Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence/data dump to be sorted


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Speedy Deleted by Tony Sidaway as an attack page. — xaosflux  Talk  00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence/data dump to be sorted
Attack page, designed to link users name to IP address in absence of abusive behavior. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be deleting stuff that's in user's private space without exceptionally good reasons. Let this person compile their evidence. For all we know they have a legitimate complaint. DJ Clayworth 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not written by user who operates the userspace, otherwise I would have asked said user to speedy the attack page. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule against collaboration? Please demonstrate how it is an attack page under the policies on wikipedia. Cite examples or I move this is a bad faith nomination. rootology 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't "move that it's a bad faith nomination", whatever that means to you. Hipocrite cares very much about the success of this project, and is only going to nominate something for deletion if he honestly believes it to be in Wikipedia's best interests to delete it.  Bad faith isn't even remotely a question - let's stay a little more on topic and just discuss these things on merits.  The question to discuss is clearly "is (was) the page an attack page?" and not anything about anyone's faith. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, we'll apply the same policies to Tony Sidaway's deletion of the page, which he admits is done on the premise that he does not need to AGF on my part. I expect I'll have your support for that?  Karwynn (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that means, exactly, but I agree that every human would do well to assume good faith on the part of every other human, all the time.  Is that support? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, looking at the deleted page, I think it should have been deleted as a massive WP:DICK violation. That's not a productive way to react to what happened.  I'm pretty curious to hear what the point of this page was supposed to be, in as much detail as its creators would care to offer. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would've been a good thing to ask BEFORE you started making judgements. It was a COPY of some other guy's former post, with possible policy violations and administrative abuses.  Please see User:Karwynn/Compiling Evidence, where I am compiling possible evidence for consideration.  The guidelines of my intent are spelled out quite clearly, and I am open to questions about my intent.  I'll trust you to read those before dismissing me as a dick.  Karwynn (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't for a moment considered dismissing you, or judged you. I'm sorry for not making that clear.  I think you're someone trying to do the right thing who unintentionally made a huge dick move.  I don't blame you for it or think any less of you.  Maybe I just made a dick move, but I still think I'm a good person; why should you be different? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're not being a dick, I just wanted to make sure ou were completely informed. Now that you are, it's much easier for me to take your input constructively, so thanks.  It's dead anyway, I'm just gonna hunt down the original diff link it came from and save it, and then click the links one by one.  Karwynn (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, WP:DICK is neither a policy nor a gudeline, thus it is not criteria for speedy deletion. Karwynn (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't reckon I said "speedy", nor do I reckon I think of Wikipedia legalistically. You'll be happier when you think of is less legalistically, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in this idea of a user's private space. There is no such thing all space is wikipedia space, WP:NOT --pgk( talk ) 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that, he got it wrong. Still, the point is there was no reason to delete it in accordance with [{WP:AGF]].  Besides, the issue isn't whether people can use it, I said people could use it.  Karwynn (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an attack page--read my notes please that I put there. Bad faith nomination based on extensive previous history. rootology 16:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Attack Page: Please read the main page guidelines. This is not an attack page.  Feel free to discuss with me (what a concept!)


 * Creator of page issue I will now fix this matter


 * I have requested that you delete your attack page. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no attack pages, as I have already made abundantly clear. If you have a problem with my description of the page, please say so rather than ignoring it.  Karwynn (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted. If you want to harrass other people, do it elsewhere.  We don't have to accomodate you.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:23, 20 July 2006 (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.

Tony Sidaway's deletion
Why has Tony Sidaway taken it upon himself to speedy delete the page without even saying a word in the Misc. deletion page that has already been created for it? Is this generally considered proper, especially when his reason for deletion is something that was being debated on this very discussion? Karwynn (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it proper? It's kind of typical, but so are flame wars.  Why has he done it?  I'd say it's becuase he has poor interpersonal skills.  At times when it would be appropriate to communicate more, he communicates less instead.  It's rather frustrating, especially since his judgement about Wikipedia tends to be correct as far as what to do, and only regrettable as far as how to deal with human being while doing it.  This is a great example of a situation where Tony, and Hipocrite, have an opportunity to use communication to defuse a situation, or they could decline to communicate and foster a more disruptive situation.  Let's see what they decide... -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to Tony's unilateral decision. rootology 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that practically goes without saying. Don't follow the herring though - the only topic here is: why did this page qualify as an attack, according to multiple admins?  Maybe they'll tell us. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * GT, I am happy to communicate with you. I attempted to get these editors to remove the IP information from the page numerous times before requesting deletion - I blanked a section on one of his attack pages describing it as "This section is totally inappropriate. Connecting other editors IP addresses to their usernames in the absence of bad behavior is WRONG." This blanking was reverted wholesale. I then wrote the following in the users talk space "Please do not include information that links usernames to IP addresses in the absence of bad acts. IP addresses can be used to reveal personal information about contributors." Karwynn has more than adequate oppourtunity to remove the IP address from his assorted pages before Tony got around to removing it for him, perminantly. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well put, and all based on the premise that it was an attack page, which is the disputed issue. Karwynn (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hipocrite, thanks. What I'm hearing is basically that, since the purpose of this page was to link a user to an IP address, it has to go, speedily, because we delete personal information as a matter of non-negotiable legal policy.  Would you say that's accurate? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, except I make no statement of legality, rather that it is pure non-negotiable policy that IP addresses are not to be linked to contributors. That is why I multi-channeled it to get rid of it as quickly as possible. Given that I had been revertwarred over regarding the other IP address outing, there seemed little purpose to trying to act cooperatively with respect to this IP outing, and just shot it from every angle I could think of. If I had buttons, I honestly would have blocked both of them forever for the offence - this is probably why I don't have buttons. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, maybe so;. I guess it is unnecessary to mention the possibility of a legal aspect, especially while I'm asking others on the same page to think of WP less legalistically. ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Karwynn: I think "attack page" was a poor choice of reasons. We always delete personal information on sight.  IP address fishing is really not cool here, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at this!  I had no idea it was his IP address!  There were a bazillion other things on that page!  Why is everyone pretending not to hear me?  Why didn't anyone, anyone at all, ASK me about this before bypassing WP:AGF and saying I was fishing? I've posted this in at least half a dozen places, and it was ignored by many users, particularly Hipocrite and TOny, each and every time. Karwynn (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't post IP addresses here except for the purpose of blocking vandals. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)