Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination)

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 Delete I am speedy deleting this under CSD G10, with a dash of IAR. Now, let me explain. Technically, this may not actually be an attack page. If we assume the maximum good faith, and take Colonel Warden (CW) at his word, then the page is simply intended as an aid memoir - not an attack, and not an attempt to troll or disrupt. However, there is little doubt that it is interpreted by many as an attack, or a troll, and that (not unreasonable) interpretation has resulted in divisiveness and the disruption of us wasting time in two MFDs. This distraction and disruption from project aims is unlikely to cease as long as the page remains.

CW tells us that it was created as an aid memoir. However, what he has failed to explain is why, given the divisiveness the page has caused, he requires to keep this page in usespace, as opposed to a file on his own hard-drive. It is easier to assume that the original intention was harmless, but he has failed to explain why he won't now request its deletion in view of the distraction it has become to the encyclopaedia. Even if er assume his original intention in creating it was good faith, his insistence in retaining it looks like disruption to prove a point (the point being that it technically may not be an attack, or violate the userspace policy.) It is harder to assume good faith here.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The technical definition of an attack page, or the details of the userpace policy, do not exist for people to wikilawyer about them, or worry too much about their precise definition. They certainly don't exist to allow the continuation of something that has not purpose and has become disruption, in order to defend some vacuous technical point, and keep a page the only conceivable benefit from could be achieved by non disruptive means.

Colonel Warden. You can, of course, appeal this closure on DRV. The grounds would be that it is: a) out of process. b) based on a technically incorrect reading of CSDG10. c) WP:POINT is not a deletion criterion. d) there are sufficient editors who think you are "technically within your rights" to prevent a true consensus to delete. (There, how kind am I writing the DRV nomination for you!)

If you take this to DRV, there is a fair chance that you might get it overturned, or at least that technically, by the letter of policy, you should get it overturned. (I'd hope DRV wouldn't actually be that legalistic.)

I'd just ask you to consider if that wouldn't be a further disruption to prove a (perhaps technically correct) point? If the page has any use to you, I am quite happy to e-mail you the contents for your own retention.

Alternatively, I am amiable to overturning this closure, and allowing you to place {{db-author}} in the page yourself.

Thanks for your consideration.--Scott Mac 14:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colonel Warden/RIP

User:Colonel Warden/RIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This whole page is unseemly, and it's time to delete it. Barong 06:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, surely the common theme of the list is just accounts that seem to have a strong and interesting character? About half the entries havent used multiple accounts AFAIK. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't look to me like this is violating userspace policy in any way. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What a peculiar nom. It fails to even assert any actionable problem. "Unseemly"? "Time to delete?" Quite bizarre. No violation asserted or present.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Absent any implied or expressed negativity by CW related to inclusion in the list, and present a specific statement that it's just a neutral list of no longer active accounts, the assumption of good faith should keep away any implications that it's a blacklist, scorekeeping, or attack page, and is therefore keepable. That said, if someone doesn't want to be listed, then don't, as a matter of common courtesy. And RIP means requiescat in pace, something I hope people say about me when I'm gone. — Becksguy (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Colonel Warden revealed that its purpose is partly to gloat over departed enemies when he started edit warring to keep certain names on it. For the rest I agree pretty much with MicMacNee. Reyk YO! 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a list of old users and doesn't violate any policy. Obviously the people involved here have some kind of history but that's not a valid deletion rationale. All it says is "RIP" (rest in peace) which is something you put on the gravestone of someone you love and will deeply miss. ColonelWarden admits he had "reasonably pleasant" relations with at least a couple of them. EdEColbertLet me know 02:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as an uninvolved editor, I see no valid deletion rationale here. There is obviously a history here I am unaware of but that doesn't mean that ad hominem attacks are valid reasons to delete. If this page has some nefarious secret hidden meaning it must be clearly shown before I vote for delete. Also for the record, reverting changes to YOUR OWN USERPAGES is almost by definition not edit warring. I would postulate edit wars are impossible on a page that you actually ARE allowed to "own" to a limited extent. Also the gross incivility here is on the part of those arguing for deletion not the page's author. If someone can explain to me in an unambiguous manner why this is a personal attack or to what nefarious end this page could be used then I reserve the right to change my mind. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC) HominidMachinae (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea because uninvolved editors, with edit #2 under their belt, invariably find their way to MfD to contest an obscure wiki-battleground. So which name from the list are we being graced by at the moment? Tarc (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs can edit and comment, and some experienced editors either forget or purposely do not log in when they edit.[1] We can either assume good faith as guideline instructs, or ignore guideline and consider them all in a negative light. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're both quite correct. And, I might add, there are such things as dynamic IPs -- which result in some IP editors appearing to have only two edits, when they have in fact made many more, but through no fault of their own their IP number changes. I also wouldn't mind a rule requiring all users to sign up for a name, though for some reason I sort of like knowing that this IP hails from Michigan.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lansing, huh? Interesting, but not likely. I only know one person in Lansing and that's improbable. Barong 07:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my session expired, that was me, and I have a few hundred edits as IP actually before I signed up for an account to avoid losing my contributions log and to be able to create a watchlist. My apologies for failing to properly sign in, I was in no way attempting any form of concealment, evasion, ect. And as an aside, wow, the stunning amount of bad faith here is starting to get pretty toxic. I didn't mean to stir anything up but from the sheer animosity here is an MfD the proper venue? should we take this all over to AN/I or an RfC where we can look at the behavior that generated such bad will about this list? Again I feel like I'm just missing the actual crux of the issue. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to User:Colonel Warden/Defunct accounts. I cannot say I like the purpose Colonel Warden claims in his defense near the top of this debate, but I don't think it is beyond acceptable userspace guidelines. However, I see no reason to entitle the page "RIP" as that is an indication of death, not retirement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not expressing an opinion either way, but I will say that ColonelWarden would have had an easier time if he'd chosen a better name. "RIP" is far too easily construed as sending a message of a "dancing on the graves of people I've outlived" sort of sentiment - given that the people/accounts listed aren't actually dead. Rd232 talk 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. the page name is a big part of my concern, as it is the only description associated with the list. A rename would help, if the page is kept. I'd also like the page to describe why the reason these account names appear on the page. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, the name was suggested by my work on the mainspace article such as this. I wasn't making a big deal out of it so just kept it short and simple. How is a bland "RIP" worse than the torrent of abuse, insults and bad language which the nominator produces, such as "shit", "dick", "fuck", "troll", &c? Are these retracted or deleted? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fat chance. Good luck getting CW to do something he isn't being forced to do under threat of being blocked. And you won't be able to force him here, not with all of his cronies flocking here to do what they do best, which is to gang up on a deletion discussion to make it impossible to obtain a consensus. —SW— yak 02:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sjak -- I agree with you that this is within userspace guidelines. Which brings us to almost a 2/3 consensus on that point. As to your suggestion for a rename from RIP to defunct, because in your view the accounts are "defunct" and not "dead", I would point you to the common definition of defunct, which is "no longer living; dead or extinct".--Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the second definition at your link: "no longer operative or valid" :-). Although the accounts which are not blocked are still "valid" (they can be revived as soon as their owner wishes to return), they are "no longer operative". The objection to the use of "RIP" was pretty much the same as what Rd232 said, in this context, the title gives the impression of figuratively dancing on someone's grave. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    as I said. Barong 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sjak--I would generally expect a phrase to be understood (unless there is a reason to understand it otherwise) by the first-listed definition. Also -- the definition of R.I.P. is not "I'm dancing on your grave", but rather that it is an abbreviation for requiescat in pace ("may he rest in peace"), a short epitaph or idiom used to express wishes of eternal rest and peace. Which is somewhat the opposite. In any event, I think we are wandering a bit afield, as all we've shown is that this suggestion, an admittedly mild non-central one, is rife with possibilities of varying interpretation, largely based on whether one wishes to AGF as we are asked to. To your initial point, as you and the 2/3 of the !voters have indicated, there is no reason to delete here under the userspace guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why yes, it is so difficult to interpret "RIP" as something negative, wherever did we get that idea? I'm sure CW had the best of intentions when he created it. Just like the people who created this, who are obviously expressing wishes of eternal rest and peace to Osama bin Laden. Brush up on your wikilawyering, your technique is slipping. And CW wore out his AGF privileges a long time ago in my opinion. —SW— chatter 02:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The OED lists no derogatory meaning for RIP. The page you cite feels it necessary to explain their meaning as "Rest In Pieces mother fucker" and they wouldn't do this if it were implicit. Myself, I do not ordinarily frequent such pages. My most recent exposure to the usage RIP was at the burial of a childhood friend the other day. I observed the inscription on some gravestones in the cemetery and wondered whether to take some pictures for use in the mainspace article. I decided that this would be disrespectful and so forebore. It was a sad occasion and the Last Post was played. There was no dancing. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much fuss over nothing. I don't see what harm the page does. There is nothing overtly uncivil or unpleasant on it. Lovetinkle (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a thinly veiled attack page. Period. N419BH 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jack Merridew shouldn't be listed since he didn't retire though, just got yet another chance to start over. Also, the top of the page should explain why its there. No rule violated. As mentioned in the last AFD for this, it list editors he got along well with, as well as those he didn't. Dream Focus 12:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's never said he didn't like any of the users listed as far as I've seen. Which is odd, as that's largely what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if users are allowed to remove their names from it. That may seem like an odd compromise, but I think it's the best solution here. Colonel Warden wants this list in his userspace; Barong, formerly Jack Merridew, doesn't want to be listed on it (which seems reasonable to me). Why not let them both get what they want? (Jack/Barong obviously doesn't belong on it anyway, as he's not a vanished user...) Robofish (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of user names without derogatory comment is neutral content. "RIP" is not derogatory comment, and is used in all sorts of contexts, many highly positive. I notice on the list some people who have taken similar positions to Col.W, some who have taken opposed. I see no basis whatsoever for removing it, or why anyone should want their name removed. That this MfD should be done after the previous snow keep confirms a motivation that some of the comments make pretty obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So if an editor wishes his name removed from the list, do you feel that Warden should be compelled to honor that request? Tarc (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "RIP" is not derogatory comment, and is used in all sorts of contexts - indeed, and on the internet, many of those contexts are snarky/sarcastic "good riddance" type contexts, when the abbreviation is used and not the full term it stands for. The ambiguity here is a substantial part of the problem (interacting with the issue of the list content). Rd232 talk 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    and if I made such a list? ;> Barong 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Barong/Editors who I hate, disagree with, or just think are stupid ←Make it a blue link ;) —SW— gossip 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done ;> Barong 06:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and divisive, as reflected in the comments above. I wonder what would happen if I just overrode the discussion and speedied the darn thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A desysop and an indef would be my vote. Oh, wait...was this a game of "who wants to suggest the most ridiculously extreme solution to a problem? or were you being serious? Tarc (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Something along those lines aka extreme drama. You could make the argument that "RIP" with a list of names constitutes a G10 attack page. I know if I were alive and my name were on a list that said "RIP" I'd feel attacked. Feels like a hit list considering we're discussing living people. But this one appears to have been made intentionally ambiguous in an attempt to survive a deletion discussion much less a CSD, and obviously people are buying the argument. I don't, but the people that do it's their opinion, and a fair point. I'd have to ask Colonel Warden, exactly what use does he have for this list, and exactly why, considering how many people have expressed concern with it, is it not possible for him to store it offline rather than on Wikipedia? N419BH 16:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The list has no particular narrow function; it is a memorandum of information that will tend to fade from my memory because the accounts are no longer active. A recent example of usage may be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper — an editor that ostensibly retired but who came back illicitly under another account. I might recall the MO in such a case but not recall the previous account. In that case, the editor was something of an antagonist but other cases are editors that I wish to recall for more positive reasons such as User:Wageless — an editor for whom I have nothing but the highest respect. Note that I don't flaunt this list or maintain it in an obsessive or score-keeping way; I just add defunct accounts to it in alphabetical order as they occur to me in the manner of an archive or diary. I have a link to it on my user page so that I can find it again - I am not aware of any other way of indexing user page. This seems to be what causes the trouble - editors who wish to make trouble for me for other reasons, root through my user pages looking for something to use against me. It is they that are looking for trouble, not me. This MfD seems far more disruptive by its unnecessary dispute and drama. The nominator is routinely uncivil in numerous ways on a daily basis and these casual incivilities are not deleted. It seems that this simple memo list is under assault just because there is a process for doing so. This process seems to be a regular source of friction as editors use it as as way of baiting and antagonising other editors. It would be better if this discussion were speedily deleted as it wastes our time to no good purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if it's a list of accounts which you might refer to on an occasional basis, and as it's obviously causing consternation both for and against it amongst a sizable number of individuals, and as Wikipedia is an environment of collaboration, wouldn't it be more sensible to simply store this list offline in your personal files? Wouldn't that avoid all of the drama that's been expressed here? And wouldn't that still allow you to keep this "archive" list for your own personal use as needed? Wouldn't that be a more collaborative approach than "it's a list, people don't like it but too bad"? N419BH 20:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Information about Wikipedia is best kept here because this is its natural context and the linking features work best here. I'm generally moving my data into the cloud rather than keeping local copies because it is then device-independent and generally more resilient. As for collaboration, please note that both the editors who have nominated this page for deletion have openly declared their desire to have me banned from Wikipedia. I doubt that they can be appeased in this way; a concession would instead tend encourage them to engage in further harassment. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Put it in a private cloud rather than a public one? As easy as e-mailing it to yourself. Avoids the problems mentioned here, and shows collaboration, good faith, and acceptance of constructive criticism. N419BH 22:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The email idea seems impractical. It would be nice if Wikipedia provided users with some private user space which only they may view - a jotter on which they could scribble and doodle without others poking and prying. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what is impractical about the email idea? I assume you do have an email address? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 10:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that would be nice, except for WP:NOTWEBHOST. I think this is the closest you'll come to getting your wish. —SW— spill the beans 00:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not comply with the guidelines for User pages that prohibit "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors." I certainly view this material as an attack on other editors, as it's essentially a list of opponents Colonel Warden has outlasted. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on folks Colonel Warden, just db-auth it, Jack, forget about it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Procedural closure  This nomination has sufficient evidence to show it as a WP:NPA, see [this edit comment] and [this Jimbo Wales edit].  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying the discussion should be closed because the nomination itself was a personal attack on Colonel Warden? N419BH 02:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about any editors, unless you count Jimbo.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am not sure how your reason, which refers to an edit summary by the nominator (where he calls Colonel Warden a WP:DICK) prior to the nomination and a change to WP:DICK by Jimbo specifying that referring someone to the page was akin to calling them one, is grounds for a procedural close due to WP:NPA. Could you please explain? N419BH 02:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Close and Indef Block Barong and SW for violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conflicted. Attack pages are unacceptable and we should avoid unprofessional comments about even the most problematic interlopers. OTOH, this is not a clear attack page. It's just a list of editors, with the title "RIP". The page itself makes no comment, so any conclusions we make about it are speculation. We're not here to police thought. Overall, this MFD seems like a tempest in a teapot: we can all find better things to do.   Will Beback  talk  09:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This page does not violate user space guideline. I don't know what's Colonel Warden's reason for listing accounts that seem inactive, but as Warden is an active collaborator, cutting a bit of slack for having this list here is appropriate. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete—I think that Off2riorob puts it well, but I'm going to have a stab at it: I can think of no legitimate reason for this page to exist. It offers no benefit to the building of Wikipedia (which all userspace material should, according to WP:NOTWEBHOST). Furthermore, it's divisive and disruptive, yes indeed. Delete it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 10:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Two editors (one registered, one IP) have been blocked over edit-warring on the page - it should not be blanked or otherwise made invisible while this MfD is in progress, and any suggestions for change need to be accepted by the user whose account it is and/or by consensus. I have now semi-protected the page and have reverted it to the version before the edit war as it was actually nominated for deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (tweaked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per Newyorkbrad. Colonel Warden can store this kind of list, whatever its purpose, on his own computer. "RIP" is not a neutral title for the page. Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to User page. I would comment that I keep a very small RIP section on my userpage (User:LessHeard vanU#In Memoriam) where I list one or two accounts whose passing I care to note, plus a couple of WP bio subjects and a family member. As long as there is no negative commentary which third parties might recognise, keeping such a list there appears non contentious. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually appears to be a relatively neutral list. I don't think there's a reason to have such a page, but it's got editors that CW is philosophically aligned with and supportive of as well as editors that he would probably agree to a caged death-match with.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 14 May 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/User:Colonel_Warden/RIP_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1150995365"