Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to article lower-quality statuses

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. Arguments refuting the guideline WP:UP#POLEMIC outnumber and are stronger than those invoking the guideline. If in the future, this list would turn into something objectionable per POLEMIC or another guideline, editors are encouraged to renominate it at that juncture. However, at the present, the list does not meet criteria for deletion. Thank you to all who participated in the discussion for keeping arguments policy-based and on-topic rather than descending into tangential tendentiousness. Best regards, Go Phightins! 13:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to article lower-quality statuses

"Shitlist" of edits that page owner doesn't like for some reason. Clear breach of WP:UP#POLEMIC: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My list is not doing anything described above. (You might as well make editsums "illegal" based on the same rationale. Or contribution histories including copyedits and edisums. Or make article Talk discussions about copyedits illegal. And be sure to tell every editor who would like to copyedit anything, or who likes to revert any edit of another user, that he/she is being "POLEMIC" by so doing! And put words in their mouth that by opposing or reverting another editor's edits, they are calling the edits "shit". Your "doesn't like for some reason" is a "crime"? Get off it. These are notes to myself if I come upon noticably bad edits in articles I no longer voluntarily edit now. (Oh gosh I called someone's edits "bad edits" -- will I be blocked and sanctioned now?? Is that a PA??) These are my notes and documentations for my own use, in my own userpage. Seeing POLEMIC is extremely bad faith, and how do you justify making such an accuse, when as mentioned any revert, editsum, or Talk page discussion where someone criticizes an edit or says it is a disimprovement to an article, is some kind of "crime"!? Wow. But meanwhile you get to write lots of POLEMIC and hostility above, and that's somehow okay. Amazing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's no secret that a lot of bad edits are performed, and it is known that many bad editors have edited. However, no benefit to the project would arise from recording such issues in user space—that's why POLEMIC prohibits the practice. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no benefit to the project would arise from recording such issues in user space. That's not strictly true in this case. I'm currently voluntarily not editing any of the associated articles. Another user might therefore find my comments useful, like a "proxy" edit request. There are very few edits in my list, and I've already seen it happen. Twice. (Could have been a coincidence. But I doubt it.) Another benefit is that the list is helpful to me,intrinsically, and as exercise in making. And I still don't get how normal housekeeping stuff like edit rationale, can be considered POLEMIC!? (If that were true, then any revert at any article is also POLEMIC. POLEMIC means someone's feelings get hurt. That phenomenon isn't unique here at my user subpage list, that's all over.) So why delete my list? It is part of everything that also goes around here in normal editing. The description of POLEMIC states "lists of wrongs", "diffs", and "criticisms". That text wasn't written to describe normal copyedit thought process. That text was written to describe people vs. people stuff. So POLEMIC used here for justfication to delete, doesn't apply to the nature of my list, which is no different from, say, an RfAR list of issues with an article, that may or may not be used but is a permanent record on the WP. I think you're stretching POLEMIC here, until it's breaking. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People have "to-do" lists on the WP all the time. This list is similar -- a to-do list if/when I ever go back and edit those articles again. Level with me, ... what is really bothering you about my list? In what way and to whom is it "POLEMIC"? (I never said "bad editors" -- you did. I don't think in terms of editors any more. Only edits. If someone gets reverted or copyedited, are they going to conclude in normal venues someone thought they were a "bad editor"? How absurd is that? And what is the difference with my to-do list? I just saw an editor subpage with a list of editor names and "Add to assholes" edisum on the last editor name added to the list. Why don't you fish out true POLEMIC stuff like that, and quit picking on my innocent list, that seems to offend, but nobody can explain why? (Or can you explain why? It is normal stuff. Calling it a "shit list" shows a bias not a logic.)
Do you really think the description you pulled from WP:USERPAGE really fits my list of normal copyedit comments? I don't: "information related to others"? No; "negative evidence, laudry lists of wrongs"? No; "collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems"? No. This is also from WP:USERPAGE, describing what user pages can be used for, and to me this is a not perfect, but at least a better fit than what you quoted: "Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities [...] to-do lists [...] Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki." (Can you say with all sincerity that that is not a better fit? Isn't it stretching to bend policy to force-fit by calling my list POLEMIC when there is no evidence of that, when it is only my copyedit notes about some edits that IMO disimproved some articles? Apparently someone complained? Who? And what was the complaint? And how is POLEMIC claim justified?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I do agree with the consensus at AN that IHTS's listing of edits by an editor he has been placed in an IBAN with was a violation of that ban, due to the specific meaning and purpose of an interaction ban, I do not see the remainder of the edits on the nominated page as rising to the level of POLEMIC. The list appears to be more of a memory aid for the time, if it should come, when IHTS drops his voluntary ban on editing a specific class of articles and wishes to undo what he sees as mistaken edits. If the list should begin to focus on one particular editor, then it can be seen as a "shitlist by proxy" and IHTS can be warned and the page re-nominated if necessary. At the moment, though, as pleasing as it might be to respond to IHTS's hard-core WP:IDHT behavior with a deletion, I don't believe the page is in violation of any policy. BMK (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thx for your attention. Two things: 1) there was only one edit (not "edits") in my list by the editor placed in IBAN (and Sjkkalle removed it, of course); but I don't agree commentary on content is prohibited by WP:IBAN and neither does the other editor based on strong comments made to Drmies, and 2) re usernames unfamiliar to me, I don't focus on them, or have any reason to remember them, or count them. So any accumulated edits by any given editor would probably go unnoticed by me. (If editor names were important I'd have created a field in the list for that. I created the list for my own use. So names obviously had/have no importance to me with this list.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not doing yourself any favors by attempting to re-litigate the IBAN thing here. Whether it was one edit or a million, whether you agree with the consensus or not, noting edits by an editor you have an interaction ban with is clearly a violation of that ban. With any other editor, it would take the listing of multiple edits for the list to become a shitlist, so I suggest that if your page is not deleted now, you'd better start paying attention to the names of the editors responsible for the edits you list - or, if you don't want to be bothered actually policing your own page, then you should delete the page yourself by blanking it and adding "{{db-author}}". BMK (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, quite frankly I was earlier resigned to this MfD being successful. (So it didn't matter what I said, or ranted.) But then I found some policy basis for myself at least, was a better fit for "Keep". BMK, this discussion doesn't belong here, but quickly, I was not cognizant of any "consensus" on my concern in two ANs [in fact it seemed clear to me this issue was never discussed or even answered, except by Sjakkalle, but his view which seemed very wrong to me, was why I opened those threads]. No one summarized at any time a consensus, and the close comment did not reflect any consensus either. Grumpy was unhelpful, and I did ignore Chillum's quiet view explained, because I discounted him, because he templated me with a CIV template, and harassed me repeatedly on my user Talk after being clearly told to not post there four times. I'm not trying to re-negoitate anything here, my comments here reflected my current understanding of latent confusion. Since my comments here, Fluff been kind enough to attempt to help me with several Qs I have toward understanding, but as you can see there in my responses to her, there are many confusions still, inconsistency, ambiguity, and also hypocrisy regarding similar "interactions" regarding commentary in content discussions. I've explained all this at the AN, and more detailed twice again at Fluff's Talk. So I just do not see the "clearly" you and some other admins are saying, it is not a IDHT thing, it is you-don't-see-all-the-picture thing involving an incomplete policy page at WP:IBAN, the editor I'm in IBAN with feeling he/she may barg in content discussions where I'm the only contributor whom he/she opposes with impunity, and him/her defending his/her right to do so staunchly based on WP:IBAN. A little consistency might be nice. (Although, as you know, I agree with his/her position more than the "admins consensus" position, since that one is confusing, not found in policy, and unhealthy for WP exchange of ideas and article develoment generally. So I'm not sure you admins aren't all misinterpreting policy. (If not, someone go spell it out at WP:IBAN so the regulars like me and the other editor can know it too w/o confusion, and also explain how content commentaries opposing me in article talk and project threads are any different substantively.
I've never had the number of edits in my subpage list sufficient to worry about aggregated numbers of authors. So I haven't. But the list would naturally grow in size of course, then it might have dawned on me was a relevant issue to look at aggregate author counts. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never left a civ template on your page. I left a hand written note that directly related to the situation at hand[1]. Of course you just blanked it. Chillum 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My error. (I assumed it was a template, since I also assumed you were new-ish user, since giving "CIV" advisory when there's obvious baiting and poking to witness at AN seems always a novice and shallow thing to do, typical of new users trying to be "helpful". I see you are admin and think you s/ know better, and also how irritating that situation could be. But I see you have relatively small no. mainspace edits, and I can't see how that situates you in anything other than green as far as being in position to advise what you think you need to. It's counterprodctive, but I'm sure you don't see that or you wouldn't have done it. And how do you explain, as admin, continuing to post at my user Talk five times when being clearly dis-invited off my Talk page four times?? (You don't call that a CIV breach, I don't suppose.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with BMK, word for word. Some of the entries on the page do document legitimate concerns, and while it is not quite as constructive as actually fixing the faults (and fixing the faults would be welcomed, also by the editors who currently have a bad impression of him), but having gone through the history I have seen occurences where someone has undone edits listed on this page. As long as the page is otherwise policy compliant, deletion is not required. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks sincere. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend author requests deletion. Not sure what making a list of these edits accomplishes that just fixing the edit would not. You have already started one big fuss over this list and I would hate to see it happen again. I don't think there is any policy based reason to force you to do it so I am appealing to your common sense. Chillum 17:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've said already seventeen times, I'm voluntarily not editing a subclass of WP:CHESS articles now. I did not initiate any "fuss" over this list. (Sjakkalle did, by finding an edit he didn't like then reverted it, accused of "flagrant IBAN violation", and threatened me with block; and FuturePerfect did, by initiating this MfD.) You got it upside down. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not editing the article, but are storing diffs on it. You are not intereaction with users you are not supposed to yet you record his edits. Sjakkalle did not cause any fuss, he just warned you to stop. You made the fuss when you created 2 different threads and kept complaining when nobody agreed with your point of view on the matter.

If you are not editing the articles then no need to record what others are doing there. If you cannot interact with a person the do not record their actions. My advice is that you request deletion as it will likley be the outcome with the least drama. Chillum 17:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimple. I am voluntarily not editing those articles currently. I already stated I find both intrinsic value and exercise value in making the list. And as Sjakkalle pointed out and me also, another(s) may be browsing the list to complete the reverts or fixes. (I dunno but think so.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2014 (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.