Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination)

Image or user category

Would a delete outcome of this MfD effect the creation of either an image or userpage category? -- Ned Scott 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. Especially not with some people opining that a category would be superior - or not. If you've watch the List/Category debates in some of our sillier AFD/CFD combinations, there is a small risk of going through the revolving door a few times, but I've never seen it spin more than a couple complete circuits. GRBerry 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a lot of WP-namespace pages userfied instead of deleted, and no one much cared as long as it met WP:UP. Most of the time, the contention is having the page in WP-namespace. The only thing I would worry about is what if someone did not want to be on your user subpage? I imagine as long as you did not try to side-step the rules, and made you intentions publicly known, you probably would succeed at least to some extent, IMO.--12 Noon 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, never mind, I totally mis-read your question!--12 Noon 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of disclosure, some of my comments have been directed that way... but the deletion rationales (mostly) focus on the project page itself, rather than on the idea of some collection. Some of the privacy concerns might still cut across into a category, but that's probably worth discussing specifically before we call it one way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal?

I think this removal would be better left and appropriately annotated (what constitutes appropriate escapes me, since Ned Scott didn't include an edit summary with his deletion). Anchoress 06:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is considered personal information or not, or even if the claim is true. Without anything to back up the claim, it's inclusion is inappropriate, and also seems to be used as an attack on an editor. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would it be personal information? And I don't see the attack. Anchoress 07:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associating an IP address with a username can give location information. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would be an invasion of privacy. Anchoress 08:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, anyone who knows my IP can know which company or school I work/study in even if I don't say so. Isn't that a privacy violation, more than me consciously putting my own photo on wiki? Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how is that invading the privacy of an anonymous editor who's left the project? I can click on the IP address right now and find out all the information you said, but it won't tell me much. Anchoress 08:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TSBDY is by no means an "anonymous editor" and just because people have (or claimed to have) left does not give us carte blanche to out their IP information. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't use the description 'anonymous editor' as a pejorative, but I'm assuming the editor's username isn't her/his real life identity, so I'm not sure in what way s/he isn't an anonymous editor. Anchoress 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is me. But that argument is specious, as people know my real name. Please, I'm not monitoring that account anymore. If someone leaves a talk page message, I probably won't respond. Please don't tag it as TBSDY. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know your real name. Anchoress (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Ta bu shi da yu's actions today, s/he is a good editor, and I think alienating him/her further is not in the best interest of the project. Furthermore, the ready association of the IP with the account is, while not strictly a violation of prviacy, a violation of the spirit of privacy that we attempt to afford our users. Indeed, I cannot immediately post a strong policy-based opinion for either inclusion or removal of the material, but I would submit that including it does more harm than good. --Iamunknown 08:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly not advocating a pile-on against an editor, but IMO deleting a contribution against which there is no policy, without even an edit summary explaining the removal, is inappropriate IMO. Anchoress 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proof that the IP is TSBDY is in the contributions Special:Contributions/211.30.71.131. Specifically, [1] [2] [3]. By removing the disclaimer on the MfD, how are others, and the closing admin, to know that the IP is trying to continue TSBDY's point? Also, please see this discussion and this discussion on AN/I. I am respectfully reinstating the comment back onto the MfD. Regards.--12 Noon 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phoenix-wiki removed the tag stating it wasn't TSDBY [4] but then the anon posted he WAS TSBDY [5]. So, either the anon account is lying and should be blocked, or that is TSBDY. Either way, I am sure any closing admin is aware of this so I have no further interest in feeding this anymore.--12 Noon 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon isn't lying. I've scambled my password. Please don't tag me, it's not for you to do. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--12 Noon 00:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Following End of Debate

To me, this is clearly the wrong decision - Admins are usually fanatical about deleting "irrelevant" pages, particularly pages attached to user's names, for reasons such as "capacity" and "non-notable", but a massive page full of useless pictures apparently is perfectly acceptable. Thedreamdied (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]