Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame


 * 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 debate was no consensus to delete. I realize I participated in the discussion, but I can't see how my closing it this way could be controversial, so here I go. Friday (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Filll/Abuse of Civil Hall of Fame
Laundry list of actions or comments that Filll disagrees with in some way, serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, only serves to promote hostility or grudges. Viridae Talk 12:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone named as a disruptive troll, twice, on the page, I'd prefer to see it deleted. The user in question does not seem to have sufficient collegiality to substantively respond to a pleasant note on the talkpage, which I left ages ago. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see all such grudge pages deleted; it won't stop them from keeping hit lists off wiki, but lets trash this garbage here. It's never going to be constructive- delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "[...] is an example of a troll who uses CIVIL as a weapon" – no personal attacks? Take this off-wiki, this page has no relevance to building an encyclopaedia, and is a unhelpful to building a collegial atmosphere. EJF (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankfully Filll has now removed the worst of the content from the page. While I still don't think it is very productive, and at best is an "essay" full of misrepresentations, it is more acceptable. No strong feelings about keeping or deleting now. EJF (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely unhelpful, and the editor in question also apparently owns the list, so it is highly doubtful that it would ever contribute to a balanced presentation of this supposed "problem".PelleSmith (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also per User page, "things to avoid" (emphasis mine): "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." This is by definition a laundry list of incidents in which individuals are said to be exhibiting a "perceived flaw".PelleSmith (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that these are "perceived flaws". They are just observations of the system in action. Some might agree with some of these, and disagree with others. Some might agree with all of these. Some might disagree with all of these. For the efficient and productive management of Wikipedia, perhaps these were all correct decisions. Perhaps they were all incorrect. Perhaps some were correct and some were incorrect. Unless we study this situation more carefully, you and I will not be able to do more except make essentially gratuitous claims based on no evidence and no information except for our own personal intuition, which frankly does not count for very much here. I have collected examples which presumably are in the "tails" of the distribution of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, because they are more likely to be interesting and examples where reasonable people can disagree. We do not learn much from examples which everyone agrees are clear CIVIL and NPA violations, or everyone agrees are clearly not CIVIL and NPA violations. We need examples which are mildly controversial and somewhat contentious, where reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue exist.
 * Your user space is not for your "own research projects", especially not when those research projects include highlighting the flaws of others. This is particularly problematic when you are involved directly and indirectly in a boatload of RfC's, RfArbs, AN/I postings, etc.  It was, after all, from a discussion on AN/I that someone decided to MfD this page in the first place.  I fear that some of the "free expression" types commenting here have no idea what the larger context here is, but you certainly do.  Your "own research project" isn't helpful, its simply contentious, and its too bad many in community seem less concerned with doing some actual research into the situation then they are with throwing around libertarian ideologies.  If that's the case then so be it.  Good luck with your pet projects and all the drama they create.PelleSmith (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly would not claim these examples are all "flaws" in the system. What I think we need to keep in mind is that Wikipedia really only exists for one reason: to produce a reference work of the highest possible quality. If any of the actions described in my list contribute towards producing a high quality reference work, and if this can be demonstrated convincingly and documented, then they are not at all flaws, are they? If some or all of them actually work to the detriment to the creation of a high quality reference work, then they might be characterized as "flaws". However, neither you nor I nor anyone else can state at this point with any authority that any of the actions I have catalogued in my list actually are beneficial or not, and what are the reasons underlying this. These are interesting questions, and just deleting the data in this list will not move us any closer to answering these questions.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fill, since when is "abuse of ..." not about flawed behavior? Do we speak the same English language you and I?  If your intentions are as noble as you claim they are, then you would not exhibit ownership over the list.  You would also do better to stay completely clear of those you have had personal disagreements with.  Pretty obvious that last part is, if you don't want this to be seen as having more to do with highlighting flaws than with helping the encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the first thing is, I picked the name "Abuse of CIVIL Hall of Fame" long before I had much data. I just picked it because I thought it was funny. It does not have to be called that. Does the name offend you? Do you want me to use another name for this?


 * Second, some of these are people who have written something that normally would not be viewed as a violation of civility or a personal attack, but who are charged with a violation of CIVIL and/or NPA. Some of these are people possibly using CIVIL or NPA as a weapon. Some of these are people stating something that is clearly uncivil and/or a personal attack, but not being charged with a violation of CIVIL or NPA. In other words, it is about inconsistency of CIVIL and NPA standards, and it is about potentially unrealistic and changing CIVIL and NPA standards. Are they all flaws? Maybe, or maybe not. Where does the line fall?


 * Third, in terms of helping the encyclopedia, have you not been listening closely over the last year? There has been a frenzy of people claiming that CIVIL violations are the number one problem facing the encyclopedia. Some still claim that, although the uproar has died down a bit over the last few months. Others, such as those at the Expert Withdrawal pages, had said that problems with CIVIL were driving away experts, or that the CIVIL problems were symptomatic of problems with CIVIL POV pushing. Those are serious problems that need to be addressed. Do you claim otherwise?


 * And I explained what you claim is "ownership" below. It is not, aside from me having to have some measure of control over my own research projects and ideas. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your user space is not for your "own research projects", especially not when those research projects include highlighting the flaws of others. This is particularly problematic when you are involved directly and indirectly in a boatload of RfC's, RfArbs, AN/I postings, etc.  It was, after all, from a discussion on AN/I that someone decided to MfD this page in the first place.  I fear that some of the "free expression" types commenting here have no idea what the larger context here is, but you certainly do.  Your "own research project" isn't helpful, its simply contentious, and its too bad many in community seem less concerned with doing some actual research into the situation then they are with throwing around libertarian ideologies.  If that's the case then so be it.  Good luck with your pet projects and all the drama they create.PelleSmith (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually there are numerous research projects ongoing at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. By doing research on how Wikipedia and the related projects operate, we can improve it based on knowledge and evidence, not based on bullying and on who can scream the loudest. I believe that Wikipedia is not perfect, and could stand to be improved in various respects. Do you disagree with that? I have a partial list of research projects I have come across at User:Filll/Wikipedia_Research. Do you think all of those should be shut down, based on your dictates, fiats and fatwahs? Also, I did not choose to be involved in an RfAr, or in most of the AN and AN/I threads I have been dragged into. I have only filed one RfC myself, and I did not want to do it. Most of the RfCs I have participated in I have been forced to get involved with by the actions of others. I have the right to defend myself when attacked. Do you claim that this is not true? As for libertarian philosophies, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please take your obnoxious political attacks somewhere else.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The libertarian ideologies comment was not directed towards you, but towards those voting keep who seem to think that individual rights concern for the community. My apologies if you took it as a comment on you personally, but it was not meant to be.  Those other "projects" are not "Halls of Fame," they are explicitly attempts at constructive and unbiased research.  I take no issue with them.  They are also open to the community.  Please see my comment below regarding your "research project".  Your so called project is fraught with conflicts of interest and all kinds of bias.  How you imagine that starting from this premise will lead to results that we can take seriously is beyond me.  If you are serious about making this into a research project I suggest a new title, and a data collection procedure that is much more random than your current process.  I also suggest eliminating conflicts of interest (e.g. examples related to you, to your direct interests, or to your on Wiki friends).  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have removed the unfortunate negative characterization above. It was inappropriate and I apologize for having used that term. I do not remember having used it at this point, but I can easily imagine that this was the result of having been badgered and baited extensively. This does not excuse my use of the term, but is the only way that I can explain why I used it in such a fashion, given my past extremely difficult history with this editor. I now accept that the word "tr_ll" has been widely determined by consensus to no longer be politically correct on Wikipedia, although it was clearly acceptable at one time. Times change, and standards change, and this is an example. I again apologize to everyone for having used that term in two places and applied it to another editor.


 * The CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is not meant to insult or offend anyone. It is data about how we are applying policy like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Are we doing so consistently? Does our approach make sense? Are our standards for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA at the appropriate level? Should they be more stringent or more lenient? Are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA ever used inappropriately as weapons against opponents in disputes? These are just examples I have come across in my travels, and not meant to be exhaustive or an appropriately random sample.


 * I do not pretend to know if Wikipedia is enforcing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL appropriately at the moment or not. I do not pretend to know if the most commonly held assumptions about CIVIL are reasonable or not. However, these are interesting questions to consider as Wikipedia evolves as an enterprise.


 * If we are ever to move beyond our current "intuition-based management" of Wikipedia, based on gut feelings and on who can be the biggest bully or who can scream the loudest, to "evidence-based management" we need data, and we need to analyze it. We need to understand what our current stance on a given issue is, and what it was, and how it is changing and why. We need to frame our policies and enforcement in terms of our actual goals, and then try to determine the best means to reach these goals, and then implement these means if possible. And that is what the CIVIL Abuse Hall of Fame is. It is a tiny step on the road towards "evidence-based management". --Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the word "troll" was considered vastly more acceptable six weeks ago, when you used it and were reminded about it, than it is today. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably correct. I do not remember applying it to another editor, and I do not remember having had a discussion about its use in this manner with you, although I clearly did. From this vantage point, it was clearly highly inappropriate and I apologize for this offensive usage. I should have removed it immediately when you notified me of it, and my failure to do so embarasses me. Please accept my humble apology for this mistake and any offense which it caused.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism is allowed. Filll believes that the civility guideline is frequently misused.  He's allowed to opine about this.  He's allowed to collect examples of what he sees as the problem.  People are allowed to express their opinions about Wikipedia's problems.  If you think he's wrong, you're allowed to tell him that.  If he's misrepresenting the diffs he's collecting, the only harm will be done is that he'll make himself look foolish.  If he's right, who knows, maybe some meaningful change will come out of this.  If you don't like everything you've ever said being part of a public record, Wikipedia is not for you.  Friday (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Except your argument has little to no baring on why we should or should not keep this page here. Since when is the "right" of an individual to say X, Y, or Z an argument for keeping content on Wikipedia? What does the right to free expression have to do with our claim that Filll's commentary and his framing of what you are calling a "public record" is possibly disruptive, and clearly not productive?  No one is asking to have what they said expunged from the edit histories or talk pages, but we believe that that what Filll has chosen to do with some of this information is not helpful.  Again, I fail to see how this free expression argument has anything to do with the concerns of the community and the well worn conventions of how to deal with appropriate and inappropriate content on Wikipedia.  Per Miscellany for deletion we are allowed to decide as a community whether miscellaneous pages should or should not be deleted.  What policies back the various claims you have made above of what is or is not "allowed"? PelleSmith (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that you do not seem to be willing to accept community input, but rage around like an angry dictator. It really presents you in a bad light, frankly.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What you call "possibly disruptive" sounds a lot to me like "I don't like it." People are allowed to opine about Wikipedia in their own userspace.  I don't know how to explain my position any more clearly than this.  He's being responsive to concerns people bring up about the specifics of the content.  No valid reason that I can see has been given for deleting this.  Friday (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my "comment" below.PelleSmith (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Fill will remove the content of the page if anyone finds it offensive, per his statement at User:Filll/subpage. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And I will edit it to make it inoffensive if necessary. If it cannot be rendered inoffensive, then of course I will remove it. Why wouldn't I ? Thank you for bringing that up. Of course, my offer stands.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - In general, I think that these kinds of user subpages should be permitted unless there are attacks against other editors. Editors should be permitted to collect such information, and I think it's a bad precedent to start deleting them. If someone objects to something Filll says there, they are free to post their objections on their own talk pages. Alternatively, perhaps Filll himself can add a section to that page, where the accused can respond - though I don't think that's strictly necessary. Filll should, however, avoid straying into outright attacks ("Wiki God King" is a little bit overboard, IMO). I'll also add, I disagree with the entire crux of Filll's arguments there; I believe many of the examples he cites are indeed uncivil and unhelpful, but he has a right to his opinion (and to express that opinion in his user space). ATren (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok if you find "Wiki God King" offensive, then I will remove that. It was intended to be humorous and/or sarcastic, but I do not want to offend with that term. Should I remove it?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was, I think your page has merit as long as it sticks to your view on editor's actions. I personally don't find "God King" terribly offensive, and I do understand the humorous connotation (and perhaps it's such an established term now that it's not offensive at all), but I am personally of the view that a page like that is less offensive and problematic if you avoid such labels completely. So, yes, I'd probably replace it with a simple, inoffensive "Jimbo". ATren (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Some more discussion of the term can be found at .--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. per Friday. I agree this page might promote more divisiveness than community spirit, but I'm not aware any policy it violates and the the delete votes all seem boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yilloslime (t) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see below.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assessment that in cases such as these WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a valid !delete criterion, but if it indeed is, then surely WP:ILIKEIT is also a valid !keep criterion, and I do happen to like this page. W/R/T WP:UP, the primary intent of Filll's page seems to be improve WP by pointing out how certain policies have been misused, it's primary intent does not seem to be to attack other editors, so I'd argue the page doesn't count as "substantial content…that is unrelated to Wikipedia" thus the page doesn't fall run afoul of the policy. Yilloslime (t) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never have I claimed that it is "unrelated to Wikipedia" nor does WP:UP require that is should be, despite its general guideline. Clearly creating evidence pages in preparation for an RfC isn't "unrelated to Wikipedia", but also clearly it is recommended to remove such evidence afterwards.  If you do like the page, and you think it does contribute to the encyclopedia, then so be it, that's your choice.PelleSmith (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per the above argument. It sums up my thoughts exactly   F.U.R  hurts Wikipedia  16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see below.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding policy: From User_page. Here is #9 from "things to avoid" (emphasis mine)--"Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process. This exception is subject to common sense, but as a general rule, two weeks is a reasonable time to prepare such a page."  Please also see User_page: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community."  This is the community forum to decide whether or not the content is appropriate so please do not invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT, since doing so makes no substantive argument about how appropriate or inappropriate this content is, it only comments on those here who don't find it appropriate.  It is clear from our policies that we can, and do judge these things in forums such as this one.  Filll's list, which he exhibits ownership over, is quite clearly a list of various incidents in which other editors exhibit a flaw.  I'm sorry but "yay libertarianism" isn't exactly the way we should decide about what is or is not constructive and productive in and for this project.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At some point, we have to use our judgement. Is it simply schoolyard name calling, serving only to perpetuate a grudge?  Or is it valid good-faith criticism of a perceived flaw in how Wikipedia works?  In my opinion (and I suspect, that of anyone saying "keep") this case is closer to the latter than the former.  We should be accommodating to good-faith efforts of editors to say "Look, here is a flaw in Wikipedia.  See my evidence."  Criticism is allowed.  Friday (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why exhibit ownership over the page? I could list several diffs of Filll invoking WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF just as, if not more, "abusively" than the examples he puts up on his page (in fact this self-righteous hypocrisy makes it even more offensive).  This page is clearly directed towards those he has had disagreements with, and is also clearly not some NPOV survey of this type of behavior.  If this exercise were a good natured attempt at improving the encyclopedia then why direct it towards his foes?  Why delete (see diff above) additions by others that provide evidence of his own "abuse of civil. " Why has he already been asked to delete offensive language since the start of this MfD?  The idea that the motivation behind this page is to help the encyclopedia is absurd.PelleSmith (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That diff is of a different type of CIVIL and AGF episode than the others. It is still on the talk page. As I get more examples, I might include another section. I only use that page to collect examples as they come up. By the way, the vast majority of these are NOT anything to do with my "foes". These are just edits I have run across and in most cases I am not involved at all. In many cases I do not know one or all of the parties involved.


 * The other reason I am not quite sure what to do with that diff is that the editor who posted it was in a FURIOUS RAGE and attacked me repeatedly in email with profanity-laced emails, including dozens of expletives and threats, and this situation was associated with that diff. I was shocked, frankly, and I considered moving to have him desysopped and banned from Wikipedia for this, but since I hate this kind of drama, I did not. I only wanted him to stop attacking me, which thankfully he has. However, after I felt quite ambiguous about his post related to a situation that gave rise to this irrational rage. Therefore I was undecided at that time about retaining it in the list, and how it should be categorized. I have not forgotten this diff however, and I do plan to do something with it. I am just not quite sure what right now.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fill, I don't know what that editor may have emailed you, but in this context, since you conveniently aren't about to tell us, those remain a bunch unsubstantiated statements. You're comment about those not being your foes is also entirely misleading.  The editors who's flaws you are listing are more often than not those who have argued against your POV in entries related to ID.  Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, factors heavily here, for instance.  The few remaining come from your ID WikiGroup buddies and/or their webpages.  There is nothing NPOV or particularly scientific about what you're doing here.  None of this provides good evidence of anything but your ability to keep lists of the supposed flaws of editors you don't particularly like.PelleSmith (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For time being, I will not reveal the details of what that person sent me in email. Obviously, it might be a violation of this person's privacy to reveal some of the email contents, although exactly where that line is I am not sure. Also, most of these disputes that gave rise to these posts have nothing to do with me and nothing to do with intelligent design or  Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I take no position on whether I "like or don't like" most of the editors appearing in that list, and several of those I have disagreed with strongly in the past like ScienceApologist appear on the list as the targets of what might be overenthusiastic application of CIVIL. As for NPOV, the only things that are supposed to be NPOV around here are the articles, and I have not noticed that you seem to have much knowledge or appreciation for what NPOV is. Also, from your ludicrous posts at Raul654 CIVIL POV pushing pages, I have not noticed you displaying any knowledge of what is science or what is not science, and you certainly are not some sort of arbiter in this matter.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - if UBeR's hitlist is allowed to remain undeleted, I see no reason why this should be deleted. Morever, this page serves a lot more purpose than that one did - it illustrates why the civility policy is abused by Civil POV pushers claiming false victimhood to muddy the waters. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, Raul. I'm sure that one day I shall happen across you making a policy-based argument. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Relata - I wish I could say the same about you, but unfortunately your track record of giving bad advice combined with snide comments and your ignorance of reality doesn't give me much hope. Raul654 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He might have been snide but don't you think "ignorance of reality" crosses the civility threshold a bit more clearly? Or am I making an abusive appeal to the WP:CIVIL policy?  Filll your expert advice is needed here.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Having interacted several times with Relata refero and found myself doubting his good will and his judgement and reasoning power frequently, as well as wondering if he was here just to fight or to build an encyclopedia, I am afraid in my humble opinion I have to agree with Raul654 here. The only reason that an RfC against him has not been filed is that he has not quite crossed over the threshold often enough for anyone to go to that sort of effort. If we are to examine our own behavior, and try to improve it and improve our management of this enterprise and improve our rules and their enforcement, we have to be able to compile data about it. This list is not meant to offend anyone. Appearing on the list is not even necessarily a condemnation for improper behavior. It merely is an example of what is permissable behavior, or has become permissable behavior. Maybe these standards are appropriate, and maybe they are not. I would not pretend to be able to know exactly what the community standards are or should be in any of these instances. And without surveys and polls, I think that no one really can state such a thing with any authority either.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "If we are to examine our own behavior, and try to improve it and improve our management of this enterprise and improve our rules and their enforcement, we have to be able to compile data about it." Very very noble, but your "data" isn't worth a grain of salt when all of it pretty much involves you and/or your buddies.  You are making no attempt to eliminate clear conflicts of interest and bias making your data both unreliable and ethically dubious.  In fact the very reasons why anyone would take offense to this list, or think its a drama magnet, invalidate its usefulness.  As I already suggested, if you want to do this in an impartial and unbiased manner, collect data that does not relate to you, to your broader interests, and/or to your friends.  Its really that simple.  No one will call you out for attacking others since there will be no apparent personal motive, and we can actually take seriously whatever findings may come from them.PelleSmith (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, just because you repeat the same falsehoods over and over and over, trying to mount some sort of furious attack on me, it does not make any of your specious and gratuitous claims correct. I can just as easily and gratuitously dismiss all these spurious arguments of yours by the rules of logic. You only make yourself look bad by wanting to turn this MfD page into some personal battleground. But feel free. Just consider how it makes you look.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee Fill, and here I thought that this was one of my most constructive comments to date. So you actually think that using yourself and your friends as a sample is a good way to conduct an unbiased research project?  I don't see this swinging to delete anytime soon, so lets not worry about defending the motives of the original list, lets try to be constructive about its future.  I'm fairly certain you understand the problems I've presented to you.  Are you willing to take the appropriate measures to ensure that this is a research project which will yield unbiased results?  That might be worth something to the project.PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * delete a lot of similar pages are deleted as they serve no constructive purpose and don't foster congeniality between editors. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a convincing argument. This is a log of grudges etc against other editors, and if it were a new editor or a less well known one it would no doubt have already been deleted. If someone feels attacked there's no need to attack back or store numerous unrelated grudges, as otherwise where would it end? It's 'unprofessional' yes I know we're not professionals but you know what I mean. Admins should behave like admins, no matter how others behave, and keep the moral high ground. Stuff like this just propagates some people's feeling that there's one law for admins who are liked by more senior admins, and another for them. Sticky Parkin 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that I am not an admin, nor do I ever want to be. It is not a log of grudges against other editors. I have no dog in the fight in most of these situations. I am not involved. I am involved in some of them, it is true. All they are, are examples of CIVIL and AGF being applied in controversial circumstances. That is it. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In virtually all of these situations the flawed party is either arguing against you, against someone else from WikiProject Intelligent Design, or even more generally against your POV when it comes to "psuedoscience". Grudges or not, there is a pretty obvious connection between these editors and it isn't just their "abuse of CIVIL".PelleSmith (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to make a friendly wager about that? What will I get if I win?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've amended it for accuracy. Outside of one truly perplexing diff you have on there, and the comment from Jimbo, a rough count has 7 involving you, 7 involving ScienceApologist (see new comment about psuedoscience), 4 involving other ID editors, and the rest having something to do with either ID or other "psuedosciences".  You're not fooling anyone Filll.  Is there a diff on there showing someone you agree with abusing CIVIL?  Maybe like these unsubstantiated appeals to CIV.  Gee who made these?:, , .  Is that Filll?PelleSmith (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. There are 26 episodes presented. I am involved in 7 of these. Most of these have nothing to do with intelligent design. Just get off this "cabal" fantasy, ok?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll I never said anything about a cabal. I'm merely trying to back my suggestion that the list is skewed to only report on the flaws of those you don't agree with.  By you, I mean you personally.  Others may share your various POVs, but this clearly relates to you.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be awfully obsessed with that Rosalind Picard article, on which a consensus was reached weeks ago. What is the problem there?


 * And yes I will alert other users to potential AGF and CIVIL problems, and I try to make my own standards reflect those of what I perceive to be the community standards. I have also drastically changed my own standards for incivility over the last year and a half to be more in accord with those on the rest of Wikipedia. For example, I have slowly learned that sarcasm is to be avoided as uncivil. I do not claim I do a perfect job of avoiding sarcasm myself, but I do try. So what? Should I have maintained my own versions of the standards, out of step with everyone else's? Should I have not conformed to consensus? Should I have not learned and rolled with the tide, even if I disagreed with the overall community standards? That is just silly and dumb. That is not how Wikipedia works, is it?


 * Of course the examples I know are mainly from science and pseudoscience. I do not get involved with political articles, by and large. If I did, I would have examples from political articles, not from science and pseudoscience articles, right? I have examples from what I am familiar with. Is that a problem for you? And I include examples where I was surprised by the verdict or the claim, not examples which I thought were in general line with community standards. So in the case of situations I was involved with, they are not generally situations where I was using CIVIL incorrectly, although probably such examples exist. In that case, it is harder for me to recognize those, isn't it? It is easier for me to recognize examples where I wonder if things are correct or not, or where the line lies exactly. And so that is the bias that is introduced into these examples. Is this a surprise? What on earth? You want to turn this into a federal case? Into World War III? Would you like to be part of a really fun RfC or two if you have so much energy?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fill I'm not obsessed with that page, but do remain rather disgusted by your behavior on its talk page. I don't see a point keeping this argument up since its rather apparent that everyone is either voting delete based upon the premise that your page is a detriment to the project, or keep based upon the idea that you should have the freedom to keep such a page.  Good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are disgusted with anyone who disagrees with you I guess. Well that is your right. And the right of others to be disgusted with your behavior on that page and many other pages. As I have said before, you seem to exhibit a deep hatred and loathing of me, over and over and over, which seems to have even included stalking. So be it. You made yourself clear. If this was not your intent, perhaps you should reconsider how you present yourself.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Filll, you are welcome to your opinion about what makes me disgusted, but as you know from the now deleted outline I gave you on your talk page, it was your gross incivility and hostility from our very first point of contact that did me in. That said, I don't have a deep hatred for you, though I think your behavior, as I experienced it, is a problem here at Wikipedia.  Your own paranoia and inability to take things on anything less than a deeply personal level (I'm stalking you, I have a deep seeded irrational hatred for you, etc.) speaks volumes to the emotional level that your hall of fame page most probably operates on.  To me this seems rather clear, but to others it apparently does not.  Oh well.  Good luck Filll.PelleSmith (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The evidence is clear. If you wanted to behave in a consensual and amicable manner, I think you would behave differently. But go ahead.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The information is a collection of links to what other editors have done in Wikipedia. If those editors don't like it (which has been expressed as a reason for deletion above) then perhaps they should have taken a dose of WP:CIVIL.  Mind you, if there are specific things in there (aka the commentary) that could potentially be toned down - then it should be.  But editors should point these out, rather than just attempting to censor the glaring spotlight to their particular forms of unCIVILness.  Of course, there is always content but concentrating on anything but CIVIL isn't the modern incarnation of Wikipedia now, is it?  Shot info (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have all seen abuses of WP:CIVIL; this collection may prove useful in the next discussion. Are all of these abuses? Not in my opinion. Are some of them? Yes; I would cite #19 the complaint that KillerChihuahua's well-known sig is "condescending" and so uncivil. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep These are just examples of where civility trumps other issues. Not really a "hit" list like others have (see Raul's comment above).   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there is really no difference between Filll's and UBeR's subpages. I'd vote to keep both on the exact same grounds - that editors should be allowed to collect diffs as long as there isn't excessive attacking commentary associated with them. ATren (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. I once asked for UBeR's page to be removed.  I think he should remove some of the commentary, but otherwise I have no problem, so we're in agreement.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

† Dude  (C) 02:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Un-called for. The least he could do is ask other's permission before he condemns them to having their mistakes bronzed and put up for display. If the time ever comes where these "examples" could come in handy, the diffs are easily obtainable without the Wiki-drama of this.-- Koji
 * Why do you claim these are mistakes? They are surprising to me, but only if you disagree with some of the more controversial statements of your fellow editors would you consider them mistakes. Anyway, even if they are mistakes, which I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim since many of them are according to our changing community consensus, we should examine them and learn from them. I do not suggest that any of those making these mistakes be condemned for any of these purported mistakes. Also, I disagree that it is so easy to find or create a list like this, without keeping track. Why repeat the labor in creating such a list over and over and over? Let's understand some of the more extreme examples to see what the community consensus is, and where it is heading.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Called for. Critical analysis of a policy -how it's both interpreted and applied is not the same as creating an "attack" page (which should be deleted).  R. Baley (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any ideas on how this page constitutes critical analysis?t I would love to hear them. -- Relata refero (disp.) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as it makes some good points that are relevant for Wikipedia, and per Filll's policy to remove anything another finds offensive.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Delete - I've come to find firsthand that Filll does not follow through on his policy. In fact, he's removed it from his page. LaraLove   |Talk|  15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy held long before I put the notice on my page. And the policy still holds even though it is only on a subpage, so I can highlight the problems with stalking, harssment, intimidation, death threats etc against admins and regular editors. When I have done with my public service announcement, and my talk page goes back to its conventional form, you can believe that the notice will go right back to where it was at the top of my talk page and my user page. Frankly, this is a silly reason for changing your vote. But whatever...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, it's silly that you would overlook my actual reason for changing my vote and focus only on the aside. I changed my vote because I have experienced first hand that you don't honor this "policy". Regards, Missy. LaraLove   |Talk|  23:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You only have to ask. Or didn't you understand that?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 23:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out above and immediately below, that is not the case. Repeating the statement - rudely - given that, indicates a somewhat lax connection with the facts, of the sortthat leads people to misrepresent diffs on a subpage. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not perfect. If you contend you are perfect and have never made a mistake, then let's examine your record on Wikipedia, shall we?--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying I was perfect, or that you were not. I was saying you had a lax connection with the facts, and demonstrated how, and stated why it was a relevant problem. As for my record, I thought that was the purpose of this nasty little subpage? -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No that is not the purpose of this page. Your identity is irrelevant in the diffs, to be honest. And if one was compiling a record of potential mistakes on your part, it would extend far beyond the examples presented here, I suspect.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that all the diffs are of people you were in conflict with, I don't think that "honest" is the right qualifier to your statement about the irrelevance of identity. Oh, and a record of my potential and actual mistakes would be long, and I wouldn't object. Input from the community is welcome. Misrepresented diffs with uncivil commentary presented by a single user on a supage he owns, however....-- Relata refero (disp.) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have explained, over and over and over here, this is incorrect. I am personally involved in less than 1/3 of these. As I collect more examples, this fraction will decrease even further. I take umbrage at your mischaracterization, which is decidedly uncivil, isn't it? --Filll (talk |  wpc ) 16:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, spare us. Every single case is someone who is espousing views you elsewhere have attacked, against people you elsewhere have supported. I believe that point has been made over and over and over, and ignoring it is, well.... -- Relata refero (disp.) 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be so good as to tell me how this pertains to . I have never had an association with Eric Lerner, and I have never had an association with John254. I have both supported and opposed ScienceApologist on different issues. I have never participated in any discussions on Wikipedia about plasma physics. And there are many many many other examples; well over half. So . ..--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * /facepalm
 * I don't need this, I'm on wikibreak. The closing admin is welcome to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with you, John, and SA. I'm pretty sure we both know they'll find. And the "more than half" made me laugh, so thanks for that at least..:) -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Well that sure proves your point, doesn't it? I also have never been involved with Jimbo, Christopher Wunderlee,  and Leesome in editing. I just happened to stumble across this example. And there are many many other similar examples. But oh well...--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it only takes two months and an AfD for him to follow through on that policy. -- Relata refero (disp.) 17:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: People seem to be voting "keep" based upon the premise that this is a good faith criticism of a policy, and a benefit to the project, as opposed to a list of flaws. Fine.  If this entry ends as a keep is it possible to get Filll's assurance that he wont censor the additions of others to his "Hall of Fame"?   That he will allow it to be a vehicle for good faith criticism regardless of who has "abused CIVIL"?  It is my opinion that under those conditions it would create a whole lot less drama, and it would actually show that his intentions are in line with what those voting keep have assumed on good faith.PelleSmith (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are frantic to have examples of others you have collected on this page or a similar page, I reserve the right to place them in their own subpage and/or own section. Otherwise, examples that have nothing to do with the intended purpose will be mixed in inappropriately. Otherwise, the subsections will probably cease to make sense. If you want to compile a similar list of examples, then that is great and if there are examples which belong on both lists, then some kind of integration can be done that makes sense.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to compile any such lists nor do I wish to add to yours. I simply ask for you to promise to live up what those who support this page seem to believe in good faith, if things turn out as a "keep".PelleSmith (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We generally give editors fairly wide latitude in their own user space. Friday (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as I thought. Without any accountability there can be no trust, without trust WP:AGF becomes a farce.  On the one hand we claim that Filll must be acting in good faith, but on the other we say he doesn't have to actually act in good faith to reassure us that this is the case.  Whatever.  I'm done.PelleSmith (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I had to think about this one a bit, since I would have voted to delete Uber's list (I can't remember if I actually did or didn't). This seemed different enough to me, but I wanted to think about it a bit.  R. Baley's rationale gets at what I was thinking, but wasn't quite about to articulate.  So, Keep.  Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Excellent record of some of the worst commentary ever produced on Wikipedia. Also, I believe this is a bad faith nomination, trumped up due to the friendlies attacking experts in their newest MMORPG battle. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is a laundry list with no attempt at analysis or balance, and no attempt to suggest any improvements. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good lord. This is not a finished essay. It is a place to collect data and information. And these do not all cross my path magically within a day or so. They have to be collected over time. If you want to see a short essay by me on CIVIL, see . If you want to see the sorts of analysis I will create, look at this one in progress at and .--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two and a half months is rather more than a "day or so". DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. And I probably need to collect data for at least a year or two.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are using Wikipedia to host your personal laundry list long term with no indication of when or if it will ever turn into something which can be used to benefit the encyclopædia? DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, you did not read the material above? Of course it is meant to turn into something that will be used to benefit the encyclopedia. Read the research projects I am involved with and that others have ongoing at Wikipedia that I have linked to above. And just because something takes a long time, does not mean it will not benefit Wikipedia, or is not intended to. I have at least 4 rough drafts of new articles and rewrites of current articles that are many months old; 3 of them are well over 1 year old.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly Filll could compile this info offsite rather than in his userspace. He could compile it privately in a Word doc, or publicly on a blog or something like that. To figure out which would be more appropriate, there are two competing interests that, IMHO, must be weighed: the transparency and openness of doing it here, on-wiki, versus the concerns raised above about highlighting other editors' real or perceived errors, shortcomings, etc. If this were obliviously just an attack page, then certainly the later concerns would trump the benefits. But instead, what we seem to have here, as far as I can tell, is a good faith attempt to collect info which will eventually be used to propose so policy changes that will benefit the project. And thus I think the benefits of transparency outweigh the concerns about this being a list of editor's flaws. There shouldn't be a time limit on doing a good analysis, and we should encourage such analyses to be done in an open, transparent fashion, on-site rather than off. Wikipedia business should be conducted on Wikipedia, not Wikipediareview or elsewhere where it's likely to be off the radar of the majority of the community. Caveat: I do think there is a fine line here, which could easily be overstepped. So if a significantly altered version of this gets MfDed in the future, I could easily see myself !voting to delete depending on how it's been changed. Yilloslime (t) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it doesn't attack any individual editor (and doesn't even mention the names of any editors). Most problematic "grudge lists" are attacks on a specific person or group of people, whereas this page attempts to address and correct general problems perceived by the author in Wikipedia as a whole - the purpose is completely different. Criticism of the current system is allowed. Hut 8.5 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Its not criticism of the system, its criticism of specific editors, all of whom Filll has een in content disputes with, by misrepresenting their arguments. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Completely wrong. I am a participant in 7 of these, and not in 19 of these. Some of these I do not even know the people involved and have never edited anything with them.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Fillll, above you say that you picked the name of the page long before you had any data and just because you thought it was funny. You seem to have started the page on 29-Mar, and yet for the month before that you had been prattling on about the abuse of CIVIL non-stop, including citing many examples of alleged abuses. See here and the previous 500. Does the phrase "lying fucking bastard" mean anything to you. Anyway, I hope you complain about this being a breach of CIVIL, because then I will add it as the first entry to my new "Abuses of CIVIL by Lying Fucking Bastards" list which I trust you will argue I should be allowed to keep.


 * I did not say that I had never discussed CIVIL before starting this list. And the list was built up slowly. And I think "lying f***ing B*****ds" is probably unCIVIL, don't you? And you claim that I am one huh? Nice. Real nice.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * advice Filll, if you are going to keep this you need to preface it with a clearer explanation. I read that as it being examples of absolute incivility, until I realised that some of them where where you were implying other people thought it uncivil while you didn't. It might help if you divorced the phrases from the sources, and arranged them in groups, as abstract examples for discussion. DGG (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are probably correct that I should make an introductory section so people understand what it is. Up to now, it has just been a place to collect examples or data. I witnessed something, or observed something, or heard about something, and I thought it was an interesting example of a claimed CIVIL violation, or an interesting example of what some might think of as a CIVIL violation that was not treated as such. As I said previously, plain vanilla examples that everyone agrees on are not particularly interesting. There is a well known admin that has racked up a large number of what appear to be CIVIL violations that have not been treated as such up to now. They probably would be suitable additions for this list in the bottom category. I personally, however, have never witnessed it although I have heard accounts of it second and thirdhand. I do not claim this list is at all complete or representative. It is just stuff that I come across and make note of when it happens.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is no reason he shouldn't be allowed to voice his opinion on editors or wikipedia issues that he disagrees with. Deleting this helps nothing --T-rex 20:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (zomg TINC) per much of the above, and a justified and much needed argument (the page is, not my comment). giggy (O) 02:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This attempt by some people in the community here to censor someone for being critical of wikipedia sickens me. If we start to repress some peoples criticism, people will stop being critical, and problems won't come into light because nobody is willing to bring it up. Problems will be allowed to exist, and will grow over time. We should encourage people to be critical, and consider their criticism, and that way we will grow.--SJP (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I get that PelleSmith has a bad feeling about where this all is headed, and Pelle is worried that the proper braking mechanism won't kick in before someone gets hurt unfairly.  But: some things we're required to take on faith; we're not allowed to censor userspace on the worry that something will eventually turn out badly, we can only look at the page we've got right now, and...that page has some actually useful information in it, which is more than I can say for most of my userspace subpages :)  Filll has indicated an openness to collaboration, and I believe I'm seeing an effort to do something useful for Wikipedia rather than an effort to savage his enemies.  In fact, I commend him for focusing on the issue of AGF being used as a weapon (which happens a lot). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is direction in which the discussion has increasingly been snowballing during the past ten days. And do it soon — this page is over 60 kb already!  — Athaenara  ✉  06:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete attacks by diff and commentary --Faith (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.