Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Chiropractic Admin log and subpages

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. While there are various editors arguing in favour of deletion, their rationales are not rooted in policy — and consensus is not merely a headcount —. In weighing the various lines of reasoning, I believe that Hut 8.5 hits the nail on the head: WP:UP#POLEMIC is not violated, because this page is not in userspace, and neither is its spirit — assuming, for the sake of the argument that it would apply with regard to this page —, because this is not a mere laundry list of wrongs, but a log of warnings or sanctions issued pursuant to an arbitration decision, which is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and, as such, it serves a useful purpose, not only for admins, but for non-admins too.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log

Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

The hills no longer ring with the sounds of the editing war. Red links spread like poppies, and our children wonder what enmities are buried here. Only the Jimbo tree knows.

Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log has not been edited since May 2009. It has served its purpose and, despite being a talk page, is now violating the spirit of WP:UP#POLEMIC. Its continued existence is contrary to the precedent at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch: if ordinary editors are not allowed to keep lists of admin wrongs in perpetuity, then neither should admins be allowed to keep similar lists of editor wrongs around forever. --Surturz (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Take a look at the second sentence of the decision in the "precedent" you have referenced. Besides that, this is not at all the same type of thing as your page that was deleted; the page was used in keeping track of what was going on with that article, to help deal with the edit warring. It is not a list of mistakes that editors have made; it is a list of editors involved in that page, uninvolved administrators helping to manage disputes with that article, and actions administrators have taken in that respect. By the way, while the page itself hasn't been edited in a while, the page transcluded into it has changed; see here. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from User_talk:SoWhy#AdminWatch_redux) There are no admins on the list, only non-admins. The ArbCom judgement gives no authority to keep shit lists, nor does it allow admins to create pages to make it easier for them to gang up on individual users. The page does not purport to resolve disputes, its sole aim is to make it easier for admins to coordinate the gathering of evidence against non-admins so that they can be blocked.
(new bit) I agree that the Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log/log was recently edited. However, a two year gap between edits to the group of pages is proof positive that the admin corps intend to keep the pages around forever. --Surturz (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I could give a response any better than the one SoWhy left in response to what you said. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this list has a fundamentally different purpose from the one cited in the nomination. Not only is it not in userspace, and thus not under the control of one editor, but it is a list of editors who have been warned or sanctioned as part of enforcement of an arbitration decision. The reason we don't allow lists of editors someone doesn't like in userspace is because it is antagonistic without being productive or useful. Arbitration decisions are part of our established dispute resolution process so the page does serve a useful purpose (in much the same way that a block log does). WP:UP#POLEMIC does not discriminate between admins and non-admins, and if an admin wanted to maintain a list of editors they don't like in their userspace then that page would be deleted via MfD, but that's a completely different set of circumstances to this page. Admittedly the page hasn't been edited in a while, but the arbitration decision is still valid and is still being enforced through sanctions and age isn't considered a reason to erase records of sanctions (we don't wipe old block logs, for instance). Hut 8.5 12:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or alternately Archive) - as Surturz correctly points out, the consensus (barely) has been that indefinitely shit lists aren't considered kosher on Wikipedia, user page or not. While this page has a different purpose and a legitimate purpose, indefinitely recording such things isn't probably helpful to the encyclopedia. If no one is maintaining this list on at least a yearly basis, it is difficult to say that its really a help. In addition, such lists ought to be placed in a central location that is not directly editable by editors or their socks. The idea that we're keeping a bad-users list in a place that is editable by anyone is a bit pointless, even if we can look up histories. Just archive the old stuff on this page or delete it. -- Avanu (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MfD linked to in the nomination didn't produce a consensus that shit lists aren't considered kosher on Wikipedia, user page or not, it produced a consensus that indefinite retention of a particular list of administrative actions one user doesn't agree with violates WP:UP#POLEMIC. WP:UP#POLEMIC cannot possibly apply to this page because this page is not in userspace, and nobody here has pointed to a single policy or guideline which even applies to this page. The whole nomination is a WP:POINTy attempt to "consistently" enforce a decision the nominator doesn't agree with. If keeping lists of people who have been subjected to sanctions isn't "helpful to the encyclopedia" then by extension we ought to delete old block logs or even old arbitration cases, even if the blocks or arbitration cases are still in effect, which would be nonsensical. Hut 8.5 10:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page has three lists: 1) Editors that have been sanctioned warned/sanctioned, 2) Editors that have been warned notified that sanctions can be applied with the onus of proof reversed (ie. the sanctioned editor is assumed guilty), and 3) Editors that have edited the article. Explain to me how an editor seeing their name on list 3 isn't going to wonder how long it takes before their name is on lists 2 or 1. Also please explain why this list needs to be kept on wiki. Finally, as per WP:ADMINACCT, I should be free to question or criticise administrator actions without being accused of WP:POINT. No need to apologise, you're forgiven. --Surturz (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the third list isn't essential to the page, and I wouldn't object if it was removed. This isn't grounds for deleting the page however. The other two lists have clear purposes. If we don't have a list of people who are subject to ArbCom sanctions then it will be extremely difficult to enforce these sanctions, and the arbitration decision requires editors to be notified of the existence of discretionary sanctions before such sanctions are imposed (as do almost all such arbitration decisions) and keeping a list of who has been warned also aids in enforcement. Being warned doesn't imply an editor's conduct is inappropriate, as is explicitly stated.
WP:ADMINACCT is a red herring here. The fact that administrators are accountable for their actions doesn't mean that you can criticise administrator actions in any way and in any location, and in particular it doesn't mean you can violate WP:POINT when doing so. In addition this MfD isn't really a criticism of administrative actions at all, it's a criticism of a particular process of enforcing arbitration decisions (you're not contesting the validity of any of the sanctions imposed in this topic area).
I get the impression, reading your comments here and at SoWhy's talk page, that you don't really want this page to be deleted at all. You've repeatedly maintained that the fact that this page exists while your own user subpage was deleted is a double standard and that to be consistent this page should be deleted as well, but that doesn't mean that you want the page to be deleted. If this is the case then you should not have nominated the page for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you are accusing me of being dishonest. If there is any ulterior motive here, it is that my name appears on the "warned" list, and I think there should be some sort of statute of limitations on such things. At this stage I would not feel safe editing the Chiropractic article for fear of being blocked by an admin who read that page and decided on the basis of a single edit of mine that I should be blocked. I fail to see how going through the proper MfD process on a stale non-article page is disruptive as per WP:POINT, particularly when I was encouraged to do so by admin User:SoWhy. --Surturz (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, I'm saying that the recent deletion of your subpage seems to be a major factor in your decision to nominate this page for deletion. I never claimed you tried to conceal this. Being listed as "warned" only means that you are aware that discretionary sanctions exist in this topic area, which doesn't ever expire (unless you're very forgetful). It is true that if you make inappropriate edits to the chiropractic article then it is possible (though unlikely) for you to be blocked, but being listed on this page has nothing to do with that - if you want to change this situation you need to get the arbitration decision reversed. And since you asked it is possible to violate WP:POINT while following proper process (indeed most of the situations in WP:POINT#Examples are of this type). Hut 8.5 14:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well you will just have to take my word that I really truly want the page deleted because (as my whimsical verse above indicates), this page is a stale reminder of long gone edit wars, and its continued existence does not further the aims of the project. --Surturz (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that administrators will still be able to view the page makes the page much less useful because non-administrators will not be able to use it to report people for violation of arbitration sanctions. Making the process or arbitration sanctions less transparent is not a good idea. I should also mention that the developers have repeatedly stated that the logs kept of deleted pages are there on a temporary basis only and can be removed without warning at any time. It isn't anywhere near as easy to overturn an MfD decision as you imagine and if anyone wanted to recreate the page after it has been deleted they would probably have to go through deletion review first. Hut 8.5 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Chiropractic_Admin_log_and_subpages&oldid=1138543956"