Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Recommend taking the discussion of such pages to a wider audience, as this isn't the first MfD about this sort of subpage. Riana ⁂ 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Psychonaut/User watchlist

 * Previous MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist

Delete Reason for Deletion (There seems to have been a bit of a snafu there where my reason got deleted before it could be migrated to this new page, never mind, all sorted now): The only purpose of the page seems to be to denigrate other editors.--Zeraeph 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC) no reason given by Zeraeph. Page created for discussion. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Violates no policy or guideline.  (Disclaimer:  I have one of the 50 pages mentioned, although I've trimmed to those which actively make mistaken edits, whether or not vandalism.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This MfD (and the previous one) has apparently arisen because the nominator objects to the inclusion of Anthony M. Benis in this list—see Articles for deletion/Anthony M. Benis for context. —Psychonaut 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, my reason is as stated above. I would have thought you would have realised that when you deleted it before anyone created this proper page I couldn't figure out how to create and it could be migrated? --Zeraeph 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to some other namespace - This is useful, but when it is under the purview of a user (or even 50 users individually) it looks like a bit of a personal vendetta. Perhaps it could be put in a list somewhere in WP space so everyone can see it, and it can be watched by everyone? MSJapan 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. My section is indepedent of Psychonaut's.  In fact, I don't think I watch any of the same pages any more.
 * I have no objection to having my page in Wikipedia space, provided that people are not permitted to remove their name or the name of a fellow traveller from the page. I can't really think of an appropriate WikiProject to put this under, though. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would consider deleting all pages of this nature, but there's a difference between sophisticated prevention of vandalism versus needless "Wikistalking".  I'd consider this particular example to fall more closely under "Wikistalking."  I disagree with the user's assertion that such data may come in handy during future dispute resolution.  If a user ever comes to RFC or ArbCom, you can worry about it then.  Maintaining a permanent record of user misconduct violates the spirit of WP:AGF.  As a user (formerly YechielMan) with a history of misconduct myself, I would feel very troubled if any user took it upon himself to keep a permanent record of everything I've done wrong. Shalom Hello 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This page has nothing to do with wikistalking. According to Wikistalking, "The term 'wiki-stalking' has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.  This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log…"  If you believe that I am harassing the users on my watchlist by following them around for the purpose of making vexatious edits to their articles, then post a report to WP:ANI. —Psychonaut 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So, what would you call it when you include an editor who hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since second of November 2006 Special:Contributions/ABenis and who frankly never harmed anybody or anything, let alone you, when he did contribute. Personally I would assume good faith call it "forgetting to clear up" if I hadn't removed the redundant entry only to find you replacing it within 20 minutes  --Zeraeph 01:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI Wikistalking now redirects to WP:HAR which defines harassment as: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.".--Zeraeph 01:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. I agree that it would be a good idea to discuss user watchlists, but this is not the place to do it.  Given that there are over 110 such lists currently extant, whether or how to regulate them should be decided at the policy level by the community. —Psychonaut 16:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I am more than a little upset by the annotation here, where a list of diffs would suffice. Can't imagine anyone needs help to remember what one dislikes about those one dislikes.  The linked list of insults is flat-out inappropriate--displaying people's insults is perpetuating ill-feeling.   I checked about half the list--about 80% are simple lists of known vandals & sockpuppets, or just lists of a few user names. Most of the rest are collected evidence from old RfAs, etc.   DGG 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the information seems to be true. Hence it is sourced. Nothing to worry about. -N 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all of those lists at once - WP:STALK, this is like maintaining a blacklist and stalking users. If you are concerned about a page, put it on your watchlist, but these pages are out of question.  Sala Skan  13:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You posted a link to WP:STALK, but have you read that policy? Keeping track of or following users around to correct errors and policy violations is not wikistalking. "Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them." (emphasis in original) —Psychonaut 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Query So, what criteria do you use for choosing WHICH particular users to follow "to correct errors and policy violations"? --Zeraeph 23:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who I happen to encounter who turns out to be persistent or far-reaching in their policy violations, and who does not seem to be actively monitored by other editors. I don't go around looking for persistent troublemakers, but I do keep notes on them when I come across them so that I (and possibly others) can spot socks and log relevant information for WP:ANI/WP:RFC/WP:RfAR reports.  —Psychonaut 23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Further QuerySo you feel that making about a hundred, good faith, edits to a handful of articles over the course of six months and not editing at all since 2 November last, like Special:Contributions/ABenis or perhaps when your sterling vigilance against an editor like myself, since November 2nd last (since just after the last aborted MFD) fails to yield any more than a single violation that is dependent on bending the 3RR almost to breaking point,   (the fourth edit being a different, minor edit removing of a link to convicted fraudulant historian David Irving that could hardly be considered WP:RS) adds up to being "persistent or far-reaching in their policy violations"?--Zeraeph 01:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given your personal involvement, I don't believe you're in a position to make an unbiased assessment of the disruption caused by your own and Benis's edits. The positive spin you've put on them above is excellent evidence of this. —Psychonaut 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I made no assessment, I simply asked you a question, could you do me the courtesy of answering that question? If you feel my account is in any way at variance with the facts you should explain why, with relevant diffs, as part of your answer? --Zeraeph 02:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per this. Will (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and censure nominator. Without regard to the page itself, this absolutely reeks of WP:POINT.  81.104.175.145 22:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator, Zeraeph, has been blocked for one week for harassment relating to this MfD. —Psychonaut 01:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Not really wiki-stalking, and could be very useful for anti-vandalism work. Besides, it's basically just a collated collection of info that's already availible Nathanww 02:15, 2 July 2007 (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.