Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dicklyon/Stewardship

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dicklyon/Stewardship[edit]

WP:ATTACKPAGE against specific named editors. This really is not allowed on WP. jps (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Do not keep live negative things about other editors without a very good reason. Keep it offline, or use it promptly (something like 1 week) in formal dispute resolution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notes about the history of a user who claims "stewardship" justifies his always-revert behavior on an article currently being actively negotiated. There's nothing here attacking or threatening anyone. Of course, if others prefer, I can keep it offline. Dicklyon (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of complaints against another user outside a formal process. — csc^-1 21:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, it's a list of reverts, not a list of complaints. There's only one complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easily easily read as a record of grievances you have with other editors. It begins by naming an editor.

Possibly, you could completely restructure it as an essay about Stewardship, with diffs in footnotes as examples, but now it looks likes a list of diffs by editors with just a comment as to what the problem is.

The following does not look good: "Here's how Alexbrn practices what he calls "stewardship".."

An essay defining "Stewardship", and a discussion of the practice, would look a lot better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The named editor had told another, "Stewardship is not edit warring", in defense of his edit warring. I was collecting notes on a particular phrase that he was stewarding, to help inform the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better to keep it offline until put to some use. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not about stewardship. This is about the author's disagreement with another editor's stewardship or concept of stewardship. What is the purpose of this page, anyway? Is it meant to inform other editors in general, or is it meant to state issues with one editor? It appears to be the latter. If it is meant to be a general essay, it can be started over, which means by deleting this.
- - If this is meant to go to WP:ANI, then it should be either put on WP:ANI, or maintained on disk storage until it is ready to go to WP:ANI.
  - If this is meant to be discussed with the subject editor, then discuss it with the subject editor.
  - As it is, it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is meant as notes for an ongoing discussion, and has been useful for that. The need for it will go away before long. Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of Wikipedia:Attack page. Zoozaz1 talk 15:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'm too involved so I must recuse myself from voting) It would be better to do a widespread study of this "stewardship abuse" phenomenon rather than focusing on an individual. MarshallKe (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2021 (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.