Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season

 __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 on hold. I have just reviewed the comments and !votes on this MfD, and am prepared to close it. However, I am concerned that any close decision I could render&mdash;whether "Keep," "No consensus," or "Delete"&mdash;may further the divisiveness and discord that has already occurred. To a certain extent, division of opinion is inherent in any contested XfD, but the rancor appears particular bitter here, and I would rather see it ratcheted down than up if possible. Therefore, I invite Sally Season to render a formal closure unnecessary by voluntarily agreeing at this point to copy her (perhaps now outdated anyway) notes somewhere else and blank the page. If she agrees, this MfD will be moot; if she does not agree, for whatever reason, then I won't hold that against her and I'll close this MfD tomorrow morning. Despite the "this discussion is closed" notice, brief comments on this interim closure may be made immediately below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope this is the right place to respond. I also hope you have stayed safe and dry, if your name is any indication of your location. I see the KEEP votes have prevailed, so hooray for common sense, but I also have read on the deletion rules page that closure is based not on number of votes but on weight of arguments. You indicate you are ready to close, so that tells me you must have already weighed the arguments.  Since a valid argument has not been made to delete my notepad, that tells me much about conclusions you must have arrived at.


 * Your observation of the bitterness here can not be overstated. I'm still feeling it. I am not happy with some of the responses I gave either, but I honestly feel like I've been poked and prodded and piled upon without cause. If I had known in advance that people would take my simply notes to myself and turn them into such a circus, I certainly would have done differently from the start.  But now I am in a bit of a fix.  Like you, I also would like to "ratchet down" the rancor, but the solution you offered has already been poisoned. Veriditas has already deleted my page, claiming it it is an "enemies list" and a policy violation. My deletion of the content now would only validate his lie.  Tarc has stated, "Do us all a favor and simply stop being a disruptive drama-monger; you have the power to short-circuit all this bullshit right now by deleting the names from your user page." That is not only wrong, but vicious, and my doing what he demands and deleting that content now would only validate that filth. Can you understand my position? I know you made the suggestion with the best of intentions, as did Anna on my talk page, but the actions of others have preemptively soiled that as a solution.  My agreement now would only convey that I condone bullying.


 * You correctly observed that much of my notepad is outdated. As I explained to deaf ears on my talk page before this mess exploded, the notes are temporary and only concern ongoing matters. Most of it is gone now, as I type this, and the rest isn't likely to remain more than a day or two anyway.  I haven't had a chance to resolve those pending discussions, as my all my available wiki time has been spent here, for the most part.  My present intention is to maintain any future (after this is all resolved) wiki notes to myself on a sub-page off my user page, if that would be okay.  Even in that new location, I will still never create an attack page or enemies list, just as I haven't on my user main page.  Sincerely,Sally Season (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Closer's update: Before I decided to put the request on hold and pose my question to Sally Season, I had intended to close this discussion with a delete result. Without questioning Sally Season's good faith, the list of editors on her userpage was being reasonably perceived by at least some editors as the type of list of users that, for good reason, we don't allow on-wiki. In reaching this conclusion, I would not in any way have been endorsing any form of "lie," "filth," etc., and I'd prefer not to see that sort of rhetoric any more. I also must say that if you have spent most of your past wiki-week worried about this MfD involving 16 words on your userpage, to the exclusion of your getting much else of consequence done, then you really need to step back and reevaluate your priorities on the project.


 * Given Sally Season's response tonight, I will slightly change my plans and close this with a result of Delete (blank) in 49 hours. This appears to be consistent with Sally Season's own plans and will hopefully avoid the need to continue debating this issue.


 * In terms of future notes, Sally Season is cautioned not to create any form of list of users that can reasonably be perceived as an attack page or list of users with whom she has had unpleasant interactions. There are extremely good reasons why this type of list is not permitted on Wikipedia, which are illustrated by this MfD and similar ones that have preceded it, and date back (for those with long memories) to the Kelly Martin/B episode of (I believe it was) 2005. I reserve the right to speedy any future such pages, and I hope there will not be any. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See what links to "User:Kelly Martin/B" to find out more about that drama, which started in 2006. Graham 87 07:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Sally Season


Repeatedly blanked and restored during ANI, which was closed with page blanked. Concern that this may be a prohibited list per WP:UP (editor at ANI suggested possible conflicts list). Taking to MFD in an attempt to settle more permanently the appropriateness of this list. No unique  names  07:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-Closed with page restored, you mean, with no administrative action taken, and closed "to prevent further drama." The drama prevention was unsuccessful, as you can see below.  Same circus, different venue.Sally Season (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - my conclusion of the ANI discussion, which I participated in briefly, is that this is a list of editors that Sally Season has had negative interactions with - there appears to be evidence that names were added to the list after such interactions. The user page should be deleted, and the user warned about a) having the list in the first place and b) lying about it at ANI. GiantSnowman 08:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please justify your "lying about it at ANI" accusation? Also, please note that you are in error when you state that "this is a list of editors that Sally Season has had negative interactions with", when that is true of less than half of the list.  It is actually just notes on interactions, regardless of what you call positive or negative. I see that you call it your "conclusion", rather than fact, but for the purpose of this discussion page could you please reconcile those opposites and amend your comment?Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your silence on this is deafening. Having trouble backing up your "lying about it" remark?  Trouble supporting your "negative interactions" theory? I'm open to simply writing this off as an error in your observations, in the interest of clearing the air and restarting our interaction fresh.  Silence here will just leave a festering wound.Sally Season (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete This is where things should have gone the first time rather than an ANI thread and then an edit war on the userpage. I'm not sure if it's an "enemies list" or just a list of editors Sally has interacted with (assuming good faith I'll go with the latter). It's still inappropriate to have it, so it should go. If Sally wishes to maintain a list of editors she/he has interacted with that can be kept off wiki. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is neither an enemies list nor just a list of editors with whom I have interacted, but a set of notes to myself regarding things still left for me to do in my wiki editing. Could you please explain to me how that is "inappropriate", as you say, so that I may fix it? As for keeping notes off wiki, doesn't it make more sense for me to have my notes on wiki where they are accessible when I am on wiki?Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be focussing on content issues, not on specific interactions with editors, or what specific editors did. For example when you say rep is "shorthand for "representation", and is a note to me that something isn't right about how something was represented, probably wording from a source, or the source itself", list the source/text in question, don't list the editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do focus on content issues, and not on specific interactions with editors or what they did. Names are included in my notes to remind me to whom my past or future discussion responses are to be directed, as in your example.  Noting just a source or text would leave me wondering with whom I intended to continue discussions.Sally Season (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:UP wouldn't seem to apply here as this is, As Sally has stated, directly related to their editing on Wikipedia. I find a lot of what editors do with their home pages, comments and signatures to be extremely offensive and disruptive but I also don't dwell on those things. Where's the cutoff of what one person finds offensive another finds empowering? Perhaps there is no easy answer here but I don't think this case rises to any disruption except by those wishing Sally wasn't here at all, and that seems to be based along party lines so likely will ebb a bit after the election season has passed. I can't help but feel this is a bit of a waste of time and making something more of what it actually is. Sally has stated this isn't an enemies list and frankly who's looking at it anyway? Is it really prohibited to have a list of editors? Perhaps that's a proposal that needs scrutiny. Insomesia (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A more appropriate series of actions would involve a series of trouts being issued to the various uninvolved editors involved in this ridiculous hounding and a long block for Baseball Bugs for making a habit of the same. Is the list entirely innocent? Perhaps not. Does it fall foul of WP:POLEMIC? Don't be daft. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments presented by the "Delete" !voters so far are neither persuasive nor grounded in any policy I am aware of.  I rebut them as follows:
 * "WP:UP applies."
 * WP:UP applies only to "material not related to encyclopedia editing". Notes on and used for on-wiki collaboration are clearly related to encyclopedia editing.
 * "This is a list of users with whom Sally Season has had negative interactions."
 * There is no direct evidence of this. This is merely a list of user names with neutral, single-word annotations.
 * "Lists of users with whom one has had negative interactions are against the rules."
 * Wikipedia is replete with lists of users with whom people have had negative interactions. Some of these are "official" pages in project space (e.g., WP:LTA), and others are in user space (see User:Psychonaut/User watchlists for a partial and very outdated list).  So far no one has been able to point to any policy explicitly stating that such lists are prohibited, nor defining these lists in such a way as to make it clear whether or not Sally Season's is one of them.  Previous attempts to delete such lists have not achieved any consensus.  (The arguments presented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist may be instructive.)
 * Given that Sally Season's page is by no means unique, and that no policy specifically addresses such lists, this discussion can by no means "settle more permanently the appropriateness of this list". Editors who are interested in settling the matter need to use the usual channels to create a policy specifically treating such lists.  —Psychonaut (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Odd that you skip this part in that section "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Arkon (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not odd at all. If the section heading doesn't apply, then neither does anything in the section.  —Psychonaut (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Thumperward, but his comments are spot-on; particularly the need for a lengthy block of Baseball Bugs. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been on the receiving end of Thumper's personal attacks many times. This is par for the course. It's important to keep in mind that he didn't get his adminship in the usual way. Instead, he won it as a prize with a Long John Silver's fish-n-more lunch. That's also where he got that nifty pirate hat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Referenced policy (POLEMIC) states "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." No evidence notations adjacent to user names are either attacks or flaws. Nobody Ent 11:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per thumperward and Ent, as there are other possible uses and there isn't any negativity at this point. The discussion is more disruptive than the page so far.  If it actually goes polemic, then it can be reviewed.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons already mentioned above. Ridiculous small-minded spill-over from the USA elections. - Takeaway (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously an enemies list, and such lists are against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm listed on the page and I don't see it as an attack. Could you show where we define this as an attack page? Likewise as an enemies list? Insomesia (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating these claims over and over doesn't make them true. Please provide evidence. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See the item below called "Evidence". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is not sufficient to prove anything, unless your tin hat is malfunctioning. Insomesia (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked below. There is no evidence. Was it accidently deleted somehow? I note with interest that you avoid noting that alleged "evidence" here.Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's cleverly disguised in a bold-faced type comment called "Evidence". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that "evidence" is too cleverly disguised, because I don't see it. I do see the word in bold type below, but no evidence is there.  I'm calling your bluff, lady.  Cough up the imaginary "evidence" or please retract your lie.Sally Season (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The issue is whether the page can reasonably be viewed as an attack on specific editors - in the case at hand, and seeing SS's SPA nature and interaction with such editors, it is more than reasonable to view it as an attack page. Surely SS has a blank sheet of paper if he or she wishes to "keep notes" - user pages are singularly ill-suited for such purposes. If SS wishes to have an "evidence page", then those strictures apply. 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 is clear, and this is a guideline-based prohibition which is generally viewed as binding. The !votes for Keep do not negate the Wikipedia rules cited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this can reasonably seen as an attack page. I'm on it and certainly don't feel that way. Insomesia (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing written down that is negative in that short list. - Takeaway (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You defeated your own argument when you cited the words of the rules. It says "negative information".  There is none.  It also says if I someday wish to post negative information I may do so if it is still needed and will be imminently used, not that I ever plan to do so, but I just thought you should know.Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Arguments for delete simply aren't there. No evidence that it's anything bad. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Struck as user blocked for sockpuppetry. &mdash; Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   12:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand what the indication by my name means, but a short list containing indications of where conflicts arose with certain editors seems to be in keeping with Wikipedia policies.  If SS were not an SPA, even if not well-liked, it would certainly be in keeping with policy.  Basically, I agree with Psychonaut on this issue, and have little to add to zer reasoning.  This is not to say that I believe that Wikipedia is better for SS's editing, but this list is not related to a reason for SS to be blocked or banned.  I don't think there's grounds for a "Speedy Keep" though, as something like this list could be inappropriate.  A raw list without comments (other than as a list of editors banned from SS's talk page) would be inappropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep We delete pages that violate policy. The claim that this violates policies is a stretch too far. (I must point out I am here due to a talk page notice.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also, or I wouldn't have known about it, as SS is off my watch list. The editor who first raised the issue was Devil's Advocate. Whatever he currently thinks about this, I'd be inclined to go along with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is largely unnecessary; we simply need a cajone-laden admin to block this user if they restore the hit-list. Tarc (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * True. And since they already did restore it... well, there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidence - as already stated at the ANI thread, which I doubt everyone here has read, all the editors listed have reverted, or been reverted by, Sally Season. Example - SS reverted Arthur Rubin's edit at David H. Koch following some back and forth between the two on that article, and then added him to the list only a minute later. That looks extremely dodgy to me, and AGF can only go so far. GiantSnowman 12:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your evidence is wrong. "all the editors listed have reverted, or been reverted by, Sally Season" = outrageously false. Insomesia never reverted me, nor I her/him. No reverts with Drmies either. Collect was added after helping to improve my text, no reverts. 112.133.198.141 never reverted me, nor I her/him. Forget assuming good faith man, how about assuming some good reading skills? If I was keeping a list of reverts, as you charge, I would list Right Cow Left Coast and Belchfire and Green Rosetta and Arzel and more, wouldn't I? What ANI page were you reading anyway?Sally Season (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) comment this whole thing has been handled poorly, but we do have "evidence" "My page is simply being used as a notepad to keep track of my wiki interactions, and to-do stuff. I have already explained that, and even went so far as to explain why I use that location. There is no enemy list, that is just weird fantasy, and overlooks the fact that the notes and reminders relate to helpful and positive interactions as well as less positive ones. " I see no possible benefit to the project or the user to keep a grudge list to remind them of "less positive" encounters, even if it is mixed and merged with other content. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also see no benefit to keeping a grudge list. That's why I haven't; that's why you can not produce a grudge list. I have created a notepad to remind me of wiki interactions I am still involved with or intend to further address.  This is of benefit.  I don't have a "list of reminders of less positive encounters", by the by, so is that something you just made up for agitation?Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per the evidence above, it's obvious that this is a list of people who've reverted/been reverted by SS. Keeping such a list of editors -- along with labels like 'Rep' which are no doubt labeling someone as a Republican -- doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose.    Hot Stop     (Edits)   12:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin seems to be a Libertarian. In any case, "Rep" could stand for almost anything, but assuming it is "Republican", in what way is that negative? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's "Republican"? Why not "reputable" or "reported" or "reprimanded"?  Even if it is "Republican", it doesn't necessarily mean that Sally Season thinks he is a Republican.  Perhaps it's a note that Rubin has been editing Republican-related articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A little more common sense and a little less white-knighting for an obvious single-purpose-account would probably help you see that "Republican" is the far more likely of any of the above choices, given that this user's brief history consists entirely of anti-conservative editing. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't equate "common sense" with "a thorough examination of the user's editing history". I have not performed the latter, and don't think it's even particularly relevant to this discussion.  POV-pushing concerns should be dealt with at the appropriate venue, not here. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The two are quite equitable, and if you'd done a bit of homework before jumping to an SPA's defense without the facts, we'd all have been better off. You're making ridiculous claims that "rep" could mean things like "reputable", when a simple perusal of Special:Contributions/Sally_Season show why that is clearly not the case.  Tarc (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG Tarc do you apply that same lack of logic when you work on wiki articles? Why haven't you been ejected yet? Hot Topic please actually look at the page, you'll see that "this is a list of people who've reverted/been reverted by SS" is not only false, but opposite. Please amend your comment to reflect reality rather than fantasy.Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, a perusal of Special:Contributions/Sally_Season exposes the lie. Do us all a favor and simply stop being a disruptive drama-monger; you have the power to short-circuit all this bullshit right now by deleting the names from your user page. Tarc (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Matching your civility in turn, you are a clueless moron. A perusal of your Special:Contributions/Tarc, and user pages exposes the drama-queen. You sought me out, not I you, and now you will need to peddle your bullshit elsewhere.Sally Season (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference, my dear, is that I do not keep hit lists on my user page. There are certain lines that simply shouldn't be crossed.  You not only crossed it, you took a flying leap and never looked back. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You do know that "hit list" fantasy has been shown to be false and absurd, right? But you just go right on.  I understand that's your thing.Sally Season (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You say it is "false and absurd", but many people here do not seem to believe you. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't say it is false and absurd, the facts and edit histories prove it. I can't be concerned with the few who say they don't "believe" me, as there will always be flat-earther types. Some people just have an aversion to facts and reality, but there is nothing I can do about that, other than press them to produce factual substantiation until they fall silent in embarrassment. Which reminds me, how's that "Rep" = Republican theory of yours coming along?Sally Season (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Neither from the page itself nor from the so-called 'evidence' can it be concluded that this is a list of personal attacks or that there are any other breaches of rules and guidelines. I agree that this has been handled very poorly: the very first step, if any, should have come from the people listed there, not from a totally uninvolved editor. My advice to Sally Season to avoid future drama of this kind would be to put the list on a subpage like User:Sally Season/notes where it is less obviously displayed. De728631 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP. Per User:Dennis Brown and many others here. No one has provided a credible reason for deleting this, and the drama board and its denizens seem keen to waste everyone's time with this rather than making an encyclopedia. One can also easily argue the other side of the silly arguments they make: Sally is a new user, so in keeping track of interactions s/he might become a better editor. Perhaps this editor wants to make note of people who are knowledgeable (especially after a revert, since that might indicate to a new user that they've inadvertently introduced bad edits) such that they might learn from them. Baseball bugs and so on seem to be forgetting about WP:AGF. Note: I was invited here on my talk page T. trichiura Infect me 14:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Struck as user blocked for sockpuppetry. &mdash; Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   12:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Psychonaut and Dennis Brown. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [ec with JohnCD: John, it's always nice to see you.] I'm not really interested in this page and have no opinion one way or the other. I'd like to know why I'm on it, I guess, since I'm no policy buff--I suppose this is meant in irony or sarcasm, but I can't be bothered to care. I am stepping in as an admin here to fully protect the page for the duration of the MfD. As it happens, it's the unblanked version, which is the wrong version of course (but it always is); if anyone wants the list blanked while this MfD is running, I guess they can email ArbCom or file an Arbitration Request. Or get the president to intervene, claiming that national security is at stake. Or maybe an admin can speedily delete it for being divisive. ;) Good luck to everyone here, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I think putting question marks or exclamation marks next to an editor's name inherently draws suspicion that there is something negative being stated or implied and Sally has not been willing to offer an explanation for the list, despite repeated civil requests. The circumstances that led to Arthur being listed, which Snowman notes above, make me suspect that this list is not simply a constructive log of interactions. Unless Sally offers a plausible and respectable explanation, it should be deleted. Surely, Sally can take notes about editors off-wiki without any difficulty and no one has to be left guessing as to the editor's intentions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above arguments, especially The Devil's Advocate and OP. Very suspicious. User's stubborn attitude does not help. –  Richard  BB  14:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Here is a better argument from Devil's Advocate: "Sally has provided an explanation for at least some of the details of the list a little bit above for those who want some understanding. Honestly, I think it does need to be made clear on the page what the notes mean, but the explanation Sally gives seems reasonable enough."Sally Season (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per policy (WP:Attack): "keeping a 'list of enemies' ...on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate." Sprinkling in a couple friends  (at the end) does not help.  The first five listed people (of the seven total) are obviously listed as a result of having reverted, or been reverted by, the list-keeper earlier this month.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "reverted" theory has already been shown to be incorrect, and I've "sprinkled" nothing. See "Evidence".Sally Season (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Insomesia.-- В и к и  T   15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is nothing the slightest disruptive about the user page maintained by the user himself. The disruption is the witchhunt against the user and his page by people that need to butt out. This is nothing more than an aid to memory for a user about wikipedia interactions. Nobody is accused of anything yet the page has been repeatedly blanked, as if messing with the user pages of others is standard operating procedure and there is something inherently and obviously wrong with the page's content. There isn't. Shameful that this is even being brought up for deletion... Carrite (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In what instance would reminders about "as well as less positive" interactions, (as the editor has indicated the list to be) be of any value to either the editor or the project? A list of editors who know how to format tables or the intricacies of hummingbird polination or interpretation of copyright application would be perfectly fine. Grudge lists arent, and grudge lists candy coated and dispersed among other potentally acceptable data are not either. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's so he can WP:DISENGAGE from those editors. Please remember to assume good faith T. trichiura Infect me 16:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. Arkon (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Enemies lists are barred even if they are intended to somehow help the list-keepers avoid the enemies. And that was obviously not the intent here. Sally reverted Arthur Rubin at 22:13 on 18 October.  Then added Rubin to shit list at 22:14 on 18 October. Then (at 00:44 on 19 October) reinserted content that Arthur Rubin and another editor had both removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at your example again, please. Yes, Arthur reverted an edit of mine, and I reverted his edit, but then Arzel immediately reverted me just as Arthur did. If I am keeping a "shit list", why did I only add Arthur and not Arzel, when they both made the same revert of my edits?  I'll tell you why: BECAUSE THAT ISN'T WHAT MY NOTES ARE ABOUT. I noted Arthur because of his error statement that "concedes" wasn't in my source, when it actually was, and I wanted to discuss that with him.  Arzel never made that misstatement to me. Occam would hate you.Sally Season (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You guys can keep stating over and over that it's an enemies list, but it will still not be a proven fact. Sorry, facts don't work that way. Neither of these comments moves the discussion forward. T. trichiura Infect me 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And you can keep being dense. The relevant part of the policy states "perceived as...", which as this discussion makes clear, is what is happening. Arkon (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think making a personal attack against me will help your case against what you apparently perceive to be a personal attack. This discussion does not make anything clear, and it seems like most here disagree with your position. T. trichiura Infect me 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As your non-response here shows, I'm afraid you are in spade territory. In fact, why don't you respond to TDA above, telling him why he's wrong. Since he's actually -on- the list. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've responded repeatedly and clearly shown the fallacies in your (plural) arguments more than once. Perhaps you need to read more carefully. You're in POINT territory now, I fear. But I've already forgiven you. T. trichiura Infect me 20:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, I made exactly one argument in this thread, and you didn't even attempt to refute it. Again, go take your 'There's no way anyone could have a problem with this list' argument to the people on the list who -do- have a problem.  Or continue your empty arguments, whichever. Arkon (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you refuse to get the point I'm actually making and prefer it in a mischaracterized way. No problem. T. trichiura Infect me 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete People on the list have asked why they are on it.  These questions have been evaded.  It does not take bad faith to then assume that it is a list of 'perceived flaws' as per the user page policy.  This should be removed without the need for this MFD.  But since we are here... Arkon (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Others on the list have said keep, and don't agree with the discussion's hysteria at all which has far eclipsed any perceived disruption. Insomesia (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a disgraceful witch hunt, with people just making things up. What is so wrong with Sally Season keeping a reference list of names on one of his or her user pages? It may well be a list of users Sally Season has had disagreements with. So what. Where are the "attacks"? People in this thread are just making attacks up, and are themselves making the only real attacks here. Such strange times. I even agree with Thumperward and Arthur Rubin. As Chris says, don't be daft. Surely the current silly season has exhausted itself by now. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All of your sentences that ended with '?' are answered by many people above. What's disgraceful is your lack of reading what's been said.  Arkon (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Removing someones personal page opens to many flood gates for reasons to delate others personal page for the same flawed reasons. --216.81.81.81 (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. –  Richard  BB  19:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been advised to avoid this mass absurdity and let it die down, but some people have crossed the line with their fabrications and insults of me, so here I am again, for better or worse. Put on your thinking caps for a moment and consider the following questions. I won't answer them for you (again!), I'll leave that up to you.

1- I've been accused of creating an "enemy list" or "attack page". I say that I don't have any enemies yet (definitely some disagreements though!), and that my page contains no attacks, and that it is instead a notepad of interactions (good, bad, stupid, whatever) and to-do notes. Look at the actual evidence and compare it to the lies and conspiracy theories and answer: which is it?

2- It's been suggested that "Rep" on my notepad means "Republican", and it has also been suggested that astronauts never landed on the moon, but instead landed in Hollywood. Speaking only to the first suggestion, that isn't what it means. It's shorthand for "representation", and is a note to me that something isn't right about how something was represented, probably wording from a source, or the sorce itself. The characters ? or ! usually indicate I plan to question for more information, or I plan to make a statement on it. I have no way to know if someone is a Republican, nor do I care. And why, in the name of internet gods would I note a stranger's political voting registration designation on my page? Really?

3- It's been suggested that me being reverted by someone, or me reverting someone, makes me and that someone "enemies", and therefore listing that someone on a notepad creates an enemies list. I say that people making that suggestion are wrong in the head, and they need to grow thicker skin and not consider "disagreements=enemies", and they need to seriously practice their deductive reasoning skills. Now look at the evidence and answer: Do names get on my list because a revert has been done, or because there has been more general interaction that concerns me. Don't struggle too hard with this one!

4- It has been stated that I have "refused" to explain, or "evaded" explanation of my notes to myself. I say that these idiots making these statements give themselves away by not citing even one such refusal, and that I did explain on my talk page that it was just notes of interaction, and any further pressing for more detailed information of my notes was an invasion of my personal business. By the by, only Advocate has pushed for more details on what is not his business, and even with him I didn't refuse, but instead suggested a trade of dialog. So which is reality? Sally Season (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing a cogent explanation. Please understand that people are not going to be immediately familiar with your note-taking process so when you use a shorthand it can confuse people as to the meaning of the notes. I would suggest you take De728631's advice and move this list to a sub-page. Explaining the significance of the notes more clearly would also be important to prevent people from thinking that there is any ill intent.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would moving it to a subpage make a difference. If I side Joe Blow is douche, does it matter where I say it?    Hot Stop     (Edits)   12:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I use it for wiki business. Try reading again.Sally Season (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTHOST. I'm not too concerned whether it's an attack page or not (I tried adding my own address, but the page is protected).  Wikipedia pages are supposed to only be used for encyclopedic purposes.  We're usually pretty loose about user page contents, but if a page has been questioned by multiple other users as this one has, it's incumbent on the page author to explain the page's encyclopedic purpose when asked.  "It's not your concern" is not a valid answer in a collaborative project where users don't own pages (including user pages).  "Your personal business" is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia pages (consider getting a pen and some paper if you don't want to use external hosting).  "There is no rule against it" is also never a valid justification for anything.  Since Sally Season has repeatedly refused to supply a clear and believable explanation of how this page helps the project, the page should go.   67.119.3.105 (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not explained the wiki business with enough clarity, so people aren't convinced, and in this situation the onus is on you rather than them to show that the use is productive. The page is basically pointy disruption by now.  I'm not currently calling for a block against you, but maybe it will come to that. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Point out just 1 attack.Sally Season (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete essentially an attack list, should not be web hosted on wikipedia. Blethering  Scot  22:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This page can reasonably be construed as an enemies list and is therefore disruptive. It has zero benefit towards the encyclopedia.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The only proof offered so far proves it's a list of editors the user has interacted with, which Sally Season flat out stated. Where is there any evidence this is more than that? What litmus test do we hold it up to declare it an enemies list or any kind of attack? Insomesia (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw this page about a week ago, and it sure looked like an enemies list to me. Apparently a lot of other editors agree.  If SS were to clean this page up and state it's purpose, or even state on the page it is NOT an enemies list, then I would strike my !vote.  The fact that he won't do this is disruptive.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We could cater to the fears of every editor on every issue but luckily we can instead employ common sense. You say it's an attack page or enemies list yet no evidence to support this fringe theory really exists. Instead a very reasonable explanation amidst all this drama has been provided. Perhaps actually taking the very simple explanation to heart is all that's needed. Insomesia (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sally has provided an explanation for at least some of the details of the list a little bit above for those who want some understanding. Honestly, I think it does need to be made clear on the page what the notes mean, but the explanation Sally gives seems reasonable enough.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I cannot grasp how anyone can support a page which contains a list of "bad" and "stupid" interactions with fellow editors, as SS has admitted. GiantSnowman 08:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of grasping. Sædon talk  08:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are you implying is grasping at straws? It can't possibly be GiantSnowman; his argument seems to be sound. –  Richard  BB  08:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If his argument only seems to be sound then it's unlikely that it can't possibly be him (or her) to whom I am referring. Sædon talk  08:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I'd say his argument is sound; unless there are issues you can pick with it? I can't see where he is grasping at straws. –  Richard  BB  08:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that a parenthetical remark characterizing a set of interactions as "good, bad, stupid, whatever" immediately following an explicit denial of intent to attack should be viewed as a very minor error in wording (at the very worst), especially considering the harassment this new user has had to endure. If my first month of WP was filled with Bugs et al saying the kind of BS he said yesterday on my talk I would have left WP long ago (specifically excluding TDA, who I think was very fair).  Sædon talk  08:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * SS also admitted at the ANI thread that the list contained "less positive [interactions]." The two admissions, combined with his crummy attitude (accusing everyone of being busy-bodies, to get a life, that comments were stupid etc.) and delay in giving any explanation means AGF is very, very low at the minute. GiantSnowman 09:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Three points: 1. Some of the editors involved in the original discussion are busy bodies, others can reasonably be perceived to be from the perspective of a new user.  2. This entire situation is stupid.  As a matter of fact, if I'm excluding conversations with creationist SPAs, the conversation I had with Bugs about this is the most stupid conversation I've had on WP.  Bugs should have his ANI topic ban reinstated for instigating this dramatic bullshit.  I know this isn't related to SS's use of the word stupid, I'm just pointing it out  3.  You are an established editor (one for whom I have plenty of respect), an admin and a respected member of this community; honestly I'm surprised to see this coming from you.  Part of being an admin is being a steward for new users and in this particular instance I believe in good faith that you are forsaking your duties.  At this point The Devil's advocate has acknowledged SS's explanation and I believe you should as well.  Sædon talk  09:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not forsaking any duties. Let's take a step back and look at this properly. An editor has a list of names of other editors on their user page, with cryptic abbreviations and symbols next to them. The list is completely unexplained. It is later discovered that the editor in question has had negative interactions with those listed on his page. Explanations are asked for. Explanations are not given. When explanations were eventually given, I viewed them as unsatisfactory, and as stated earlier, the editor's attitude to the whole matter certainly hasn't helped. I'm not defending the way this has been carried out, but I will defend the rights of a large numbers of editors (myself included) to raise concerns about such a list. GiantSnowman 09:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Now let's really take a step back Giantsnowman, and look at reality instead of your slightly twisted version. An editor has a list of notes including article names, editor names and '!' and '?' symbols. The list was explained as a notepad of ongoing interactions, and the reasoning for keeping those notes on-wiki was also explained on the editor's user page. Some of those editors have positive interactions with the editor in question, some have negative interactions, some have no interaction whatsoever. Further, more detailed explanations are asked for by just one editor (Advocate). The editor in question says sure, and offers a trade of dialog (see talk page). Explanations already given totally disprove Giantsnowman's conspiracy theories, so she decides to shift gears and blame it on "attitude".Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment — it seems to me it's about now that Sally Season should take down the page his/herself. It's clearly becoming an issue. Even if many people are voting keep, the fact that so many other people have an issue with this means that the page is becoming disruptive. Even if it is here for purely innocent reasons, it's probably best to take it down regardless and keep these notes elsewhere (may I suggest Google Docs if you are between computers?). –  Richard  BB  09:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting Dennis above, "The discussion is more disruptive than the page so far."  Sædon talk  09:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree; the discussion seems fine to me. Besides, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it wasn't for the existence of the page. –  Richard  BB  09:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And if it wasn't for this discussion then perhaps you, me, GS and 20 other editors would be building an encyclopedia right now. Sædon talk  09:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to do both. Besides, by that logic, every AfD discussion — or, indeed, every discussion on Wikipedia — is a waste of time and should be eschewed. –  Richard  BB  09:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Saedon - using your logic, one could make the argument that maintaining a list of editors one has had a less-than-savoury interaction with is not building the encyclopedia. GiantSnowman 09:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The point of WP:BURO is that we don't agonize over whether a particular list of editor names with annotations satisfies WP:UP. If this were a court of law, the above "keep" comments would be correct as the list is crafted so no line is crossed. However, this is Wikipedia, and it is clear that a list of editor names with no satisfactory explanation is creepy and unhelpful to the community. Just delete it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please point to the policy that delineates who is allowed to judge what is creepy, by what what standards. I'd like to employ this new tool to eliminate all sorts of nonsenses I feel is creepy. I'd like to start with witch hunts and wikihounding in general. Insomesia (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You said "it is clear that a list of editor names with no satisfactory explanation", which is totally false. Please visit my talk page where I did explain that page. And it is 16 words, most of which are not editor names. Opsec isn't a name, policy isn't a name. Those look like, OMG! notes! If a to-do list is creepy to you there is not much I can do about that.Sally Season (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Johnuniq. "Creepy" just about sums it up. StAnselm (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read this comment by user The Devil's Advocate here in this MfD. They were the one who started questioning Sally Season's list in the first place on their talk page. TDA seems quite satisfied with Sally Season's explanation so why is this witch hunt still going on? - Takeaway (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TDA doesn't represent everyone here. Just because he's satisfied, that doesn't mean we are. –  Richard  BB  12:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the "we" would bother reading the user's quite reasonable explanation I think the need for fomenting further angst would disappear. Insomesia (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can assure you, I read it when it was posted. –  Richard  BB  12:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Must be blood lust then because five of the original eight mentioned in the list have now expressed that they have no problems with it or have neutral feelings. I can't recall what the other three have said, if they have said anything at all, about this list. - Takeaway (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've said, it is utterly irrelevant and beyond the point that five of those editors are satisfied. Not all of us are. –  Richard  BB  11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thumperwad and Ent. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious, unambiguous enemies list related to personal disagreements with users on Koch-related articles. The hemming and hawing about the list is not convincing at all.  I would be here voting delete if it was pro or anti-Koch.  The list serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to troll and antagonize the community. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I am convinced you are trolling or playing a joke.Sally Season (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep if I am allowed to vote on this, for reasons clearly explained above. Of course by "Keep", I mean until I modify or remove contents from it on my own volition, and not at the point of a gun held by lunatics, conspiracy theorists and busy-bodies. I did state in the explanation (that I never gave LOL!) that the notes were temporary.  If there are any "enemies" on any of my pages, I would appreciate if they would make themselves known to me.Sally Season (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This whole affair speaks volumes about WP. First off, the editor works on hot-topic articles related to a heated, ongoing election. Conflict ensues. The list is made out of article space, obviously a personal aid to memory. Those offended by the editor's work on mainspace, arguably POV-driven, for their own reasons, arguably POV-driven, launch an offensive against the editor for the ciphers on his user page. Drama ensues and people flood in with earnest opinions, pro and con. Debate over ludicrous little list, best left ignored, easily transferable to a scrap of paper off wiki, I note, becomes huge distraction, generating much heat and little light, bad feelings on both sides, and burning thousands of words and many volunteer hours at ANI and here. Jesus. Live and let live. Assume good faith. It's not an unambiguous enemies list, why are we here??? Carrite (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Another comment - Wikipedia is currently at the tail end of one of the most destructive dramas in it's history, with many of the best editors ceasing to contribute. The lights are dimming. And now remaining users are doing things like this! There is nothing wrong with Sally Season's edits to article space. In fact, they seem thoroughly competent for a starting editor. There are no attacks on Sally Season's talk page. It is just a list of editors they have had interactions with, some positive. The attacks made against Sally Season's talk page are paranoid attacks. They are paranoid because they are not grounded in reality. There are no attacks on the talk page, and people here are just spinning out fantasies in their minds. It is this page itself that is an attack page, and should be deleted from Wikipedia. If this was an edit war, it should be enshrined in wp:lame. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it. The list is selective, far from a complete list of editors with whom Sally has had interactions.  The first five of the seven listed editors had negative interactions.  No plausible reason for selectively listing those editors has been given, and it gives every appearance of an enemies list or grudge list or shit list, with a couple additional names added for fun.  Sally can easily watchlist whoever she wants, so this list serves no useful Wikipedia purpose, and it's a bad precedent for editors to start posting shit lists on their user pages. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's not allowed to only remind oneself of those people who one finds personally notable? The anti's are becoming curioser and curioser.... As for the watchlist "controversy", the answer can be found here. - Takeaway (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is patently absurd to argue that Sally did not know about watchlists, because she does now. There are enough grudges and vendettas at Wikipedia, and you can hardly blame editors at this page for trying to combat the WP:IDONTLIKEYOU mentality.  Even if Sally does not have that mentality (I have no idea), the kind of list she has plainly facilitates that mentality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I would have an enemy list, I'd never put it on my user page for everyone to see. But if I did put up an enemy list on my user page, I'd dunk it full of insults. This is, as everyone can clearly see, not the case here. Epipelagic is correct in their assessment of the paranoid reaction of certain individuals and this whole exercise in futility can only be seen as an attack on Sally Season. It's strange that showing this amount of bad faith is allowed here on Wikipedia. I am quite certain that most of the editors that exhibit this bad faith here, would normally raise hell if someone else did. - Takeaway (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that diff Takeaway. All users who have voted "delete" should read that, so I'll quote it here...
 * Thank you Sædon, that is a helpful link. I remembered seeing "Watchlist" somewhere before, but it has since become a little star at the top of my article screens so I didn't recognize it. I am using my page as a temporary notepad. Is that okay?Sally Season (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You comment, Anythingyouwant, that the list "gives every appearance of an enemies list or grudge list or shit list". No it doesn't, you're just making that up. The list gives every appearance of being just a list. Try flicking your fantasies aside and just examine what is actually there. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The excuse that she did not know how to use a Watchlist is absurd, because she does know now. Wikipedia has many rules that apply to people of good faith as well as people of bad faith.  For example, no matter how much an edit deserves to be reverted, it cannot be reverted if that would violate WP:3RR.  Whether this is a grudge list or not, it's better to remove all lists like this than to allow some users to have grudge lists.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't make sense. You first say "Whether this is a grudge list or not..." and then end with "to allow some users to have grudge lists." In one sentence you start seemingly reasonable but end it again with an unfounded accusation that you present as if it is a fact. Just repeating the words "enemy list", "attack list" or "grudge list" as has been done here, on the AN/I, and on Sally Seasons talk page, without there being any proof whatsoever, and against everything Sally Season says, won't suddenly turn that innocent list into one. - Takeaway (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need proof that it is an enemies list. Just like we don't need proof that an edit in violation of WP:3RR is a bogus and harmful edit.  If a list of names could rationally be perceived as a grudge list then it should go, even if it isn't one.  (Just like it's better that some guilty people should go free than have one innocent person imprisoned.) Sheesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reminder - Please correct me if I am wrong but five of the original eight mentioned in the list have now expressed that they have no problems with being mentioned on that list and the three remaining editors have not reacted to them being mentioned on the list. If an editor isn't allowed to mention "interesting Wikipedia editors" on their user page, then we should immediately go through all other user pages here on Wikipedia after we've burned Sally Season on the stake in order to rid the rest of Wikipedia of this terrible evil. As for your commendable statement "it's better that some guilty people should go free than have one innocent person imprisoned., here you are actually doing quite the opposite: "imprisoning one innocent person, lest any guilty go free." - Takeaway (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked to be corrected if you are wrong, and clearly you are wrong, for example because one of the original eight (Mollskman) went to the extreme of removing himself from the list given that Sally refused to do so. Likewise, the idea that we are trying to "imprison" Sally could not be more wrong: all we're doing is trying to get her to use her watchlist instead, which should serve every legitimate purpose she might have.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are wrong Anythingyouwant. You missed this reply by Mollskman. Please do your homework better next time. So you are saying that Sally Season is allowed to have an enemy list if she so wanted, as long as it's hidden away as a watchlist? And what happened to your nice words about erring on the side of caution? You don't want to do that any more? - Takeaway (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Mollskman said he doesn't want to be on the list, and he removed himself from the list, so your statement was clearly wrong. Anyway, I've got lots to do before mega-storm Sandy hits, so have a wonderful day (I'm limiting that to one "day"!)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You really don't read what you don't want to read isn't it Anythingyouwant? So, just for you and all others who are like you, I'll post Mollskman's reply here: ok. I don't remember the interaction but I NEVER make errors, j/k. I don't think having the list is the best idea, especially with all the drama surronding it now, but I also hate restrictions and would rather err on the side of giving a user a benefit of the doubt. I am not doing to vote on the deletion request one way or the other since my name was removed. Also, do you know about adding colons ":" to the thread to have your comments indented "correctly"? This would also be a "good" practice but again, I hate rules :) --Mollskman (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC). Just in case you might not know this, "j/k" means "just kidding". - Takeaway (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Takeaway, three questions: 1) what criteria would this user page have to meet in order to be defined as an "enemies list"? According to its page history it already is an enemies list, when you compare the dates of interaction with the users listed.  2) should the community delete enemy lists in user space?  3) does the community have a track record at MfD of deleting enemy lists in user space? Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is too funny!!! You ask me a question but you don't want my answer because you have already answered for yourself that it is an enemy list. Forget enemy list, think "interesting people list". For many people, a difference of opinion doesn't automatically make the other an enemy but it is apparent that you, and others here, do think that way. You people seem to think that one is either a "friend" or an "enemy" with nothing in between (or outside) these two categories. Why is that? Don't you think it is a bit of a simplistic world view? - Takeaway (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any humor here. I have my own opinion about the list, but this has no bearing on your opinion, nor the question I've asked you. Referring to individuals as "you people" is often considered a form of incivility, in the same way as keeping lists of people you disagree with on your user page, so it is somewhat ironic for you to accuse me of your own misdeed.  I think the page history and intersection between users shows that it is a list of enemies.  When this was pointed out to the user for the first time, he deliberately added non-enemies to confuse people. The enemies in this case were people who the user reverted, editors who reverted him, or users who complained about him.  I don't believe this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia user space and I've recommended their deletion. Viriditas (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Veriditas, IF one were to ignore the inaccuracies and omissions in your description of events, and IF one were to flush good faith down the toilet and assume the worst possible faith, one could possibly come to the same incorrect conclusion you have. Now let's get back to reality and accuracy. 1- I don't have any enemies at wiki to list. Discussions, even those involving disagreements and reverts, do not enemies make. Being less experienced means I'm likely to be frequently reverted, but it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to argue back. 2- Your description of "When this was pointed out to the user" is not what happened.  You deleted my user page without warning, and called it an enemies list in the edit comment. When I noticed this, I didn't "deliberately added non-enemies to confuse people" (please don't be a fuck) as you claim, I undid your deletion, commented that it was not an enemy list, and added some annotations to the notepad to help remove YOUR confusion. When I did add another name, he too was one of these you describe as an "enemy", not a "non-enemy added for confusion", and we're talking days later. 3- During that same time frame I had reverted or been reverted by many others beyond the 4 mentioned on my notepad, yet those other "enemies" were not noted. Oh hon, another hole in your theory! The fact is, Viriditas, reverting me doesn't get you on to my notepad, as the many who have reverted or argued with me can attest.  Neither does being a "non-enemy".  Other people were mentioned on my notepad simply as a reminder to follow up on stuff with them, like researching a source, asking for clarification, or finding a policy, or better explaining something.  I can understand how an incomplete, very brief glance at the situation might leave you with an incorrect conclusion, but you have gone far beyond that.  You are the person who said, "The list serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to troll and antagonize the community."  No, you are not merely mistaken because you didn't examine the facts, Viriditas, you are intentionally manufacturing this drama and feeding on it.  I've never seen you at any article before, and you came to my page uninvited and uninvolved just to cause shit.Sally Season (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Slinging mud hoping that it sticks. Very subtle tactic... (this last bit was meant as sarcasm) - Takeaway (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've said could be misconstrued as "slinging mud" in any way, so perhaps you've misunderstood something you've read. Could you please answer the questions I've asked you about enemies lists and how the community deals with them?  Ignoring questions while continuing to discuss is generally frowned upon here. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Frown what you will and sling mud as much as you will. :) - Takeaway (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Sally Season has stated that she keeps the list in order to record good and bad interactions she has with other users. The list consist solely of usernames and a few code words. Some users have expressed that they see the list as a grudging list, while others have stated they find it creepy or similar. Others again see no problem with it. But I think there is enough people who have expessed that they are uncomfortable with the list (and I am among them) to state that such a list is disruptive and that it is better for the community to have it deleted. Allowing the list now will allow the user to add new users, who will raise new concerns and we will be back here again. The accusation of a witch hunt appears pretty baseless. I am confident that Sally Season is capable of contributing to the encyclopedia in a good way without having the list in question on her userpage. As IRWolfie mentions in a reply upthread she will be well served by focusing on content rather than users: like keeping a note of the policy she has been discussing rather than the user she was discussing with. Iselilja (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Iselija, you have "DYK" from the main page on your user page. I am confident that you can contribute to the encyclopedia in a good way without having the DYK list. I therefore move that your user page be deleted. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a complete and total Strawman argument. –  Richard  BB  15:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the perfunctory "straw man" complaint, blue link and all. In Wiki-speak, "straw man" and "ad hominem" mean: "I am unable to rebut your argument". Actually, this is reductio ad absurdum: using a silly example to point out the silliness of an argument. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the DYK list is not a list of editors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously. My point was that Iselilja makes the weak argument that the list on the user page is not necessary to edit Wikipedia. A user page in general is not necessary to edit Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the DYK list is hardly essential for my contributions to Wikipedia. Which is why I wouldn´t hesitate to take it down if users in good standing voiced any sincere concern about it. Other than that, I am not going to get into a discussion back and forth about this. I have stated my view and I stand by it. Iselilja (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Iselilja, please do not put words in my mouth. You said, "Sally Season has stated that she keeps the list in order to record good and bad interactions she has with other users." I certainly did not say that, because it isn't true. I said I note on my page interactions that are unresolved or pending. The "record good and bad" charge is either a fabrication of yours, or you are quoting one of the drama queens here.  "Good", "Bad", "Stupid" or whatever never enter into the equation when I'm making notes to myself, and I have said as much. Those are attributes other people have tried to attribute to my notes to bolster their weird fantasies. Just like you, I would remove notes if users in good standing voiced any sincere concerns.Sally Season (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not going into further discussion since this discussion thread is already so long, just a reference regarding the statement you quoted. From ANI, Sally Season: "My page is simply being used as a notepad to keep track of my wiki interactions, and to-do stuff. I have already explained that, and even went so far as to explain why I use that location. There is no enemy list, that is just weird fantasy, and overlooks the fact that the notes and reminders relate to helpful and positive interactions as well as less positive ones." w/r Iselilja (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You misquoted me. You replaced some of my words with '...' elipsis, which should never be done if that will change the meaning or the context of the quote, as it did here. So I replaced your elipsis with the real text above, and marked it up as underlined for you. Your misquote made it appear that I said I use my notepad to keep track of positive and less positive interactions, which is opposite of what I said.  The information you omitted makes clear that I ONLY mentioned the "positive" word to show that the "enemy list" charge is absurd, and not that I keep track of such things.  I checked the link to ANI you provided, and as I suspected, you cut and pasted that misquote right from "TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom"'s comment, instead of my actual words.  Mischaracterize what I have said again, and I will escalate the matter, and it will not be pretty.Sally Season (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep until it is proven to be a hit list. Not just 'obviously' or 'in my view', but proven. It might be better kept on a subpage, like I do with my list of other Wikipedias where I've edited. They are both personal lists to do with the encyclopaedia. Not necessarily furthering it, but of use to the contributor concerned. There is no overt attacking in Sally's list (or mine...) that I can see. Peridon (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of evidence would convince you? I received no answer to this question, but I've already indicated where the evidence can be found. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know till I see it. Haven't yet. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I am against "forcing" users to do anything unless there is a really really strong reason and really really solid evidence to do so. I know this might seem like "backing down", but if the user could maybe at least move this "list" to a sub page, that would be a nice start towards compromise. --Malerooster (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is too much! The Wikipedian in question has explained that she uses her page as a notepad because she has no access to her own PC. This explanation is good enough for me, and I consider others demands she stop using it in this way as pure micro-management.


 * I would also like to add that this discussion is a waste of valuable energy and time that should be channeled instead to building Wikipedia. Just my $.02Ottawahitech (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - While it would be easy to just assume that a list of 7 editors is an enemy's list and, therefore, not permitted in Userspace, it would require a suspension of WP:AGF. "Evidence" presented is not persuasive. Achowat (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur with Collect's comments above; and as Richard BB says, User's stubborn attitude does not help. &mdash; Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My stubborn attitude? You don't know the half of it, hon. I've been falsely accused of lying, trolling, being a sock, all without justification.  The more they fling it at me, the stronger my resolve and stubbornness will grow.  Since you concur with Collect, does that mean you, too, will fall silent like he has when pressed for evidence supporting his "attack page" charge?Sally Season (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Sally. Some people make things up and become very unpleasant and very self righteous on this site. It's not fair, that's for sure, but dealing with it is just the price you have to pay if you want to become a content editor. Don't take it too seriously.--Epipelagic (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - After much contemplation, the short version is that I have decided to Assume Good Faith. Let's move on. Jus  da  fax   01:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Break for manageability
The above was a lot of fun. No, really, just a totally wonderful way for me to spend my time. Coppied from my talk page, what the people mentioned in my notes (you know, the people that matter here) have to say:


 * Arthur Rubin says, "I don't understand what the indication by my name means, but a short list containing indications of where conflicts arose with certain editors seems to be in keeping with Wikipedia policies. If SS were not an SPA, even if not well-liked, it would certainly be in keeping with policy."


 * Adventurous Squirrel says he isn't about to bring me up at ANI for any reason, and "We resolved or are resolving our differences on article talk pages."


 * Mollskman says, "ok. I don't remember the interaction but I NEVER make errors, j/k. I don't think having the list is the best idea, especially with all the drama surronding it now, but I also hate restrictions and would rather err on the side of giving a user a benefit of the doubt. I am not doing to vote on the deletion request one way or the other since my name was removed."


 * Devil's Advocate says, "Sally has provided an explanation for at least some of the details of the list a little bit above for those who want some understanding. Honestly, I think it does need to be made clear on the page what the notes mean, but the explanation Sally gives seems reasonable enough."


 * Drmies left his name on the notepad and locked the page, saying, "I'm not really interested in this page and have no opinion one way or the other. I'd like to know why I'm on it, I guess, since I'm no policy buff--I suppose this is meant in irony or sarcasm, but I can't be bothered to care."


 * Insomesia says, "I disagree that this can reasonably seen as an attack page. I'm on it and certainly don't feel that way."


 * Collect is the only editor mentioned in my notes who still clings to the fallacy that "the page can reasonably be viewed as an attack on specific editors", as he says, despite being pressed to provide even a single piece of evidence, without further response. Maybe it is because Collect and I are still discussing disagreements over some edits.Sally Season (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Man, some people really don't like you. Are you sure Collect is a boy? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2012 (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.