Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Retartist/8chanstuff

 __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  Delete. The general consensus is for an overall delete and given that the information has been moved off-wiki, no version seems necessary. Also, the basis for the keep vote is moot now that Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate has opened. - Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Retartist/8chanstuff


As admitted to by the page creator at the top (" this is not written by myself, this is written by a collaboration of 8chan users and so is not a reflection of my views etc"), this page is deliberately being used as a gathering point for 8chan, an anonymous forum that opened its doors to gamergaters once 4chan has a moment of clarity and kicked them out. 8chan users are insistent that Gamergate controversy is actually about ethics in journalism, when the overwhelming amt of reliable sources have made it clear that the notability stems from harassment. Wikipedia's userspace should not be used as a web host for criticism by people who are not editors. The only edits there so far are by the creator and a single-purpose account, Eldritcher. Delete this, please, we're in clear WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to hear from before !no voting.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think there explicit rules about outside sources providing on-wiki evidence of behavior/content problems that they see - however, at the present time, while this is just the ArbCom case request and not the case proper, full lists of faults are not really appropriate, particularly if the editor offering them, Retartist in this case, is not the one that wrote them (That's edging into meatpuppetry, though a trout rather than admin action to prevent again). If the case does go full, those that want to provide evidence as third parties can as IP/unregistered, as long as the evidence is solely highlighting on-wiki behavior and that it is demonstrating policy-based violations rather than "he was mean to me!" type language; otherwise, just like how SPA accounts are generally handled at AFD, those points will also be somewhat ignored if not backed by others. But for now, I don't think this page is appropriate considering that Retartist does not appear to be the primary author. --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The case has not been accepted yet, but neither has it been declined. Evidence is clearly being included with the intention of it being used in an arbitration case and thus should remain as long as there is the prospect of such a case. Much of the evidence is relevant to any prospective case on the matter. Who is adding the evidence is not relevant to the question of whether it meets the criteria for deletion.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't belong here either under whatever combination of WP:NOTHERE/WP:POLEMIC/WP:NOTWEBHOST/WP:PROXYING tickles your fancy. The foundations resources should not be used for an outside organization of users to stage up an attack on volunteers at Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and block the creator per WP:IAR - only harm will come of keeping this, and this user seems intent on helping outside groups set up attacks on our users. More specific guidelines? How about WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BLP (our users are living persons), WP:CSD, WP:HOUND, WP:WITCHHUNT, Gamergate discretionary general sanctions, WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, WP:POLEMIC ... Ivanvector (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Retracted per alternate discussed below. Ivanvector (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI: the GG sanctions are Community Sanctions (General sanctions/Gamergate) and not technically ArbCom Discretionary sanctions yet. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I retargeted my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Im using 8chan to gather evidence of user misconduct, it is relevant to the case, if anyone has advice of a better way to do it ill be happy to hear Retartist (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your own hard drive, PasteBin, 8chan thread. Any of these work, just as long as it's not here.  Your involvement in proxying for external users is on the razor thin edge of being sanctionable IMO. Hasteur (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * will do when I get to a place with internet 49.195.22.58 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Those filing and voting for deletion are WP:INVOLVED in the ArbCom request case. This feels like suppression of evidence rather than an attempt to curb harassment. Additionally, it is extremely in bad faith to silence criticism from those outside of Wikipedia when those complaints would not have surfaced had WP:FANATIC been adhered to. There should be nothing to fear from these complaints if they are truly unfounded, anyways. 139.57.221.120 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — 139.57.221.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm not involved. Until a few minutes ago I didn't know there was a case. Compile your evidence somewhere else. Ivanvector (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Blanked page and using it to direct them to continue off-wiki. Page was intended as a place for people with more time than myself to collect relevant evidence for the arb-com case. Will re-instate it if the page is not found to be violating any rules. Retartist (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok that's better, but you're still practicing meatpuppetry by recruiting editors off-wiki to bolster your side of the dispute, even if you intend to filter and submit those comments yourself later on. I'd be happy with nuking the page history and restoring just the most recent version. Ivanvector (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Im happy with that, i fell asleep and so was unable to retract anything that was a violation of BLP, looking over the history they seemed to go off track and add stuff that isn't related to the arb-com case and i apologize that i was not able to keep a close eye on what happened there. As for meat puppets, i'm just allowing them to gather diffs for evidence, I in no way encourage them to participate as they haven't been involved, I just want them to gather evidence. Retartist (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Importing off-wiki attempts at harassment is not useful. Even if the arbcom case opens, the material would not be suitable as evidence for anything other than the fact that enthusiasts will do anything to push their views. Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete history then restore current revision per note just above. The page history should go but the current version directs 8channers who get recruited here to go somewhere else, and that's probably a good thing. Ivanvector (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Since people are so annoyed that ebil 8chan dared to send actual fucking evidence of misconduct like some diabolical sociopaths, Retartist has moved it all to some other shitty site and blanked the page. This discussion has thus been rendered moot (pun not intended, because seriously no one even likes that guy anymore) and can be closed with no action since it is now just lame. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America!-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Page blanking is not enough, as the contents are still visible in the history. Deletion is the only avenue to address the actual problem. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * the solution is to delete the page/(history) then restore current revision as it directs any external users somewhere else instead of recreating the page. Retartist (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you don't get to use this project to organize off-wiki ranting. Take it elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The previous revision (and pastebin) contains almost all wikipedia diffs as evidence of user misconduct for the arb-case, this is relevant to the project. Retartist (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your deletion rationale then?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * comment I just realised that i had received no notification of this discussion from tarc, i only found out about this by visiting the page itself. Retartist (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just how he rolls.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:50, 11 November 2014 (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.