Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Duk/Jeff

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was no consensus. Xoloz 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Duk/Jeff

This is a list of "trolls", being maintained in userspace (by an administrator, no less). Among the "trolls" is an administrator editor in good standing. Such a list is not acceptable, and has been subject to deletion before. Ral315 » 04:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a page of notes to help deal with the abuse of Jeff Merkey, and to collect information for possible future arbcom cases. It is similar to User:Jayjg/Disruptive Apartheid editor and User:JzG/LA. It's not a list of trolls, although some are listed there, along with some trolling behavior, and a links to previous dispute resolution pages that are relevant. The only accounts labeled as trolls have been indefinitely blocked. So, Ral, could you please tell me which one of those is an administrator in good standing? --Duk 05:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The former appears to be an old list of IPs and usernames used by one editor to attempt to meatpuppet, which is perfectly fine (since the one user mentioned is unquestionably disruptive, having created nearly 40 sockpuppets and edited from numerous dynamic IPs), and the latter is an RFC that was never filed, and is perfectly acceptable. This is a list of multiple editors whose only offense is disagreeing with you - that's much different. Ral315 » 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an enemy list, or a list of people whose only offense is disagreeing with you - there has been a problem with trolls stalking Jeff for a long time, did you miss that part?
  • Ral, this is the second time I'm asking; which administrator in good standing did I call a troll? You are en encyclopedia editor, a sign post writer and an "administrator, no less". Please try to attach meaning to your words. Otherwise, nobody should listen to a word you say. --Duk
        • I consider your reference to Dtobias as this mention. Just because you don't have him explicitly labeled as a troll, the meaning seems clear. Ral315 » 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll correct your impression by pointing out that I'm not, and never have been, an admin. I am, as far as I know, a Wikipedia editor in good standing, however. *Dan T.* 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah! I could have sworn you were an admin. I have fixed the nom; my apologies :) Ral315 » 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on your enemies list, and you've claimed numerous times now that I've been trolling and stalking Merkey. However, the only evidence you've been willing to show of such 'trolling' or 'harassment' has been a single, possibly ill-advised edit replying to you, not Merkey, on WP:ANI and the resulting disagreement on my talk page when you blocked me. Anyone who expressed any concerns about your behaviour was also threatened. You've been totally evasive when asked to give any evidence to justify your accusations of a campaign of trolling and stalking of Jeff Merkey, yet you continue to repeat them. I am inclined to agree with Ral315 that you are targeting some editors primarily because they happen to disagree with you.--Aim Here 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Remove everything but the list of known (and banned) trolls. Your subjective "watchlist" and "suspects" is only going to cause more conflict and prevent constructive discussion. If you want to keep your own private list of enemies, thats fine. But in my opinion, having a WP page dedicated to "usual suspects" is disruptive, violates WP:AGF and will only cause people to be come defensive. In addition, even though I disagree with the WP:BADSITES policy, using the Y!SCOX board as a reference may be a violation. --Nyet 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Duk has given the appearance of being "Merkey's pit bull", acting to ban or warn just about anybody Merkey was displeased with, and making it seem like criticizing Merkey was not to be tolerated. Assuming good faith, I'll take his word that he was doing it to curb the trolls that follow Merkey around, and level the playing field for him, but I'm concerned he acted in an overly pro-Merkey-biased way and tipped the playing field pretty far from level in his direction. Keeping an "enemies list" is one of the questionable things involved. *Dan T.* 20:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Grow some balls and deal with the underlying problem, instead of the ancillary problem of trolls showing up to harass someone who needs to change their behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Foundation is required to maintain records of this type of website abuse by trolls and stalkers since it involves violations of Federal and State Law by anonymous individuals disrupting the Wikimedia Foundations investements as well as the investments of its major financial contributors. Dan T. got onto the list due to uncivil dialouge, and based upon his history of contributions to Wikipedia and his apologies to me for some of his previous misperceptions of me, I asked Duk to remove his name. Duk should not be punished for protecting the Foundation and its significant investements and those of its financial contributors as he has admirably done. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, Duk is under no threat of being "punished", and I would obviously oppose any punishment. Furthermore, whether or not he has protected "the Foundation and its significant investements and those of its financial contributors" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. -Nyet 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nothing but a lot of barely veiled threats, rubbish, and bogus legal analysis from somebody who obviously doesn't know any better. Deranged bulbasaur 13:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per my vote at One night in Hackney's similar Mfd just closed. I think these things are better on site than off site as they at least show transparency, SqueakBox 00:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avoiding disruption and adhereing to WP:AGF is clearly more important than "transparency", which is NOT a WP policy. Store it offsite, but realise if you link to it you potentially run into the (misguided) WP:BADSITES, which is why i dislike the proposed BADSITES wording. In any case, as it stands now, the page is ---><--- this close to basically being a troll, and might be regarded as stalking by those listed (but not banned or blocked). Obviously, this would cause more problems than it "solves". Keep the list of banned/blocked users if you like though; that is useful inasmuch as it might help identify real stalkers. -Nyet 00:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would vote this way on any similar mfd including if I was named in it, and IAR demands I use my personal judgement and dont act like a policy slave (not being a lawyer or politician), you may not value transparency but I do, SqueakBox 01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those unfamiliar with the whole BADSITES controversy should see my essay on the subject. *Dan T.* 13:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How does the existence of this conduce to making a better encyclopedia? All it does is create strife. If the abusive users on the list still present a problem after being blocked, a long term abuse case should be created. If the admin in question finds the behavior of legitimate contributors on the list questionable, let him create an RFC. All this does is serve to place his own personal beliefs about Wikipedia users in a place where the community is refused any input on the matter. All the information there is unfalsifiable since nobody can contest it, and thus it's not meaningful. Having reviewed, as an uninvolved party, the history of this mess, I conclude that there is no evidence that Merkey is the target of anything other than mere petty antagonism. All the antagonists have been dealt with. I don't see anything that would lead me to believe he is being stalked. Deranged bulbasaur 13:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page is now also mirrored at User:JzG/JVM--Aim Here 18:38, 30 May 2007 (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_talk:Duk/Jeff&oldid=1078582379"