Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Retartist/sandbox

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  Keep. In response to the nominator's concern about BLP violations, there's no consensus that deletion of the entire page is necessary to resolve that matter. As to the WP:LINKFARM concerns, there seems to be no support that this is a linkfarm issue. There seems that the existence of a theoretical usage for these links is sufficient and while the user is currently topic banned from Gamergate, the consensus seems to be that because it's still hypothetically possible that this material could be useful in other video games article outside of Gamergate, it's not necessary to delete at this time. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Retartist/sandbox


Page exists as a compilation of sources, many of which contain BLP violations (e.g. Gjoni's 'zoe post' blogpost.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WP:BLP covers the addition of information on living persons to Wikipedia. No information on living persons is included on this page. Sources do not contain BLP violations in & of themselves; links to sources containing information on living persons are not a violation of BLP in & of themselves. BLP is only violated when actual contentious, unsourced or poorly sourced, information on living persons is actually added to Wikipedia. The prima facie case is not substantiated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who made this page was banned from the gamergate topic area for posting these links at the talk page of gamergate controversy as they were BLP-violating. I believe your interpretation of policy is incorrect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy (WP:BLP), community consensus here & ArbCom members opinions here would seem to agree that links are not, in & of themselves, violations of the policy.
 * On a side note, do we not have better things to do than trawl through people's sandboxes? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: 'better things to do'- Please remember to assume good faith, and remember that you're as much of a participant in this as I am. Looking over the links you've provided, I find A) no community consensus in the first link and B) no arbitration statement that links cannot violate BLP.
 * I invite you to consider this: If it's impossible to violate our BLP policies by linking things, why was this editor banned for a BLP violation in linking this thing? Furthermore: How is keeping these BLP-violating links on the encyclopedia going to improve it, especially given that the editor who was keeping them was both banned because of posting them and is no longer able to post in that topic area so would find them useless going forward? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, In all honesty, "better things to do" was a comment on us both. If it was inferred as casting aspersions, then I apologise unreservedly; such was not intended.
 * I do find community consensus in the first link, based on the quality of the arguments therein, and invite editors to read & form their own opinions. For the second, I note the difference between an "Arbcom Statement" and "Arbcom members' opinions".
 * Relying on the topic ban to demonstrate that there is a BLP violation is begging the question. The case needs to be made here separately, not based on the assumption that the conclusion is true.
 * With respect to improving the encyclopedia, the philosophic burden of proof is on those wishing to delete this information to show that there is reason for its deletion; not on those opposing deletion to show that it improves things.
 * I again assert that links (outside limited Article space cases), in & of themselves, do not violate our BLP policy. In support I offer the policy itself. Editors asserting that links can & do violate BLP are invited to provide reasoning based on that policy.
 * There may be reasons why this miscellaneous page should be deleted, but I cannot concur that WP:BLP, as written, is one of them. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per the arguments of Ryk72, Having read through the discussions in the links he provided I think that there is no real reason to have the material removed. Also I invite Ryk72 to talk to me over email or my talk about BLP. The editor who made this page was banned from the gamergate topic area for posting these links at the talk page of gamergate controversy as they were BLP-violating Is tricky because obviously i think that the decision was unjust and in opposition to wider community consensus (and filed by a t-baned editor, apparently filing cases is BAN... oh wait) but still its an Oppose from me Thanks Peter for posting this on my behalf --Retartist 10:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Having read through the links in question, i fail to see how any of them violate WP:BLP only possibly excepting: 104. the zoe post (already removed but contained email transcripts), 110. (email transcripts but the actual emails aren't there so impossible to verify the truth), 112. (from 110). The rest are not in themselves BLP Violations, their reliability may be in question but that is no issue as they are not in article space. The only real reason to have this page deleted is that i can't contribute to the topic area. However, other editors can contribute and i think that they have something to gain from looking at this. Failing that, i'm going to let it be known that i intend to appeal the t-ban and block so then the deletion of this page has no reason. Thanks again Peter --Retartist 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see the purpose behind the list, but it is userspace (and sandbox) so works in progress are allowed, though should not be held indefinitely with no usage. You only listed 1 of these problematic refs, it would be helpful if you could list(by directing us to them) more, and why specifically they violate BLP.  Most of these are reliable news sources which are unlikely to hold BLP violations.  Retartist's topic ban from gamer-gate related pages didn't begin until the day after his last edit to the sandbox, so I don't really see his topic ban being relevant to this.  Even if 's interpretation of the BLP policy is correct and it applies to refs, I'm not seeing why this can't just be fixed by removing the problematic links and (possibly) WP:REVDEL. There's 10 revisions, 2 of which were the nom's, not too much effort to revdel. Userspace is also not the same as an article talk page.  People who come looking for the article aren't likely to stumble upon Retartist's sandbox. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  15:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What would be the proper procedure for requesting a reversion deletion? PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Revision_deletion Usually via emailing an admin in the category mentioned there or by IRC. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LINKFARM and WP:BLP: Wikipedia is not a repository of links, especially to sources that cannot be used on the project. For example, our uses for Breitbart as a source are essentially limited to WP:ABOUTSELF, and the sources in question are not about Breitbart. Similarly, the Quinn email dump is sourced to the self-published Yiannopoulos.net, which we can never use to discuss other living persons. These are sources that simply can never be used per our BLP policies. And even with selective pruning of the sources, we're still left with a perpetual WP:LINKFARM as the user is topic banned. Woodroar (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Looking at WP:LINKFARM, it appears to apply to Article space only. And while there may be genuine concerns about Breitbart as a reliable source for factual information, I'm not certain that we have a policy based reason for its exclusion as a source for its authors' own opinions; provided these are attributed as such (per WP:NPOV). While it might be a lively discussion on WP:RSN, I'm not sure that it's a case for deletion here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does apply site-wide, because it's our policy on what Wikipedia is not to be used for. We're not a dictionary or a webhost or, in this case, a repository of links, and so these types of content shouldn't be found in article or non-article space. (If I started a dictionary in my sandbox or hosted a game in my subpages, I would expect someone to delete that content. I mean, that's part of what MfD is for.) Of course, we're given some latitude per WP:USER, but this fails those guidelines. WP:UP makes it clear that we're not to have "[e]xtensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article". And WP:UP says that "[u]sers should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason" and says that such content should be "kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used". Keep in mind that this user is topic banned and cannot write any articles using this material. That topic ban may be overturned, of course, but if "excessive unrelated content" is already not allowed for editors who aren't topic banned, why should we allow those who are to keep it? As for Breitbart, you're right that we could use their articles in some circumstances, such as for the authors' opinions. However, we can't do that for claims about other living persons. I read each of the Breitbart articles, and every paragraph, every sentence, is about other living persons. So yes, we can generally use Breitbart when the article is discussing Breitbart itself or the author's opinions on sanctions against Cuba or net neutrality or artisanal beekeeping. But not about other people, which is the entirety of these articles. Woodroar (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The link used as an example above, described as "Gjoni's 'zoe post' blogpost", has now been removed, by agreement with the user, as discussed at User_talk:Retartist. I note that it is not "redacted" and that the removal is not based on BLP. Regards. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There are 120 links, and it is not up to editors to carefully check each and find the few that are BLP problems. By contrast, anyone wanting those links hosted on Wikipedia needs to explain how the links help the encyclopedia, and what steps have been taken to ensure no BLP problems exist. See WP:DSLOG which contains 'Retartist...indefinitely banned from "any article, page, or discussion relating to GamerGate, broadly construed" for inserting BLP-violating external links after having previously been offered guidance on such'. No page can be used as a link farm, and particularly not in such a sensitive area where multiple BLP violations by external links have occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As has already been said, Retartist's topic ban is irrelevant to this deletion discussion per WP:NPA. Retartist has not edited the sandbox since the topic ban, so it is not a violation of any topic ban.  And yes, it is the responsibility of editors to check each.  Countless policies say to remove the violating content, not the entirety.  For one such policy, Deletion_policy. I see no multiple BLP violations at external links on this page. Nom provided one, which was easily removed with the consent of Retartist. You need to provide specifics (just point the rest of us to which refs are the problem) &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly concur that it would be unreasonable, onerous & bordering on dystopian to expect editors to check the contents of each linked page.
 * Fortunately, WP:BLP does not require this. BLP relates only to "information about living persons" on Wikipedia. WP:BLPTALK explicitly states that links in non-Article space are not in violation of the policy. (Links in article space are covered either by the 3 core content policies or by WP:ELNO). So the good news is that we don't need to vet the linked pages.
 * Of course, I understand that editors views & opinions on policy will differ, and some editors will feel that links in non-Article space are covered. I invite those editors to show the sections of the policy which would support this view. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * keep Sheer BF nomination as spill over from a dispute re Gamergate.
 * Also warn PeterTheFourth that retaliatory XfDs are obvious and not tolerated. I'm also concerned that this was first MfDed by a logged-out IP, which was soon recognised as his by PeterTheFourth. A logged-out period oddly placed between his logged-in edits shortly before and after: . Surely he wasn't trying to MfD anonymously to hide his identity? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, On balance, I am forced to agree with your characterisation of the nomination. With sincere regret, and a decidedly heavy heart, I am adding an WP:SPA tag to the nomination above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. No reason to believe  was attempting anything illegitimate when making this MfD.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons why he may have been already logged out, and I am skeptical of there being anything possible to be gained in that 3 minutes that an IP had tagged the page for mfd before Peter finished the tagging from the account.  Maybe it was from a different computer.  Maybe it was from a different browser.  The fact of the matter is it was made clear to everyone reading the MfD (by PeterTheFourth) that it was by his account before anyone even saw the MfD.  The MfD hadn't even been created yet, and it was created by PeterTheFourth.  While I don't agree with the nomination, it is based on policy even if there would be a more suitable way to handle the problem than outright deletion.  Let's stay on topic.
 * I'm removing the WP:SPA tag based on WP:SPATG, specifically "Editing only within a single broad topic" there is more than enough diversity in these edits (especially without examining them more thoroughly than just the pages they happen to be on) to imply a user that just has a strong interest in a particular topic. Also, in the future, the spa tag should be "subst'd", see Template:spa &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  16:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Many thanks for your thoughts; always good to read a different opinion. Per the note on your Talk page here, I cannot concur that the topic is sufficiently "diversified" or that the editor meets the requirement of having a "diverse range of edits"; consequently, I am re-adding the tag (substituted). I trust the editor closing this discussion to form their own judgement. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think the reasoned arguments provided on this page are sufficient. Removing tag. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * delete serves no purpose. Just as well may be stored on owner's computer, if archiving is needed. -M.Altenmann >t 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ryk72's sound analysis, and also per Andy Dingley above. I see no valid concerns for deletion. Cavarrone 08:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see the BLP violations. The nominator should explain better.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2015 (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.