Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1




 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1
Despite the page's name, much if not most of the material (especially under the topmost header, "The Karel and JoyDiamond Chronicles", but there's more if you look through the page) seems to not be a simple archive of the user's talk page. It contains what looks like a cherry-picked record of comments and exchanges pertaining to selected users and events. It includes comments, exchanges, and warnings from other pages, some being accompanied by SkagitRiverQueen's thoughts on them. This would seem to violate Userspace policy, specifically UP, item #10.

I attempted to explain this issue to the user, but they seemed unable to understand, or are unwilling to acknowledge a problem. Equazcion ( talk ) 17:46, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC) 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What Equazcion is referring to *is* my talk page archive. Equazcion continues to quote user page policy to me but has yet to show me from talk page and talk page archive policy that what I have on my page is any kind of violation. Equazcion seems to believe that I should delete my entire talk page archive just because he/she says I should. Beyond all of that, I'm extremely curious as to why, suddenly out of the blue, Equazcion finds it necessary to seemingly police, and be so deeply concerned about, what's included in my talk page archives to begin with. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * continued on talk page Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:45, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC) 


 * Delete - This seems to be a "serious injury list" ala Rainman. If this is your archive, why do you have a copy of a WP:3RR report wherein you advocated that I be chastized for 3RR? This isn't an archive of past talk discussion for your talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see...so now everyone who has had a beef with me in the past is going to miraculously appear out of the woodwork and vote for deletion (e.g., Wildhartlivie). Is this actually becoming a vendetta vote...?  Interesting.  I'd like to see an administrator involved here - not just editors.  And let's make sure that Wikipedia policy is followed, okay?  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not unless you want to provide a list like this one. A WP:3RR report was filed on you and you dragged my name into it. How does that content relate to possible use in a WP process or ongoing dispute resolution to a page that is locked for 3 months? Why am I mentioned on your "archive page"? Why is the person who filed the report included there? Do you have an ongoing dispute with either of us? No. We disagreed once, you were reported for violating 3RR. I didn't file the report, but you find it "helpful" to your needs to retain a report not filed on your talk page in your archives. That seems more like a vendetta style list to me. I'd suggest saving a document on your own computer rather than compile a list of grievances against others or where others are mentioned. And for the record, you posted an effort at editing on the same articles peace post. So how do I have a beef with you now except I object to your keeping a copy of a 3RR report wherein you tried to draw my name into it. These miscellany for discussion pages are here for everyone to read and comment upon. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I did not find any policy or gudeline which states that "archive" is a reserved word. The editor, hover, seems here to state that it is retained for possible use in WP process -- which happens to fall into a specific protected class of userpages.  If it remains in situ after a reasonable period of time after sch use would make sense (which would clearly be after an article is unlocked) then it might be presentable at MfD then.  Until then -- it is protectable no matter what its name -- the user could call it "elephants" and the page is still in that class. Collect (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with use of the word "archive". The user was referring to that word as if it were a defense of the page content though, which I disputed. Anyway, WP:UP states that this use is okay "provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner". The collection began on 9 October and the user plans to keep it around at least until February, which is at least a 4 month period. Just pointing that out. I'll leave it up to everyone else to determine if this qualifies. Equazcion  ( talk ) 18:54, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * Has something changed in the definition of Wikipedia User Pages and the term now also includes Talk Page Archives? If so, could someone please point this out to me where it is?  If not, could someone please explain to Equazcion that User Pages and Talk Page Archives are not synonymous and neither is User Page use policy?  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * continued on talk page Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:45, 22 Dec 2009 (UTC) 


 * Delete per WP:UP. Example 10 is relevant. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be -- except for that bit about preparing material for any WP DR processes.   If that exception is claimed, I fail to see how MfD can overrule it. Collect (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said in response to your comment above, the exception in WP:UP is for preparation for processes started in a "timely manner". The user hasn't even resolved to start any process at all, and they don't plan on even making the decision until a point when the material will have been up for at least 4 months. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:25, 23 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not consider two months excessive. Indeed, I would suggest that all MfD "deadlines" be uniformly set at, say, six months.  This would be in line with a number of previous MfDs concerning such material. Collect (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the current practice, and the purpose of the exception in the userpage policy, is to allow users to prepare cases for specific impending processes. An ArbCom filing or RFC/u, for example, that a user resolved to begin but nevertheless needed time to gather evidence for, would be a valid use of userspace. If you can find a previous instance where a page was kept where a user stored a listing of misdeeds for a period of up to 5 months, just-in-case it might be needed for some vague purpose in the future, then please present it. I'd be surprised if you could though. This is, in my mind, precisely what the policy is intended to prevent. Equazcion  ( talk ) 00:12, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * six months being a reasonable amount of time for a userpage to be untouched entirely.  retention of userfied article for 6 months not excessive.  Case in hand is far different from  which is what I would label an attack page.   is parallel to the current case.  Possible page for DR was around for over five months - and was a "Speedy Keep."  Which was one case you asked for, I think. Need more? Collect (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. As for the last page, it's a little different since the page clearly states its purpose at the top and is formatted for one of those processes; nevertheless I disagree with that discussion's close, and don't believe it to be typical. People shouldn't be maintaining lists long-term of other editors' misdeeds. That's why we have the policy stipulation -- so that people can't get around the "no attacks" rule by making it look like an innocent list of occurrences. It must have an impending specific purpose, precisely to prevent such misuse. I don't think your other examples apply to this situation, since we're not talking about article drafts here, or the recreation of deleted material. Attack concerns are a different animal, and are allowed or deleted based on more stringent criteria, due to the risk of inflammation. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:03, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree as you will with precedent, but that does not alter the fact that I provided the precedent you asked for. Collect (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the one pertinent example you provided establishes any firm precedent. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:45, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, we give 6 months on userspace drafts and abandoned pages that are otherwise harmless... we don't give 6 months on pages that disparage another editor. Pages of "evidence" that aren't immediately applicable to an ArbCom case, we have deleted those in the past... 6 months has never been a standard for that. Gigs (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP. Example 10 is relevant. and some other comments above.  Not proper usage of her user page, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Terrific. Another vote from the "Vendetta Crew". (NOTE: IMO, above Delete votes from editors Wildhartlivie and Crohnie are not from an NPOV standpoint, as we have have had editing conflicts previously - and recently - within the article Ted Bundy) Is it possible to get more votes from those with an NPOV? Moreover, I think it would be good that everyone remember Wikipedia policy when you vote (and not just cherry-picking the parts you like and forgetting the ones you don't). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd make a lot more headway here, SkagitRiverQueen, if you actually stopped making ad hominem attacks upon editors expressing an opinion here based on your self-perceived view that editors have "vendetta crews" and stop casting aspersions on the posters. The fact is, you personally are not important enough for me to waste my energy on. However, I raised a perfectly legitimate concern - why you included a WP:3RR report filed on you wherein you tried to pull me into it as part of your "collection of content referencing a content dispute" with someone else on a page unrelated to the dispute we had. Instead, you've made a huge effort to discredit my comments as part of some sort of self-perceived "hate" group who is against you. I'm not against you, I am against your retention of that report on your userspace. here is no valid reason for that report to be there. This has everything to do with policy and guidelines - you cannot defend the retention of a copy of a WP:3RR report on the grounds you have outlined. Please see WP:UP, #10. WP:3RR reports are not part of the normal dispute resolution process. And while you're at it, take a minute to review WP:AGF. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I have absolutely no history with this editor other than what User:Wildhartlivie points out above. Even though it's stricken, for the record, I am not part of any "Vendetta Crew".  Policy is what matters here, I feel my comments about it is correct towards what policies state.  Thank you, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying you "have absolutely no history" is not quite honest, IMO. We argued back-and-forth over certain issues at the Ted Bundy article - and you were most certainly in Wildhartlivie's camp. I find it strangely "conincidental" that, out of nowhere, you find this discussion after Wildhartlivie does.  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't appreciate the personal attacks. I think this should stop already.  You keep attacking editors than accuse them of some kind of conspiracy theory. There is no reason not to assume good faith.  I'm done, have the last word. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. You are allowed to hold on to stuff like this if you're writing up a RFC or RFAR or something like that and need a sandbox. This doesn't seem to be the case here; it borders on libel, in fact. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me you are going on personal opinion here, rather than actually referencing facts and/or policy. As far as the "libel" charge...(1) - you are bordering on WP:NLT here, and (2) - How can what's contained in my talk-page archives be libelous when it's all the written words of other editors themselves?  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is saying that you are bordering on libel a legal threat? I am not saying that I am going to sue you. I am not saying that I am going to press charges against you. I don't know how I would even be in a position to. In regards to #2, you can take things out of context. You can cherrypick. You can misrepresent. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Even bringing up libel is leveling a charge against me that is legal in nature. *That*, from what I understand, is a violation of WP:NLT.  That you would even suggest that I am libeling anyone is also, from what I can tell, WP:WL, and another violation.  In regard to your "in regards (sic) to #2"...I would not take what other people have written intentionally out of context (exactly why I am fighting to keep what is there so that it is all read *in* context), nor would I intentionally cherrypick.  That you are accusing me of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand is, most certainly, uncivil Wikipedia behavior (see WP:CIV and a violation of WP:NPA) in addition to the aforementioned violations of Wikipedia policy.  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bringing this to WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an attempt to wikilawyer around the principles of WP:UP. Keeping pseudo-attack pages like this will only encourage others to see what they can get away with. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More personal attacks. Is it at all possible for people to weigh in here without using personal attacks?  Wikilawyering?  Really??  Not even close.  --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse every delete voter of personal attacks this way. They're just stating the problems with the page and the flaws in your argument for keeping it, which is part of what deletion discussions entail. Suggesting that someone violated a policy isn't a personal attack. Theoretically a case could be made for incivility and personal attacks any time a perceived policy violation is pointed out; but people need to be able to do that, or else policy could never be enforced. Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:08, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement, "This is an attempt to wikilawyer" without any facts to back the claim up is, IMO, a personal attack. Just like Rschen's claim of libel was a personal attack.  I'm starting to believe that those who watch dispute pages do so only because they *like* dispute and enjoy using it as a way to put others under their thumbs.  Whatever.  I really don't care anymore.  Decide what you will.  Just don't delete the page without me knowing it so I can get the stuff I need to keep out of there.  Have a great Christmas. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a very twisted interpretation of Wikipedia policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet another personal attack from Rschen is noted. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really think so, then take it to WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Don't just make accusations and not back them up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I really do think so but don't have a need to validate my thoughts on such a matter by running to an admin notice board to tattle on another editor. I don't need to "back up" anything - your words above speak for themselves (as does your dare for me to take this to a notice board). I believe in discussion and trying to come to an understanding. I further believe that would have been the best course for you with me rather than running to AN/I because I complained about your obvious breach of good faith and civility above. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that this is not a personal attack upon SkagitRiverQueen, although she seems to be taking it as one. She has yet to respond to my very direct question about what purpose the filed WP:3RR report has on her "archive page". Avoiding answering that does nothing to sway my opinion from this being her list of "serious injury lists" for purposes of what? payback? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to add that in addition to trying to get my opinion mooted here, SkagitRiverQueen opened a sock puppet report where she named me as a possible sock here. Is this how offering an opinion should be met? I think not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - SkagitRiverQueen has begun "maintenance" on the page, presumably to fix the issues brought up here; however the first step in that process has been to blank the page. Blanking during MfD is generally not allowed, because it makes it harder for people to judge the merit of the deletion. I'm therefore posting this link for reference, so people can see what it looked like prior to the blanking. I guess we can assume good faith for now that Skag will follow through with this effort in a timely manner and not leave the page blanked for an extended period of time. Equazcion  ( talk ) 18:49, 25 Dec 2009 (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.