Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snowded/GoodNight

 __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  creator blanked/delete  - WP:IAR close (I vote/commented in the discussion) - User has now blanked the content - consensus was that the content/list if un-actioned for an undue period of time was better kept off wiki and violated WP:UP. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Snowded/GoodNight


This is at worst an attack page and at best something that can be handled on a personal machine. If there is enough evidence to start the page then there is enough evidence to start the discussion. Now that this page is at ANI it has become counterproductive. Before then there might be some reason but now we have drama. Time to remove it. Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The user can ask for a willing admin to email them the contents, if they want. Such a page has no place anywhere on Wikipedia. I feel that lacking an actual RfC, the page is causing drama without doing much good. wctaiwan (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This could easily be kept off-wiki, and if an RfC/U is to be filed against a currently active editor in good standing, it needs to be done already. Like, yesterday. Doc   talk  06:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment.   I am not greatly fussed whether this is kept on or off wiki.  I think it is better to do these things in plain sight but if the community rules otherwise I will happily comply.   I suspect that GoodDay will regret loosing sight of it, but he can comment if he wants.   I've asked at ANI for someone to show me the policy on this.  If they do I will happily delete it myself.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Snowded that it is best done in plain sight. It may even have an impact on behaviour. Fmph (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I appreciate Snowded's consideration of me, in choosing to have the complaints being on Wiki, so as I can see them. However, the sandbox has morphed (and no fault to Snowded) into one of those 'ring the bell, with a big hammer' circus games -- where each time an editor (who's had past differance with me) or IP (whose orgin is unknown) has a problem with my posts, he/she runs to the sandbox to ring the bell. GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Fmph. Endrick   Shellycoat  09:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The acid test here is simple: does Snowded actually intend to use this evidence in a case in a reasonable timeframe? "Eventually" is not a reasonable timeframe, and evidence pages which hang around indefinitely take on the strong appearance of walls of shame. Nonetheless, it's better that evidence pages be kept on-wiki if they are to be used promptly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * keep per Snowded William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - User:Snowed has been keeping this list now for three months, it includes eleven diffs of User GoodDay's edits that he considers violations of wikipedia policy and guidelines from the last six months. The list itself has already become a target of vandal attacks. The on wikipedia list has begun to make User:GoodDay feel harassed and stalked and he has asked the creator (User:Snowded ) to either open the RFC user or to please keep the list off Wikipedia. As the User:Snowded has refused to do either. User GoodDay opened a ANI report about this list and there the creator of the list said, "Given that an RfC is the most likely route if the pattern continues I created a page to collect material" - his statement appears to assert the list has no clear future use, just a might do this and might do that at some vague point in the future, or not perhaps. User:GoodDay has politelty requested him to action the list or to keep it off wiki and that is a reasonable request. Off2riorob (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment - per Snowded, in a way it doesn't much matter where or how this information is kept, and there are benefits in being open about it. The issue being monitored is persistent disruption and inappropriate behaviour on several topic areas over a long period (and, by the way, nothing whatsoever to do with the content of their posts, other than their being wholly based on the editor's personal opinions and limited knowledge).  If a case is at some point to be mounted against the editor concerned it saves everyone time and effort to have a central record of the most blatant incidents.  But if it's contrary to policy (and I can see why it might be, in similar cases), the information can be held off-wiki and used in the same way.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving to "Delete" in light of the guidance at WP:UP, point 3. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The page has been there for almost 3 months and Snowded has not signalled that he will start the RfC very soon. The 'keep' arguments aren't unreasonable, but this is a matter of policy with ample precedent, and I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to start making exceptions. (I believe the policy is not explicit anywhere, but WP:Harassment has been consistently interpreted that way for many years, including in large discussions at ANI, at RfAs, and at Arbcom.) If anyone wants to change this unwritten policy, it's probably not a good idea to do so from the bottom up by challenging its application in this specific instance. Rather, a discussion should be started at WT:Harassment, pointing to the present dispute. Then our current practice can either be made explicit in the policy, or the policy can be amended to describe its limits. Hans Adler 10:11, 11 Novepmber 2011 (UTC) PS: Actually, it's not unwritten after all. It's at WP:UP. Hans Adler 10:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In what sense is it unrelated to Wikipedia? That's the key part of POLEMIC Fmph (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can be classified as a personal attack and a possible ad hominem page to deride any good arguements made by GoodDay in the future. Also the list is largely dependant on the prejudice of the editor who added it to the list as at least one of the instances listed of GoodDay's "abuse" is listed as provocation when it is not provocation at all. Mabuska (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy to private then Delete This, from WP:UP is clear: "...Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. 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." In addition, the heading, GOODNIGHT is a thinly veiled snipe at User:GoodDay, the implication being that the listed material when properly presented will result in GoodDay being sanctioned. Leaky  Caldron  12:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Happy to go with Leaky_caldron and Ghmyrtle and copy to private.  I remain of the opinion that these sort of things should be kept in open space but its no big issue. -- Snowded  TALK  12:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - assembling this sort of page in full public view, over a period of many months, waiting for any minor indiscretion and immediately adding it to this list, must be very intimidatory towards GoodDay, who is at this point a user in good standing. This sort of behaviour is combative, and solely intended to produce a chilling effect - the snarky title clinches it. If an RFC was actually going to be started, it could and should have been started months ago.  It needs to be deleted, immediately.  Snowded, if you wish to nurture your grievance over many many months, you could have just as easily done it off-wiki. fish &amp;karate  12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As the policy has been identified, but we must abide it. Shame, but if it has to be off-wiki, so be it. Daicaregos (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete "Plain sight may lead to reforms in behavior" arguments hold no water. The place for public review of editor behavior is WP:RFC/U, not public logbooks of infractions kept by private editors. causa sui (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. looks like harrasement.  Take to WP:RFC/U if you have a problem this is a bad way of going about it.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  18:11, 11 November 2011 (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.