Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raul654/GoRight

Add links
From 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 Speedy keep - really doesn't matter one way or another. Were I to delete, it could easily be previewed by Raul. If I were to keep, the risk is the subpage being seen as an attack page, which is an acceptable risk to run if the evidence contained therein turns out to be useful; otherwise, maybe a bit embarrassing in the long run. At any rate, damage dealt. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raul654/GoRight

[edit]

Long-standing precedent is not to allow such collections, which could be seen as attack pages. This (through its age) is clearly not a preparation for an upcoming case. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Does not appear to attack any individual. "Clearly not" is not clear at all. And it is new. Does not violate any rules. Collect (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It was created in August last year, so "new" is not an adjective I would consider justifiable. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In what way is it "clearly not a preparation for an upcoming case"? It looks to me to be exactly that. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kommentar I see no indication on the page that it is intended for any upcoming case. It has been around since August, which is far longer than is usually acceptable for pages in preparation for cases. There has been no invitation (that I can find) for other editors to contribute or comment. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    DuncanHill, you must not have read Raul's talk page, where immediately above the section for this Mfd, Raul states the page is in case GoRight goes to another Rfc or to Arbitration.[1] KillerChihuahua?!? 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed I had not seen that, but I must say coming up with a "it's just in case there is another case" justification 5 months after starting such a page rings a little hollow to me. Other editors are not allowed to maintain such pages over such a long time "just in case", so I do not see why Raul should be. I assume he has access to a computer, so it should not be too hard for him to maintain such a list if he wishes off-wiki. DuncanHill (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ed. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm just a bit leery about evidence pages in particular and how much they help online processes as oppose to hindering them; I think it would be best to all parties if the page was blanked and people moved on (rather have evidence lists off-wiki than on, unless there's arbitration or similar). What is ironic is that Raul tried to get a similar such article deleted... (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/interesting edits, for anyone interested; the page's content is not quite analogous, but I suppose you could draw some obvious parallels.) -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a not-so-subtle difference between this page and Uber's page. Uber's page really is a collection of "All the bad things these users have ever done". The GoRight evidence page started at a very specific time, for a very specific purpose - to counter claims by GoRight that he was turning over a new leaf, be less disruptive, more civil, and adhere to a 1rr, etc. At the time, I felt it inevitable that he would resume his disruptive ways, and I was right -- he did so within a day or two.
    • Getting back to the issue of these kinds of pages -- if we decide to start deleting these, I'm fine with that, as long as we are consistent about it. (And I'll note notice that in the case of Uber's page, you didn't actually vote to delete it. So much for claims about double standards.) Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page was edited yesterday, which shows that he is still working on it (if the page was only kept rotting in the userspace, I would have said to delete it, but this is not the case here). -- lucasbfr talk 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an active sandbox. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly acceptable to keep prep pages like this for RFC or RFAR. rootology (C)(T) 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen. Contrary to what many here say, pages like this are explicitly disallowed by Wikipedia:Attack page which states in part that "keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad that some user ever did' is not constructive or appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." Oren0 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You conveniently omitted the part of that page that allows for evidence collection for RFC/Arbcom (However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes) Raul654 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is 5 months before mentioning that that is the intention of the page an acceptable timescale for this? DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Evidence" has been the first word on that page since the day I created it. What was it evidence for, if not RFC/Arbcom, as allowed by policy. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know what it was originally intended as evidence for, as you only claimed it was for RfC or Arbcom 5 months after creating
            • So let me get this right -- you are saying that in order to make obvious to you what is already perfectly obvious to everyone else, saying it's evidence is not enough. That people have to invoke the "for Arbcom/RFC" magic words? Raul654 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It would be helpful, as would edit summaries. As it is, I do not believe that five months is an acceptable timescale, even for legitimate preparation for an RfC or Arbcom case. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • First I never said I was absolutely determined to file an RFC/Arcbom case -- I said I was collecting them in case it was necessary. ("It will also be evidence against him if this goes to another RFC, or before the arbitration committee." - notice "if", not "When") I was hoping it wouldn't - I have better ways to spend my time here, and there was always the (extremely unlikely) possibility that GoRight would reform himself, or the (more likely) possibility that he would go on break and never come back. Second, GoRight made few edits from August to November, and did not edit at all from November to January. So the page really only covers about three months of his actual disruption, and about half of that was from infrequent editing. Raul654 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)This page makes no claim to be collecting evidence for any purpose other than a laundry list. also, he's already had an RfC and six months is a long time to collect evidence for another one or ArbCom. The problem with pages like this is that totally unfounded accusations (such as sockpuppetry, which if it were verifiable being a checkuser you'd know and you'd have blocked the sock) and attacks on a user's character can just sit on someone's user space indefinitely. Oren0 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This page makes no claim to be collecting evidence for any purpose other than a laundry list - oh, so saying that it's "Evidence" in the very first sentence is not enough. According to you, I have to invoke the magic words "Evidence for Arbcom or RFC". I see.
        • As to the sockpuppetry entry: As I stated at the time on ANI, we determined on checkuser-l that LFOD was definitely a sockpuppet, but we were unable to identify the sockmaster. It might have been GoRight, it might not have been. So not only are you ignorant of the facts that entry, but your unfounded criticism of the sockpuppetry entry is utterly without merit. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a checkuser, you don't find it inappropriate to directly accuse GoRight of being LFOD's sockmaster on this page despite the fact that the investigation was "unable to determine" the sockmaster? When you, as a person of authority on sockpuppets, imply accusations (adding a question mark doesn't make it less of an accusation IMO) regarding sockpuppetry it carries significant weight and doing it without basis that GoRight is involved seems wrong to me. Oren0 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I never directly accused him. On the ANI thread, I said it "may" be his sockpuppet, which is an accurate description, seeing as how it conveniently popped up in a thread about banning GoRight to defend him. On that page, I added a question mark to show that it was unsure if it was his sockpuppet or not, and I explicitely stated followed it up with "(sockmaster unknown)". There is nothing unseemly about it. Everything I have said is the unvarnished truth. You simply don't like the truth because you have, time and again, argued in favor of GoRight. Raul654 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • First off, I was one of the early supporters of GoRight's topic ban. Second, you have, time and again, argued against him. What's your point? Imagine that I was creating a page about someone's transgressions and I listed a section titled "Child Rapist?". I defend myself by claiming that I can show that there was in fact a child rape that is unsolved, I just don't know who did it. Don't you see how the inclusion of that material on the page implies guilt and that doing that without evidence is wrong?
                • First, it would be more accurate to say you opposed the two community sanctions (the ban from all of Wikipedia, and the ban from all GW articles) which would have substantially altered his behavior, while supporting the one that addressed only one small facet of his misbehavior. At the same time, you have a multi-year history of arguing in his favor, to the point where you mentioned it in your RFA. The point I'm making is that your claim that we should all ignore this highly relevant information about GoRight's possible sockpuppetry is suspect because your established bias in his favor. Raul654 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • As to your analogy - it's misleading and badly flawed. There are plenty of sockpuppets blocked by non-checkusers whose sockmasters are never known. Do we suspect any of them of belonging to GoRight? No. Then why do we suspect LFOD of being a GoRight sock? Because LFOD popped in the middle of a discussion about banning GoRight to argue against a ban. That leaves one prime suspect. Raul654 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The reality is that if you had any evidence whatsoever that this was my sock you would have banned me long ago. So, at this point, your only intent is try and smear me with unconfirmed and purely circumstantial evidence. But wait, you claim that this page is merely an evidence page and yet you have no evidence for this point. So why is it there? --GoRight (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is being actively edited by a Wikipedian in good standing, as part of what appears to be an investigaiton into ongoing problematic user conduct. If Raul has not moved this ro RfC in a month, or if the user is still blocked at that time, then it might become deletable, but not, I would say, at this point. It is actionable with diffs and other commentary, not just a "laundry list of grudges". Guy (Help!) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Long term abuse is difficult enough to track without keeping notes. I've personally encountered disruptive editors that have been unusually persistent (upwards of a year or more). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said! In fact, this user might change his tune and become more civil and a valuable member of the community. The call "DO IT NOW! OR DELETE IT NOW! THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!" is not productive or accurate. As an example in the real world, a lawyer may collect information to build a case and end up never using it because a statute was changed or, after further analysis, the actions aren't so bad. This is especially true for low-grade harassment that occurs over many areas over time. You cannot show a pattern of behavior if you cannot do appropriate analysis of his behavior. Raul may never file this and he might change his mind. As long as civil language is there, this shouldn't be a problem. It's not like these diffs don't already exist. — BQZip01 — talk 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions - Is there or is there not a SPECIFIC RFC or Arbcom case that this material is being collected in support of? Does the policy exception for such collection apply to open ended and non-specific cases as Raul now desperately wants it to, or was the spirit of that exception meant to apply only to specific cases? You all can decide. And he calls me a wikilawyer? --GoRight (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy blank - why not just courtesy blank it unless/until the RFC/RFARB starts? That should make everyone happy. --B (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would prevent me from adding any more of GoRight's misbehavior to it -- effectively defeating the purpose of the page. Raul654 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't make the change, then re-blank it? --B (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see the point, the page is not indexed by search engines (should not be) -- lucasbfr talk 09:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately, due to our licensing scheme, that doesn't stop it from being indexed. All Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL and so mirrors can pick up even pages with NOINDEX and they can in turn be indexed. It's unfortunate that way back when, someone didn't decide to only license encyclopedic spaces under the GFDL, but it is what it is. --B (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can blank it, but that seems to simply add 2 steps to the page every time he wants to change it (unblank & blank). The page's existence is the issue. If it can exist, then it doesn't need to be blanked. If it can't, it needs to be removed permanently. — BQZip01 — talk 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see any problem with these kinds of evidence pages. In any case, I can't see how GoRight could object - if that's all Raul has on him, it actually seems to demonstrate how weak Raul's case is. ATren (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A record of edits one finds controversial and civil analysis of those edits is appropriate. This page should not be linked anywhere or massively advertised. In no way should this !vote be viewed as does condoning or condemning either party and/or their related/unrelated actions. It should be noted that I have disagreed with Raul on many occasions. The principles discussed in WP:DEADLINE apply here. — BQZip01 — talk 03:30, 14 January 2009 (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:Raul654/GoRight&oldid=1089070111"