list" it is grossly unappropriate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't see anything on that page that looks even vaguely like an attack on anyone - can anyone actually identify a single attack there? I know the user has used the phrase "twat list" elsewhere, but saying something like "adding xxx to the twat list" seems more like a figure of speech than anything to me - he doesn't actually say that this is that list. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC) (updated: -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)) reply

Boing, this comment of mine doesn't look vaguely like an attack, does it? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 08:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, that is, but it's not on the page under discussion - we don't delete a page because there is an attack contained on another page somewhere else. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I've only just realised that that is a comment by you - what has that got to do with whether the page under discussion here contains any attacks? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

It's just like what WMC's page does. His page links to several attacks he's made. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah, I get what you mean. But looking through the links on WMCs page, most of them aren't attacks (most are by other editors). There's a handful of links to WMC's edits with the word "twat" or "twattery" in the summary, which I agree is not good - and I think there's a better argument for perhaps removing those links than deleting the page (though I think getting upset by user talk comments like "remove twattery" is an over-reaction - if someone wanted to remove my comments from their Talk page, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they called them "twattery"). But it really looks to me as if this page is actually just a reminder of past disagreements, and not in itself an attack page. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 18:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete The responses by users above don't make very much sense and I am individually going to refute them below.

• • @Spartaz: Not an argument at all. And it doesn't matter if you do or do not feel attacked, what matters is the content used in the user's list and whether it is appropriate or not.
  • @Short Brigade Harvester Boris: No, most of it is indeed negative in the sense that it is a list of the people that have slighted him. This includes any of the people who were involved in him previously getting blocked or involving ANI and other discussions against him. See here, here, and here. I also notice that you were involved in most of his blocked discussions, arguing for him to be unblocked regardless of the circumstances.
  • @Pieter Kuiper: Yes, which is why we have WP:UP#POLEMIC to specify what sort of userpages are not allowed. And this list is clearly meant to be a negative one.
  • @Guettarda: See my response to Boris.
  • @Mathsci: See my response to Boris.
  • @Cardamon: See my response to Boris.
  • @Tijfo098: Actually, this diff taken directly from the list shows that it is indeed the "twat list" that WMC mentioned previously. Several of the edit summaries in the other diffs on the list concur with this as well. There is absolutely no doubt that this is the list he was speaking of.
  • @Stephan Schulz: I don't even know where to start with this one. First off, WP:CIVIL was not even mentioned in this discussion until you did so. This discussion is about a violation of use for a user subpage, in terms of it being used as an attack page and a collection of diffs and users that have slighted WMC in his own perception. There is quite a difference between free speech, which is speaking your mind, but does not include speaking rudely or abusively toward others as WMC has done on multiple occasions, and keeping a list of people that you wish to remember having done something you perceive as bad toward yourself. Such a list is completely against the character of Wikipedia and should never be allowed and, indeed, is not allowed.

Finally, in a summary of my argument toward this page, this list is being used by WMC as a collection of diffs that remind him of what other users have disagreed with him and/or acted against what he wants. This includes ANI and other discussions, along with the users that have blocked him. Just that alone is enough to show that this list has no positive purpose, but is instead being kept as a negative representation of the people that WMC dislikes. That sort of thing has no purpose or use here and should not exist on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the list of users who voted Keep in the Climate change AfD are also clearly there as a list of people who disagreed with WMC. Since WMC is so heavily involved in the Climate change area, which is already heavily volatile, this section of the list worries me greater than other parts.

In total, the list is not on Wikipedia for a positive purpose, but is being used as a negative conglomeration of diffs and users that have been involved with WMC. It should not be kept on Wikipedia, since it serves no purpose and is, indeed, fully against the policies expressed in WP:UP#POLEMIC. Silver seren ^C 22:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Additional reply to Boing! said Zebedee: Please see the diffs I provided above that are from the list. If you need me to be more specific, please say so and i'll be happy to outline things. Silver seren ^C 22:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If I may proffer my WP:TLDR version? Ahem: Silverseren believes that this page can't possibly be used for dispute resolution and Silverseren doesn't want to give WMC the benefit of the doubt that he will be using this in a "timely manner" as clearly exempted in WP:UP#POLEMIC. Bah humbug! jps ( talk) 22:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

How exactly is a list of people who voted differently than you in an AfD discussion supposed to be used for dispute resolution? What dispute? The fact that they all disagree with you? No, WMC is keeping it as a list of people he dislikes, it is not for dispute resolution at all. Silver seren ^C 22:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I've been involved with a number of dispute resolution cases where the list of people voting a particular way on an AfD discussion was extremely relevant to the dispute. That you have not is perhaps not surprising, but I don't think you should be basing your declarations on such a lack of experience. jps ( talk) 22:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

(ec)I often disagree with Silverseren but in this case he is absolutely correct. The page in question is over a year old so there is no question of it being used in a "timely manner". It's been steadily accumulating diffs from dozens of editors since then. The exemption in UP#POLEMIC says that, if you're going to make lists of diffs for dispute resolution, you're supposed to make your list, start your dispute resolution, and then get rid of the list again straight away. Slowly collecting grudges over the course of a year doesn't resemble behaviour intended for dispute resolution (dispute perpetuation, maybe) so it needs to go. Reyk _YO! 23:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

This comment reads very much to me, who was a witness to the travesty that lead up to and became the climate change arbitration, like a comment from someone who does not know what happened and what the consequences have been. If you truly think that it is impossible to have to use this page as a starting point for meaningful dispute resolution then I highly encourage you to look at the situations surrounding the events documented on this page and give an analysis as to whether or not you think the disputes are adequately resolved and how to resolve them if they aren't. jps ( talk) 23:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

To reply to the reply to me. I don't think this should be judged on a few edit summary comments elsewhere which may or may not refer to this page, or on other incivilities that may or may not be related. I think a deletion decision should be judged on the contents of the page itself, and on any specific details/descriptions given by the author, not on our own deductions about what he might have meant elsewhere when he said so-and-so or such-and-such. In that light, I see no attacks contained in this page. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

:Delete Eret2 ( talk) 22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)— Eret2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of another indeffed editor. reply

• Delete- this user page serves no constructive purpose on Wikipedia. It is just a hitlist of people WMC has disagreed with so that WMC can remember who's a "bad guy". The third bullet point of WP:UP#POLEMIC discourages laundry lists of grievances and I think this qualifies. Reyk _YO! 22:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Your contention is that WMC is so bad at remembering which users at Wikipedia have pissed him off that he needs to keep track of them in a list? Remarkable! Did you preform the diagnostic examination yourself? jps ( talk) 22:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • That kind of crap only lowers yourself and affects me not at all. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
      • What? Pointing out that you (maybe unwittingly) made a medical diagnosis on a user is lowering myself? Sorry. jps ( talk) 23:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply
        • That was not a helpful comment. Your input into this particular debate has in general not been helpful, perhaps you should disengage rather than incite? ++ Lar: t/ c 17:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Get over yourself, Lar. Anyone who takes a quick look at your activity will see immediately that your accusations against me fit your character to a tee. Your last 500 contributions are evidence enough to ban you for being disruptive since you're not here to actually create any content. See WP:ENC. jps ( talk) 20:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Shooting the messenger again? Explain how "Use list as a basis for a revolution" isn't completely unhelpful. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Messenger of what? Your own egoism? My comment indicates exactly what it was meant to: this situation makes me think that Count Iblis is correct and we need to begin cleaning house and start eliminating people who think discussions like this are what Wikipedia is about. jps ( talk) 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep This page contains honest, objective information about Wiki-editors. By its very nature such a page then cannot be Wiki-politically correct. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • What exactly is objective about it and how does it not violate WP:UP#POLEMIC? It's a list of people that have disagreed with him. Why should it be kept? Silver seren ^C 00:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • William has also mentioned a comment made by me about his record here at Wikipedia. The list contains all sorts of things people have said about him. While the list does contain many comments made by people who don't like William, the list is not primarily about what his "opponents" have said about him. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Can't Decide - This page is not facially an attack page or an enemies list, though that may well be its purpose. And I generally support freedom of speech on a user's own pages, absent very clear violations of policy. On the other hand, the edit history does clearly show a personal attack, accusing another editor of "paranoia". [1] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If you look into the diffs on the page itself, you'll find more in the edit summaries, such as this one for Spartaz, this one for Scott Mac, and this one for LessHeard. There is more in there, not to mention the registering of all the users who voted opposite of him in those AfDs. Silver seren ^C 00:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Okay, let's suppose that a user page is facially beautiful, full of only lovely images of flowers and teddy bears. But some of the edit summaries are vicious attacks. What would be the normal procedure? A block perhaps? Which has been done, I think. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

And you would remove the content that warranted the block. There would be no point otherwise. And since this isn't a userpage, but a user subpage that is only being used to compile diffs of people that disagreed with him, why should it be around? Silver seren ^C 00:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

But if a personal attack is in an article edit summary (e.g. an article like apple pie), we don't delete the whole article just to get rid of the edit summary. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I could make a point about the oversight power, but instead i'll just say that, while that is generally true, we do not allow collections of such diffs to be listed on a user page, per WP:UP#POLEMIC, which states "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." Silver seren ^C 01:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I would support removing diffs from this page that include personal attacks by WMC. But most of the diffs do not include personal attacks. BTW, your diff above for LessHeard is messed up (feel free to fix). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to take a position about deleting this user page. But, I've just left a comment at the talk page for the user page, explaining what I plan to do if it's not deleted. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment speaking as one of WMC's "twats", I can hardly vote to delete a list I'm on (there's no such thing as bad publicity), and besides these things might help the encyclopedia somehow or other. Indeed, since I want to find out how helpful they are, I thought I should have one myself User:Scott MacDonald/For me/Things William M. Connolley has said. I suppose someone here might be critical, but it appears most Wikipedians here support having these things about. It may well come in useful later.-- Scott Mac 00:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, deleting would be rampant pettiness. Doc, please don't be a whiney twat. Bishonen | talk 01:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC). reply
• Delete Obvious violation of the spirit of collaboration on which the project rests, let alone of specific guidelines on use of userspace. If the editor must keep a list of edits he objects to, he should use his own HD. Yngvadottir ( talk) 01:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The editors on this list are in fact twats and should therefore be identified as such. Skinwalker ( talk) 02:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Please try and keep a modicum of civility around here. We need less drama, not more. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

If civility was a priority for you, you would have blocked for this comment, which you explicitly declined to do. Since you are an arbitrator-elect, I infer from this and other rhetoric you have spouted recently that we are in for yet another year two years! of favoritism, social preening, and backroom dealing from arbcom. Skinwalker ( talk) 03:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

As I've previously mentioned, when someone actually puts in a complaint at ANI or another forum about it, I'll weigh in there with my opinion. I'm hesitant to make any further blocks because it'd inflame the situation even more than it is at present. I would be surprised if you've managed to infer my next two years of decisions by my edits over the past two days; I hope I'll be able to change your mind about me by the end of them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 03:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Your posturing isn't going to convince anyone until your actions and words start coinciding. You have damaged the integrity of Arbcom before your term has even begun — that's quite an accomplishment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Boris, I have said this several times but I'm a little frustrated, so I hope you'll forgive me for this rather sternly-worded post. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be: I do not believe there is ever a reason to be incivil, and I will support appropriate community action against any editor, administrator or arbitrator - or founder - who is incivil, provided such action is going to prevent further disruption. I declined WMC's block because I believe leaving WMC blocked will help prevent further disruption to the project. I will also support a block against LHVU if the community thinks that such a block will prevent further disruption to the project. I do not think a block of LHVU would help, given the tensions. I personally think that blocking LHVU at the present time would massively inflame the situation, rather than prevent disruption. It's why I haven't blocked anyone else. I don't think this should degenerate into 'tit-for-tat' blocking, and I won't have my actions dictated to me by yourself. If you have a problem with any individual person being incivil, you can bring it up yourself in an appropriate forum, and I or another administrator will take appropriate action in line with consensus and policy. I will happily comment on such a thread if you wish, but I have not got the time to start such a thread and carry it through to conclusion. I'm not against you, nor am I against WMC. I am not 'for' LHVU, and I am not part of any group on either side of the climate change debate. Please believe me: there is no cabal and I'm only trying to prevent furtheer disruption. If you can explain why you think blocking LHVU would calm people down and not inflame the situation further, I'm happy to listen. In short: I'm happy to support any idea you have for calming this all down. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 04:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing. As a wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you... fool me, can't get fooled again." Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll bite. Can you, CMLITC, provide an operational way how innocent bystanders can differentiate between provided such action is going to prevent further disruption and whenever I feel like it or whenever its supported by my pre-formed opinion? Also, "[I'll sit on the sidelines until] someone actually puts in a complaint at ANI or another forum about it" fosters the current climate (pun (?) intended (?)) of whining. Basically, I cannot lose by complaining at a message board. At best, I get my opponent sanctioned. At worst, I increase his reputation as trouble maker. And if I have a 5% chance of getting a sanction through, I only haver to play 20 times, at zero cost. What a deal. And no, I don't think you should block LHVU - I think WP:CIVIL has run amok and people in general should ignore all but serious infractions, and instead concentrate on content. But that means they should also not sit there with furrowed brow and exude an air of forgiving generosity for not blocking people who have not done anything wrong in the first place.. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 07:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

(e/c with Comrade Boris) Wonk wonk wonkity wonk wonk wonk. I'll be sure to send in my form 27-B/6 in triplicate every time someone says a naughty word about WMC. Skinwalker ( talk) 03:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep I don't see this as harmful; it's just an index. All the statements are there in Wikipedia in any case. Scott I think has the right approach to this; we should let this be--to remove their material like this after someone has run into trouble looks like exulting over someone who has been defeated. And the above attack on ChaseMe is altogether regrettable and not to any good purpose. It makes me wonder seriously about the inappropriate virulence of the person making it; DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

DGG, would you (and anyone else who wants to) please take a look at the talk page for the user page that's now under consideration, and tell me what you think? Thanks. Here's what I said there: "This page is currently up for deletion. If it's not deleted, then I plan to evaluate the diffs on this page one-by-one, and delete those that include personal attacks by WMC. It seems to me that a user writing a diff that includes a personal attack by that user is not significantly different from the user writing the personal attack itself." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep. We already had an arbcom clarification request that seemed to indicate it was OK. Didn't we? ++ Lar: t/ c 04:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

What Arbcom clarification was that? That would have been nice to know earlier. :/ (And why is there an arbcom clarification on user subpages?) Silver seren ^C 04:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I don't know if this is a formal clarification but since the page didn't get deleted then, it seems it's OK. ++ Lar: t/ c 05:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Okay, now i'm confused. That section you linked to has the users saying it should be deleted. You even commented there yourself and the result was users saying it should be deleted. So why are you voting keep? Silver seren ^C 05:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Why not take the hint from Lar, who is not known as WMC's greatest fan, and beat your sword into a ploughshare? Thanks and happy Boxing Day, Mathsci ( talk) 09:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• WP:DENY, as in Keep, Close, and Yawn. It seems to me that, in spite of this being an experienced user, this is a textbook case of where WP:DENY is the best way to go. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete It's a shit list, end of story. WMC is a proven ABF battler, he lost his AGF privelage to host pages like this on Wikipedia long ago. He doesn't get it, he never will get it. The opinion of his cheerleaders in that regard is fucking worthless. MickMacNee ( talk) 16:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment The above comment if it were to have been made by WMC what would happen? That comment is uncivil and rude but it looks like it's accepted. Why? -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 14:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Do you really find it odd that nobody on the Civility Police bats an eye at comments like the above or LHvU's outburst? It's almost like you think people around here act according to principle rather than political gamesmanship. Crohnie, you just have to learn to live with the fact that there are double standards. (More here.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Did you plan to include any arguments based on policy rather than your personal dislike for him? Because the latter is all I see here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• "It's a shit list" = UP#POLEMIC in MickMacNee-speak. Rd232 ^talk 11:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh no it isn't! Oh yes it is! How very seasonal this all is :) Mathsci ( talk) 11:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply

This may be to your interest. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep A list like this usually says more about the person keeping it than the people appearing on it. AniMate 16:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete. In the fullness of the context (including edit summaries), this page falls foul of UP#POLEMIC. There's absolutely nothing to stop WMC keeping any diffs he wants offline, whether its for purposes of some future dispute resolution or just general teeth-gnashing. Keeping it onwiki is not necessary, and is inflammatory, and encourages perception of Wikipedia as a battleground by both the page's owner and by others. Its deletion should not be taken as a victory for any "side" (...we're all supposed to be on the same side...) but as a removal of explosive materials from near a fire. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per... oh, lord, per everything Silver seren said, per whoever it was that said "WP:AGF should not require you to don blinders and lower your IQ by 50 points", per Count Iblis voting keep, per WP:DIVA, WP:VESTED, or whichever policy it is says that no users should be given special treatment, per WP:DENY being invalid in this particular case as to not delete the page is an affirmation that said editor receives special treatment... there's no reasonable reason to assume this page has any non-malicious purposes and no reason it should be kept. Seth Kellerman ( talk) 20:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Users like Raul654, Spartaz, ScottyBerg, Heimstern, etc, are not people whom WMC is known to dislike, quite the opposite. Exaggerated rhetoric from editors here does not change that. Mathsci ( talk) 20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • He called it a "twat list". That doesn't need any exaggeration, it's UP#POLEMIC. Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • He can call it whatever he likes, that would not change the nature of the list. Just a set of diffs with very little commentary, diffs which at the time possibly caused him some frustration, disappointment or consternation, possibly just the raising of an eyebrow. The exaggeration is in over-interpreting the list. Most users must know about the CU role of Raul645 and why he had to give it up. There is an entry that reflects that. At present I'm far more concerned that this episode has been the straw that broke the camel's back for MastCell. The bickering here seems not very different from the problematic conduct amongst those paticipating at the close of WP:ARBCC. In that respect, Lar is setting an excellent example here, which I hope others will follow. The demonization of users is an internet WP:GAME to be avoided if possible. Mathsci ( talk) 22:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

It is much more of a problem that the censors here are talking about "malice". / Pieter Kuiper ( talk) 21:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Well except that such accusations are a neat illustration of my argument that the page is inflammatory, and encourages perception of Wikipedia as a battleground by both the page's owner and by others. And this MFD is about that page. Rd232 ^talk 21:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep A simple list of links to various pages cannot, in and of itself, violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, because WMC isn't responsible for things other people say. Jtrainor ( talk) 22:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Would he not be responsible for his edit summaries, however, such as calling these other editors "twats" and calling the list the "twat list"? Silver seren ^C 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Would be helpful if you addressed the actual deletion grounds. I'm seeing a contentious "Delete" close (assuming a brave admin can be found), because too many Keeps aren't really addressing the issues. Rd232 ^talk 22:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I'm not really in favor of deleting laundry lists of diffs in any cases, although I know that it is done on occasion, when it's obvious that the diffs are collected to disparage a particular editor (I wouldn't do it even then; everything's on Wikipedia anyway, but I guess my view isn't the consensus one). However, in this case, I really don't see this as a collection of negative information. It's a collection of information, some of which is mildly negative, but most of which is not, at least overtly. It would be interesting to know what criteria user:William M. Connolley uses to decide which edits to save here, but it's not necessary for lists in userspace to have clearly defined criteria for inclusion like we do in article space. Buddy431 ( talk) 22:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Use list as a basis for a revolution per the most intelligent thing said regarding this idiocy: [2]. jps ( talk) 23:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: He called it a "twat list..." No, he didn't. In editing articles, we strongly discourage editors from taking a source where an author says x and another source where the same author says y, and putting x and y together to make a new fact z and attributing z to that author even though the author never said z. We should be as careful about not putting words into editors' mouths as we are about not attributing things to sources that the sources didn't say. There are people here who are certain that even though he didn't call this a "twat list" he indicated that he considers this to be "the twat list" by putting Spartaz on it. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't; I certainly don't know, not being privy to the thoughts of others. But it's an incontrovertible fact that he did not call this page a "twat list;" that's an inference that's been made by others. So please stop saying that he called it a twat list. I do not have an opinion about the MfD itself. Woonpton ( talk) 01:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Does it need a big flashing header "WMC's Twat List"? This edit summary plus this immediately subsequent edit to the page makes it quite clear what's what. Rd232 ^talk 02:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Not unless you have some additional information that isn't avialble to the rest of us. Please recall that correlation does not imply causation. Given that at least two of the names on the list (Raul and Count Iblis) are people who WMC has a positive relationship with, I think it far more likely that the list to which he refers is metaphorical. Guettarda ( talk) 02:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
      • OK, I take your point (and BTW I broadly agree with WMC on content and have been active on the topic); but that just means it isn't a List of Twats, it's a collection of "I've got your number" pigeonholing bits. I stand by my deletion rationale, which is essentially that (i) there is relevant policy to support deletion (ii) the project is better off not having pages of this nature, and right now, this is the page under discussion. Rd232 ^talk 02:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
        • The Raul and Count Iblis entries are not ' "I've got your number" pigeonholing bits'. Cardamon ( talk) 18:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Cardamon, people have their mind made up already. Please stop confusing them with facts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Actually they are; the page is essentially a record of who's on whose side; that includes editors from both sides. Once again, I return to my core deletion rationale: this type of page encourages WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Most of the "delete" arguments here take the form of proof by assertion, as does this one. The list has people on both sides and the middle lumped all together in one mass. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
            • @Rd232 Could you reevaluate the Raul one? It doesn't point to any statements by Raul. Also, given his brainpower, his long history on Wikipedia, and the overlap of his interests with Raul's, WMC would not need any notes to remind himself what "side" Raul is on. Cardamon ( talk) 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
              • Well I'm sure Alex Ferguson doesn't need to remind himself about the existence of Wayne Rooney, but he'll still put his name on the teamsheet. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • We normally judge outcomes, not intent, (while AGF) when trying to decide what to do with something, but would there be merit in (someone with good rapport) asking WMC what exactly the list is for and reporting back? ++ Lar: t/ c 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Boris, Pieter Kuiper, Lar RDBrown ( talk) 10:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Background research: "And your name will go on the list..." [3] Please list below the nations that do not understand irony. [4] -- Nigelj ( talk) 13:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep I don't see anything like an attack page. I also am having serious problems with the nominator poking an editor s/he knows is blocked and can't defend himself. This is a bad faith nomination. -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 15:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • If it is a "twat list" I'm pleased to see that WMC comes in at number 3, but either way, this page is a discussion about deletion and you going on about the nominators undisclosed motivations is in just as bad faith as you claim he was. Weakopedia ( talk) 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • With Weakopedia on this one, Crohnie's comment reads like bad faith. As do many of her contributions that in any way relate to WMC. Perhaps another disengagement would be prudent. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Lead by example, Lar. jps ( talk) 21:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Lar, I resent your comments about me. You're supposed to be an administrator, please act like one. I would appreciate it if you would keep opinions like you just made about me to yourself. As you know WMC is blocked so bringing this up for deletion while he is blocked is totally unfair and not the right thing to do. I don't know what you mean by "Perhaps another disengagement would be prudent." I do not interact with WMC that often so what are you implying? If I remember correctly, you are supposed to stop the battle like behavior. This comment of yours is quite rude. How many others did you put this request in for. Stirring up drama is supposed to be beneath an administrator. Oh and for the record, yes I'm angry with what he said which was totally uncalled for. -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 14:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms, in no way conducive to a colloquial editing environment, as usual - delete. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • The malapropism in this comment indicate well the goals of a large number of people !voting delete here and generally getting in WMC's way. jps ( talk) 21:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Just wow. Another completely unhelpful comment. Debate the list on the merits and stop attacking the messengers. You're lucky you're on the free pass list, blocking you leads to such drama every time, no matter how disruptive you are. ++ Lar: t/ c 17:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep: If WMC is using language like "twat list" and calling other editors "twats," then that constitutes violation of WP:CIVIL, for which the community has longstanding dispute resolution and potential sanctions; by all means let that ball start to roll. But this? This list of diffs comes almost comment-free. People might draw inferences from the selection, but we're not the freaking Thought Police here. If this is an "attack page," as the Delete proponents claim, where are the attacks? Before WP:UP#POLEMIC gets invoked, I want to see some actual polemics. Deleting this page on the inference that WMC means it for naughty or taunting purposes is a terrible, terrible precedent.  Ravenswing  18:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Those are really good points. Well said! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I really think it would be better for Wikipedia if WMC voluntarily had this list deleted. I'm one of those featured on it. Whether that makes me a "twat" I don't know; in fact, I haven't any idea why something I said was chosen. I don't think having this list around with no explained purpose, as some random Hall of Fame or Lame, is really helpful to Wikipedia and has the potential to stir bad blood. I don't think there is a good policy case for deleting it, so I am not !voting delete, but I just wanted to suggest the possibility we'd be better off if it were voluntarily deleted and stored off-Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, at this stage, after all the comments made here and elsewhere, voluntary deletion would probably be taken to be an admission of guilt. I agree that it would have been a reasonable request prior to this dramafest. Mathsci ( talk) 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - disagree that it's an attack page - so the default is a keep. Shot info ( talk) 09:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm a totally uninvolved editor and this seems to be pointing out other editors flaws per WP:UP#POLEMIC. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Rename Folder Back when Irbisgreif left Wikipedia, I was pretty sure that User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_curse_of_gnome was WMC's twat list but maybe I was wrong. People who spend time gathering information about what others type will have it ready and waiting when challenged, and WMC seems to be challenged a lot, so maybe he believes he needs this information handy, and I think he should be permitted to have it and others should be permitted to view it. I don't think a folder with this sort of information should be labeled "For me." Does that mean I should feel ashamed to click a link that because that link is for WMC? I think everything on Wikipedia, even user subpages, are for everyone. Flying Jazz ( talk) 01:45, 1 January 2011 (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.