Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Silver seren/WR and WO Outing

 __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 speedy deleted WP:CSD at user's request. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Silver seren/WR and WO Outing


Not appropriate for Wikipedia. Basically gives an index to how to find out the alleged real identities of various editors. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi) 14:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, I don't see that. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - of zero use to the project, and it inadvertently serves a a go-to place for dox - A l is o n  ❤ 17:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alison. 28bytes (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alison. The page is a magnet for trolling and drama. Ripberger (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you a member of WIkipediocracy? Because you edit so seldom that for you to immediately be here for this discussion, it seems rather suspicious. Silver  seren C 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Streisand Effect surrounding this list is only going to exacerbate the "outing" problem. If I were "outed," I certainly wouldn't want a list like this on the web, especially on Wikipedia. This list is similar to what got everyone upset at Hivemind dossiers on Wikipedia administrators that existed years ago. It would be terribly ironic for the community to decide now to allow such a list. Ripberger (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to mainspace as a full-fledged project. &rarr;  Stani Stani  19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment How is it an index when I only list the year and keep the information to a bare minimum? I'm fine with keeping it on my hard drive if necessary, but if i'm going to be presenting the information in the future, then the information will need to be there. So what exactly is the bare minimum of information that can be presented? Silver  seren C 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. This discussion should really not allow Wikipediocracy members in it, because that is clearly a conflict of interest, when they would want to be covering up the things they've done. Silver  seren C 21:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't you a Wikipediocracy member? You sure post about them a lot. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, i'm not. I have no account on Wikipediocracy. I only mean people with accounts, not readers, as that's impossible to verify. And I think it's useful to utilize negative entities like Wikipediocracy when they point out problems in articles, because we can then fix them. However, that utility ends when they start going after Wikipedia editors and their personal lives. Silver  seren C 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Alison. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like a catch-22. The text needs the diffs to verify the assertions, but the diffs create their own problems. This page appears to fall under WP:UP - a public view of negative information related to others. Even if they brought on the negative information by their conduct of outing others, UP#POLEMIC still applies. The page was created 4 March 2012‎ and there does not appear to be an effort to prepare the material for a dispute resolution process, so were left with a list of negative information about people who also are members of Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. The page also is not good in that it clues others in on who has been outted, so they then know to go hunt for that identifying information. It does seem like valuable information that probably belongs someplace else in Wikipedia. However, it can't be in user space per WP:UP. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. I'm going to go ahead and make it into a much simpler page, more like a counter. Please tell me what you think of it them. Oh, and I should note that all of the people outing information in this list are already banned. This list was more dealing with the website as a whole. Silver  seren C 06:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The original info that prompted this MFD is still in the page history (as well as on the talk page). If the page history and talk page+history was properly oversighted to remove all objectional material, then it'd be appropriate to take a second look at this MFD.  -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) (coi)  10:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an admin will have to do that. Silver  seren C 15:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted (suppressed actually) per WP:CSD. NW ( Talk ) 16:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that you had actually deleted the page, which is what CSD#U1 is for. If the material that has been revdeleted actually falls under the policy for this kind of oversight (and I don't think it does) the talk page needs to be deleted and some discussions on Seren's talk page also need taking care of. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that anything related to this that needs to be deleted falls close enough to OS criteria #1 that it can be suppressed and not just revdeleted. The whole issue will be decided once and for all within a week, so I'm not sure if there is any need to take action until then. NW ( Talk ) 20:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * CSD#U1 is a user request for deletion, so there is no implication that it "needs" to be deleted. Which part of WP:SUPPRESS applies to these particular edits? Did you see Wnt's request to suppress an edit on this page, below? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Silver  seren C 06:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is obviously part of an effort to ultimately banish so-called WR/WPO "members" via personal attacks and guilt by association. This sort of battlefield "us vs. them" mentality is usually prohibited; no reason here to make any exception. Steveozone (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gross violation of the spirit of WP:OUTING.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This discussion has been canvassed on Wikipediocracy.  As no action is ever taken on canvassing even when they give themselves T-shirts, I think WP:CANVASS needs a MfD nomination.  To dismiss this as "us versus them battleground" is to say that Wikipedians have no right to complain an organization that is ostensibly preparing to publish a book that will supposedly contain outing information on hundreds of Wikipedia users in an attempt to intimidate all possible users of the organization.  Sorry, Wikipedia is a battleground whether it asked to be or not.  That said, it may be that keeping the list of outed editors here could contribute by some small degree to the problem. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Silver seren has changed the page to list the number of outings on Wikpedia Review and Wikipediocracy, and the number of threats to a "Wikipedia editor's job or other personal activities" on same. There are no definitions given for what Silver seren considers outing or "threats" but I am sure they are entirely subjective. I was an active participant in Wikipedia Review until it imploded some time ago. I have written a few blog posts for Wikipediocracy (the latest being about a Wikipedia editor who openly identified as a pro-pedophiia advocate) and intend to continue. Seren is creating a battleground atmosphere which targets contributors to these two sites. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have disagreed with these aspects of the policy on its talk page, but WP:Child protection states that that kind of comment should be RevDeleted promptly, and any allegations about that editor should be handled privately by ArbCom. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You should email ARBCOM, then, although I suspect that they are already aware of this particular blog post. I am sure that the admin who revdeletes my comment will contact ARBCOM themselves, if you do not. Given the nature of what is being discussed, it would be utterly irresponsible of that admin to revdelete my comment without examining the evidence presented in the blog post and blocking the account under discussion. Incidentally, I strongly support the policy but I believe that there is an implicit promise that ARBCOM will follow through on such reports. Sadly, my own experience with that has been less than satisfactory, which is why I am unsubtly testing the boundaries on this particular case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to email ArbCom because I don't know the allegation is true; if I recall correctly you said it was based on a pedophile website post that was since deleted, so I can't see the post, and even if I could, many people without a law enforcement orientation are more than a little nervous about being logged visiting such a website, given the possibility of running into a major legal dilemma, no matter what risk to children potentially might be prevented by doing so, and in any case, I don't have to, because somebody already did who definitely could have or be emailing ArbCom already. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, considering your habit of getting everything wrong, you do not recall correctly. Have you already forgotten what we agreed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you of anything, but if I've got this mixed up with some other case people were discussing my apologies. (Even though I was wrong, that belief was actually one reason I didn't look into it)  Bottom line is that I shouldn't have to go chasing down a case you are already able to make. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I see this actually did scroll right off into the archives from Jimbo Wales' talk page without action, I've commented at the policy page. My preference really is to bring discussion of these matters back into the public domain, rather than to see you hit with administrative action for pointing out a problematic situation that at least needs careful scrutiny. Wnt (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've gone ahead and requested the deletion of the page. I decided that it was easier just to keep it as strict numbers on my userpage. Silver  seren C 07:07, 9 December 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.