Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 25

25 August 2014

User:SqueakBox/BLP – Resolved. – Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:SqueakBox/BLP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This was a page in my user space that I was using for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Porn and BLP and contained a series of diffs with who edited this diffs and a bit about our BLP and 3RR policies which was very objective, ie did not mention editors. WP:USER says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."and this is exactly how I was intending to use the page. The admin who deleted has not explianed how I can pursue dispute resolution without this page. IMO Mfd would have been an appropriate forum, a speedy deletion is not and so I ask for this to be overturned and if necessary others can then initiate Mfd, the proper process for this. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC) The list in question mentioned my username a number of times. For the record I do not want my name sullied on this editor's user page, which this editor would continue doing if it were restored. Whether the deletion was technically correct as a CSD or behavioral matter, the WP:BATTLE approach has no place among civil colleagues trying to build an encyclopedia, and I want no part of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Frankly, you're doing more a more than adequate job of sullying your fake name all by yourself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Defending an attack page by joining in the attack? Charming. Note — I've left a caution for this editor on their talk page, and asked them to remove that insult and others they have been making in various places.[1] - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Comment Your argument would be appropriate for an Mfd. How do you suggest I pursue dispute resolution with you and others without such a page to record what has gone on? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC) If you were to add those links you're always griping about, you could fix the "BLP violations" and you wouldn't need to pursue dispute resolution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Comment Kinda hard to comment without seeing what was deleted or a discussion of why it was deleted. Did you discuss the matter with the closing admin? Who was the closing admin? Was there prohibited content? Dcs002 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) It was a "hit list", with the names of several users and their alleged "BLP violations", along with some whining at the top about how everybody's against him. He should lose that verbiage and keep the list on his PC and out of sight, until or if he files an actual complaint. Until then, it's just an attack page, and attack pages are not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC) It's still in the google cache for now.[2] If I may cut and paste from google, it begins: Noting BLP violations, which are when BLP material that has been labelled as BLP non compliant is re-added without reliable sources in defiance of our BLP policy. BLP states that reverting such edits are not subject to 3RR and that the users who do such edits may be blocked. [p] [1] Wikidemon [p] [2] Wikidemon [p] [3] Wikidemon [p] [4] Scalhotrod [paragraph break notes added]. There are a total of 12 lines about 5 editors. That seems to contradict the "did not mention other editors" claim, unless Squeakbox has a new definition of mentioning other editors. Meanwhile, Squeakbox's main user page[3] says that "Such people should not be made welcome on this project". There, and in a blog[4] they have the good sense not to accuse Wikipedia editors by user name, only here on this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Very good. I may have exaggerated about the whining. But his assertion that these are BLP violations is false. I had thought Squeaky's obsession with this was done. Looks like not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC) You may have exaggerated? The link to the page I followed said nothing about anyone having anything against him. He did initiate mediation, though it seems no one wanted to participate. This looks to me like a use that's within W rules, as long as resolution is sought quickly, and it also sounds like that has happened. What is it about this page that seems like an attack? It looks like a list of examples that SqueakBox believes represents a violation of BLP policy, and it seems as though he/she is trying to make his/her case. I read the AN/I discussion, and it looked to me as if there were a lot of people there who were pre-judging his/her BLP case and skipping straight ahead into attack mode. This list is not at all a hit list IMO (and I'm not even sure what you mean by calling it that, as no one is asked to go after the names on the list). It looks like a list of users and the violations he/she believes they committed for purposes of pursuing some sort of remedy through proper channels. I think the parties who have refused mediation yet call this an attack page are not being fair. They have not seen how this list would be used. So far it seems to me this was deleted inappropriately. Dcs002 (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC) The whining about how everybody's against him is in the ANI thread. Baseball Bugs just confused. Cavarrone 03:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC) You're right, it's in his ANI complaint: "I am storing them precisely because I feel this group of editors is out to harrass me when I have done nothing wrong but they have, ie the BLP violations I have simply linked to." Squeaky's claim of "BLP violation" is untrue, and his accusations to that effect constitute personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC) That's what dispute resolution is for. He would have to show his page contents and if it's ridiculous you can have a chuckle. In any case, the page would have to be removed once it was used for dispute resolution, which had already been initiated before the AN/I discussion was opened. That's a legal use of a list of diffs per WP:POLEMIC Dcs002 (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Overturn This was clearly not an attack page, but a list of evidence collected for pending action concerning certain users who so far have refused to participate. That is an appropriate use of personal pages. Dcs002 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Comment I questioned SqueakBox about the list and its scope in my talk page and he never mentioned it was a temporary page about preparing for a dispute resolution, on the contrary he replied:"(it is) just a record of BLP violations", " If you want we can go to mediation but given that BLP violators were trying to get ME topic banned I am well within my rights to log BLP violations.", "The list merely records BLP violaqtions, if you know of any I have missed pñlease let me know and I will add them. making records like this is not an attack page, that would be like using my personal space to launch attacks on editors where all i ahve done is record publicly available diffs that violate BLP, as the page states. So I wont be deleting it as that would be not being transparent, after all I could easily have constructed the list off wikiepdia but I felt for the sake of transparency to do so onwiki.". None of his replies suggests he intended the list as a temporary memo. SqueakBox came out with this new explaination just after the page was deleted and after an admin suggested that it could be considered valid if a preparation for a dispute resolution. If this was his original explaination I would had not asked for immediate deletion. Cavarrone 03:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC) SqueakBox said "If you want we can go to mediation but given that BLP violators were trying to get ME topic banned I am well within my rights to log BLP violations" 11 minutes before notifying you on that same page that he had invited you to participate in mediation. (If you'd prefer mediation instead of AN/I perhaps?) All other comments came after his notice. You refused the mediation request 17 minutes after you had received the formal notice. So, most if what he(?) said on your page came AFTER requesting mediation. And he is within his rights to log BLP violations as long as he plans to do something about it soon. Just as WP is not a crystal ball, nor is it a place for mind reading. The fact that he didn't say up front that he intended to initiate dispute resolution does not mean his intention was not to do so. He might have thought that was obvious. We all deserve the benefit of a doubt before we are assumed to be trying to hurt someone. He deserves the presumption of good faith as well. BLP is the most rigidly applied rule we seem to have here, and if he believes (correctly or incorrectly) that it is routinely being violated, then he MUST take action, including making notes and diffs for evaluation by mediators or admins. If his notes show edits of yours that are not BLP violations, then how are you attacked? In that case he would look the fool, not you. Dcs002 (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Dcs002, yes, he asked if I wanted to start a mediation about the list, and then mentioned that " BLP violators (me included) were trying to get ME topic banned I am well within my rights to log BLP violations" which sounds quite pointy and retaliatory to me. About the rest, you have to know a bit of background before judging our interactions here. All the links of the list come from the article List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, which he proposed for deletion and blanked more than three weeks ago, a blanking which I reverted twice at the time. This was my BLB violation, shared with a half dozen of other editors. The question was already dealt with a very extensive ANI discussion I started at the time ([5]), an AfD discussion (closed as snow keep in a few hours) and an RfC. Frankly I considered the case closed, if not buried. It was discussed to the death, with a lot of unnecessary drama. Me, as the others, have no edited such article from that time. The article is actually fixed, and it has no realistic chance to be deleted. Today,as if nothing had happened, Squeakbox restarted from the scratch with the same outdated accusations, wishing to re-escalate all the drama about that page-blanking me and the others had already archivied. He is not raising any new argument, just the one which was discussed to the death. Call it as you want, I call it battleground behaviour. And it would better for everyone if he turn the page and drop the stick. Cavarrone 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Overturn I cannot see how this page meets the criteria for speedy deletion. I cannot reconcile this deletion with policy. If anything it should be settled at MfD. There is a policy basis for such material and nothing on the page was ad hominem in nature. Violations of the user page policy are not speedy deletable, MfD is the place. Chillum 03:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Since the content has been moved, I agree this debate has become moot. Chillum 11:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Overturn Per Chillum and Dcs002. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Request temporary undeletion I know nothing about Google cache so I don't know how long that version of the page will be available, and I think we should be able to do our business here without resorting to outside web resources. I'm concerned about whether SqueakBox will get a fair hearing unless the page is temporarily undeleted for purposes of this DRV discussion. As there is no copyright violation and no BLP violation alleged to be contained within the deleted page, I believe this is an appropriate step. No one has as yet claimed that anything said on the page is a lie, and all diffs on the page are verifiable. Dcs002 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC) The cached version will be stored until Google recrawls the page. I've heard that it can take months for it to recrawl (which is based on page views). Since no one can really view the page, it may stay cached for a while. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC) It sounds like a strong reading of WP:CSG#G10. Probably, this should go to MfD. The page can be blanked for the duration of the discussion, if the contents are offensive. User:TParis deleted it, but who nominated it? Endorse TParis' position as seen at User_talk:TParis#DR. My frequent !vote at MfD on these things is along the lines of "store it offline until you initiate formal dispute resolution". I trust that the nominator is free to receive the material by email? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC) He already owns the material, he wrote at ANI "of course I can just store it in a text editor, and i have already backed it up there". Cavarrone 05:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Can we just treat this as the behavioral issue it is and ask this user to stop making ridiculous accusations against other members of the community? They are a problem that invites undue drama and a great waste of editor time whichever page they are on. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Not in a DRV. An appropriate place to do that would be mediation or some other dispute resolution. I would also like to know who nominated for speedy deletion, and what the timing was. It looks as though SqueakBox requested mediation and got his evidence yanked at about the same time less than three hours later - yanked in a way that says he was doing something wrong by compiling it, thereby possibly prejudicing any mediation or other dispute resolution. Lists of diffs are explicitly permitted for dispute resolution, and it appears to me that SqueakBox's ongoing efforts at dispute resolution have been compromised. I think we all need to tread very carefully and consider everybody's right to be heard, and give dispute resolution a fair chance. Dcs002 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC) What's the fixation on meaningless process? We have a vexatious editor who's antagonizing a part of the community. Nonsense gets spun out from AN/I to far-flung process pages including things one. SqueakBox has already been heard from, many times, to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT among other things. His right to having others hear him badmouthing me does not trump my right to some WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. How about administrators, you know, administrating — not facilitating this? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Correction: The request for mediation was made BEFORE the AN/I was initiated. That timing can be interpreted in a few different ways. The more I look at this the more it looks to me as if SqueakBox was doing what he thought was right (whether or not he actually was right, and regardless of whether others found his methods annoying), decided on dispute resolution of some sort, collected diffs and put them in a place that could be easily referenced during dispute resolution, requested mediation (step #1 in dispute resolution), and then became the subject of an AN/I (after initiating dispute resolution) and lost his easily referenced evidence, which he says is for the purpose of dispute resolution. If I assume good faith on his part, this is what it looks like to me. Wikidemon, he is not badmouthing you. He has asked for mediation, and he has a grievance, which he is allowed to support with this kind of evidence. I don't see how this page violates G10 when this use of diffs is made explicit in WP:POLEMIC. I think the place for all this rancor is in dispute resolution, not here in a DRV. Participate in dispute resolution with him and insist he use the contents of that page or delete it then. Dcs002 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) That's not helpful or accurate. Squeak has certainly badmouthed me and others quite a bit lately and lied about my edit history, including on the attack page. To pick just a couple examples, I'm not sure what part of calling people "persistent BLP violators", calling for their blocks, "deliberately disruptive",[[6] saying people like me "should not be made welcome on this project" for whom he feels "disgust",[7] isn't badmouthing. A useful administrative response is to actually counsel editors like that to tone it down and stop creating an uncivil environment, not telling the targets of their rancor that they should go join them in a process war. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Wikidemon, I was talking only about the subject at hand - the page that was deleted. I meant there was no badmouthing there. Sorry about the confusion. I am glad to see you have accepted mediation, because that is a place where you can get help with all these issues. It might be frustrating, especially at first, and in the end you might need to step it up, but there's a good chance it will work out. You're making a good faith attempt to stop the craziness. If he is everything you say he is, you might be the only person here doing something effective to stop him. (I make no judgement - I don't know either of you.) My first experience with mediation was with an editor who "owned" a page with content I found deeply offensive. He was offered every opportunity to back off gracefully, but in the end he was restricted from that page for quite some time, with warnings of worse if he should return to his old ways. The second mediation I was involved with was about an AfD. Well, the mediator thought we could really work things out on our own once we had blown off our steam, and they were right. In the end we worked together and rewrote the article into something we could be proud of. Best of luck to you! Dcs002 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Support the move to the mediation page - where it should die a quick death. Keep it deleted - It's an attack page. Attack pages are not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Endorse deletion - if it was part of another page, it would have been swiftly removed without issue. As for who nominated it, I was the first one to suggest G10 at ANI, does that count? Ansh666 05:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks. It's not important, but sometimes I wonder whether we are discussing an admin's unilateral deletion, or a admin deletion in response to a well-explained tagging. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Endorse per WP:POLEMIC. I've collected diffs offline for evidence before; It is a much simpler and drama-free way to go about it. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Content moved to the mediation talk page here. There is no need to restore this page.--v/r - TP 06:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Technical Overturn but practical Meh The policy is very clear that Squeak is entitled to maintain the content as part of gathering evidence for dispute resolution and TParis acknowledges that he missed the fact that this was ongoing when he deleted the page. That he then restored a page he deleted as a G10 attack page elsewhere is tacit acceptance that he made the wrong call. If its an attack page why is it fine there but not at the original home? That said, I do not encourage the gathering of shit lists in user areas unless there is a clear need for them and if the RFM is already listed that is the correct place to maintain the 'evidence'. In summary, TParis was probably too bold to delete this but its not worth the aggro of restoring it now. Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC) I think it's all a matter of whether the content is genuinely to be used for dispute resolution. The content is now in a place where that can be the only interpretation of its use. If the mediator decides the list is really a shitlist and malignant in purpose, the mediator (or arbitrator, if it goes to that) can deal with it then. It's off the userspace and in context now. Dcs002 (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Note, of course, that TParis didn't restore the block-threatening preamble. Ansh666 07:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) It wasn't necessary. That's all covered in the request for mediation. I wouldn't read more into it. Dcs002 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Endorse and speedy close I think the savy move by TParis made this discussion moot. I am absolutely fine with a series of links put in a proper place, with an established timeline to be discussed (while I still think it was already discussed enough, and that restarting the discussion is just beating a dead horse) and without a partisan intro labelling them as BLP violations which require a block. I think everyone may be regarded as satisfied. Cavarrone 07:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Endorse Content moved I agree with Cavarrone. As dispute resolution has begun, moving the content there is an appropriate part of that process, and insurance that the content will be used appropriately. The issue of deletion review is now moot. I don't see a speedy close option for a DRV, but SqueakBox, as your good reason for keeping the list of diffs has now been satisfied, and the dispute resolution process has begun, I think it would be a really classy thing for you to withdraw your DRV request. (Thanks TParis for the decision!) Dcs002 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Overturn. No grounding in policy for this deletion. Users are free to prepare for dispute resolution in their userspace. Given that most of the parties involved have refused moderation, there's no reason not to allow SB to prepare a request for another appropriate forum. And the community should take appropriate note of the canvassing and bad faith faux-anger that involved the whiners who are trying to frustrate legitimate BLP enforcement in an area long marked by highly inappropriate editing, particularly when it involves paid editors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC) The only whiner is Squeaky. This is not about BLP violations, it's about manual of style pedantry. The BLP claims are a smokescreen, and are false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Oh, like hell. No honest user familiar with the history of such lists could say that. Porn star lists have been BLP nightmares for years. I've had to remove dozens upon dozens upon dozens of the most obvious BLP violations, where the wrong person is included on a list because of named similarities. The two bondage lists I cleaned out recently had accuracy rates -- in terms of reliable sourcing in the list or in any linked or related article -- of 20-30%, and none of the feigned outrage and self-righteous whining from you guys outweighs the gross failure to abide by basic policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Squeaky didn't bother to check for BLP violations on the list that started this, he just whacked it (pardon the ironic metaphor). If he really cared about BLP, he would do as you do, and take care to confirm that the entries on the lists are valid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Given the notorious, long-standing, piss-poor job of checking that marks so many porn/erotica lists in Wikipedia, I suspect SB's approach may show greater care with regard to BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC) speedy was incorrect, it was a legit set of diffs. That said, the move should be enough--I don't see why having this data in userspace is needed or useful for dispute resolution since it is elsewhere (If SB would like to make that case, I'd like to hear it, but I can't even dream up a reason it would be needed. And given dispute resolution has started and the data is there, it might even be speedy eligible now). I think the deleting admin made a mistake and should take their fishwack, but otherwise I see no action needed at this time. Hobit (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Comment. In the end, I think TParis did the right thing. The content was restored to the proper place. It's not worth dragging this out and causing more drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Endorse. Per our BLP policy for non article space which states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Even in preparing for a DR one does not have to use their sub page to repeat what they claim are BLP violations. Such content is best prepared off line.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Can we please close this? It's moot now, and it's attracting flies. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Comment if there is no further reason to keep this up, yes...please close it. It appears to becoming a platform for personal attacks.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.