Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DHeyward/My Fan Club

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 deleted per CSD U1 (at owner's request). Graham87 08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DHeyward/My Fan Club

Page is clearly an "enemies list" in violation of WP:POLEMIC The listing of multiple editors indicates that it is not an allowed collection of diffs to be used in dispute resolution -- the idea that he would take four editors to DR simultaneuously is not realistic -- but a list of people the editor feels are his "enemies" ("Fan Club" being used ironically to mean precisely the opposite). There's no indication that the editor has any plans for DR, and a request on his talk page to delete this page voluntarily was deleted without comment. The editor has been here since at least 2006, so he's certainly aware of the norms involving enemies lists. Further, if the editor feels compelled to collect this information, there's nothing stopping him from doing so off-Wiki.

Finally, I just want to note the unintended irony of an ediotr complaining about the "toxic environment" of Wikipedia while keeping an active enemies list. BMK (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, by the editor's own admission below, he has no intent to use the information in a "timely" fashion. He plans on holding on to the diffs until he thinks they're "stale". This is clearly a violation of the exception allowed by POLEMIC. BMK (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, only non-stale links are allowed by the POLEMIC guideline (and the guideline doesn't justify deletion if you read MfD). Who do you think determines staleness for DR (hint: it's the filer)? It's rather twisted logic that BMK proposes that only stale links can be kept but current links are somehow "too new." According to BMK links must be old but not too old with nothing to show why he believes such crockery. And to correct the lie above, as I've already done below, by my own admission, my only intent is to use them in a timely manner or delete them. These are WP:HOUND links which by definition are real time and new. Either way, BMK should familiarize himself with MfD for established editors user space (User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.). --DHeyward (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another note is that one editor already disengaged and is no longer on the page. ta da! --DHeyward (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words one editor is no longer a disputant with you, so therefore he is no longer an "enemy", so you removed him from the list. *blurp* BMK (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before and which you seem to have trouble comprehending, none of the editors are my "enemies" and I don't think I have disputes with any of them. Why they follow me around is something you'll have to ask the HOUNDS, not me. I don't know how you view WP, but I don't treat it as a battleground. You could try using the editor interaction tool and verify it, but you seem stuck in an endless loop. Get over yourself. --DHeyward (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. BMK (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, page is less than a week old and is mostly just a collection of diffs. Per WP:POLEMIC, "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.". I would be more convinced to delete the page should it go 1-2 months without DR action from DHeyward. I don't see anything specifically attacking other editors on this page. Nakon 03:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1-2 months is hardly "timely". If DHeyward truly has a dispute with these editors that needs resolution, then the diffs should be from the recent past, not being collected in the present in the time period the page is in existence. The page is a week old, which is plenty of time to collect the diffs he feels indicates a need for DR. And four editors? More than anything, that's what makes this an enemies list and not a legitimate list per POLEMIC. BMK (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the number of editors on this list is relevant. An editor is allowed to collect diffs to use in dispute resolution as long as they are recent enough to still be an issue. I would argue that 1-2 months is still in the realm of legitimacy. Nakon 04:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Editor A and Editor B have a problem, to the extent that Editor A feels that they are going to have to do something about it, then the diffs Editor A will collect to present the case against Editor B are for interactions which have already happenend. The allowance of some time to collect them is simply that, time for Editor A to assemble the evidence, not a period in which new stuff can happen and be added. So if Editor A throws together a list which includes 2 editors with a single edit, it's highly improbable that there is more stuff for those editors (which should be easily found, not notated with "there's probably more"), and that what the editor is assembling is not a list of evidence (no form of dispute resolution is going to proceed on a single edit), but a list of people they are pissed off at. BMK (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The situation you describe is not covered in WP:POLEMIC. The criteria, admittedly for only a guideline, are that these diffs are permitted. If additional evidence is generated after the fact, the editor should be able to add it to their "evidence" page at their discretion in order to build a stronger case before it is submitted to dispute resolution. Nakon 04:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said 1-2 months is in no respect "timely". A week is timely, possibly two, but there's no indication that DHeyward plans to do anything anytime soon, since he seems to want to wait until his various AE things are over. That's not what POLEMIC anticipates. Basically, what it says is that you can't collect negative informsation on people, unless you do so for dispute resultion and you use them sooner rather than later. DHeyward's several comments here indicate that he has no intention of using the links any time soon, therefore, the page is not allowed. BMK (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. The content guideline does not say "unless you do so for dispute resolution." It says for valid WP reasons SUCH AS dispute resolution. Big difference. I have a valid reason as I believe I am being Wikihounded by certain editors. That's my valid reason and there is nothing negative or unsourced. heck, if your statement were even remotely trued, we wouldn't store ArbCom proceedings. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that 1-2 months is definitely timely in the purview of arbitration. Despite the article creator's comments, the user page does provide a reference of diffs which is permitted to be catalogued. I would support removal of the page if DHeyward doesn't submit a DR or arbitration request within a month or two, but at this point, there is no reason to remove the page. I feel that we are disconnected in the amount of time between collection and submission to DR/Arbitration. In my opinion, 2-3 months is an acceptable amount of time to gather diffs in an effort to provide a full picture of the current situation. Nakon 04:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, you are making up statements that I didn't make. I said there is already ongoing dispute resolution and the people that have followed me are part of it. Whether specific AE stuff comes or goes is not really relevant except to show there is "Dispute Resolution." This isn't a random collection of editors that I've come across over 10 years, it's an immediate interest they have developed in topics I edit. That's unhealthy and prohibited by WP:HOUND. I hope stops and these diffs go stale. But if it's a pattern, the diffs are legitimate records. Incidentally, your MfD prevents me from removing anything. --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: "Incidentally, your MfD prevents me from removing anything." Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case. The MfD tag says, quite explicitly: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. You are explicitly allowed to edit the page, just not to the extent of blanking it. BMK (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, you seem to be unaware of current AE requests. You seem unable to understand that in addition to that, those on the list have decided to follow me and either comment or revert my edits. To the extent they continue is ongoing. When it stops, it will be deleted. But you seem unfazed that one of the people on the list baited you into this MfD and neither of you even bothered to notify me that you were discussing me at ANI. You are being used as a pawn by someone that doesn't seem to like for people to notice disruptive behavior. That page has no pings, no notifications yet the person that baited you to MfD added pings and then broadcast it on ANI. Ask yourself who/why would someone do that? --DHeyward (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Timely" doesn't mean whenever you get around to it. When are you planning on starting dispute resolution with these four editors? BMK (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "current AE requests" involving you. BMK (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping not to. And when the diffs are stale, I will delete. There's no such thing as HOUND issues that isn't real time. For now, though, the behavior continues as you were baited at ANI should show. Would you consider that fresh enough as I haven't added that diff yet. --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When I get around to it" is not "timely"; far from it. BMK (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is English your second language? You attribute quotes like I said something the voices in your head are speaking. They will be removed when they are no longer relevant to the Wikipedia purpose they serve. That's not "When I get around to it". Far from it. If the hounds didn't exist that page wouldn't bother anyone. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK is a very experienced editor and is uninvolved in disputes you are a part of. The idea that he is anyone's pawn is laughable. I asked for his opinion on your page and he evaluated it and he chose to act on that evaluation.

And here you are complaining that you were not notified that one of your user pages was mentioned on ANI and you are referring to me ("one of the people on the list", "someone that doesn't seem to like...") without using my username or pinging me to let me know you are discussing me. In fact, I provided links on your "fan page" so that the people listed there would know about the existence of this page and their presence on it. But you reverted me so you obviously didn't want them to be pinged about their names being on your list. So, I find your objection to be disingenuous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To help to dispel the implications floating around here that I have a horse in this race, I cannot remember ever being involved in a dispute of any kind with DHeyward, although I could certainly be wrong about that, and the last time I recall having a significant interaction with Liz, we were involved in a short one-on-one dispute with each other.

Again, I was made aware of the page in an AN/I thread I had already contributed to, I evaluated its content and determined to my satisfaction that it was an "enemies list" and not a legitimate exception to POLEMIC, I politely asked DHeyward to delete it, he implicitly refused by deleting my comment, and I brought it here. Nothing that's been said here changes my evaluation of the page -- if it had, I would withdraw my "delete" !vote. In any event, the page is totally unnecessary since DHeyward could just as easily keep this information off-Wiki and avoid any controversy at all. BMK (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To help dispel even more myths, I have no conflict with Liz that I am aware of, yet the Editor Interaction and her following and commenting would indicate she has an issue with me. That's pretty obvious and it serves WP to make sure that WIKIHOUNDING is discouraged. --DHeyward (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention you. I don't call attention to the page or the people. It's a collection of diffs for me, not a discussion page. It's not indexed. In addition, BMK notified you at ANI and I saw no reason to tie your name to it. MONGO notified you below when he mentioned you. I didn't put links precisely because I didn't want to broadcast it over the site, yet you complain about it but bring it to ANI as some sort angst ridden plea. Really, please stop bothering yourself over pages in my userspace and stop HOUNDing me. The only reason it exists and the only way you saw it was by watching my edits and following me around. I get enough of it offsite now that I don't really need proxies on WP. k. thx. --DHeyward (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep For a page you are not on and weren't called to, you have a rather large interest. Please note that those editors have commented on open AE requests, and recently closed AE requests and have followed me to many unrelated topics. WP:POLEMIC specifically allows for such pages. If such a page causes them stop that behavior, it's acting as intended. All those editors are GamerGaters, not enemies. You're lack of good faith is disturbing. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in you or in the page per se. It was brought to my attention, I asked you to delete it, you implicitly refused, it's outside of policy, I nominated it for deletion. That's the entent of my involvement. I don't know you from Adam's off ox, so any attempt to make this personal isn't going to fly. BMK (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's specifically allowed by policy and it's listed at the top of the page.. These are real time precisely because the dispute is real time as AE is ongoing. Why you think it is out of policy is rather disturbing. Why/who brought it to your attention is more problematic that the page. Whether I need those links or not largely remains with those editors. I'm concerned you are being used as a tool for something you are not involved in. If your argument is that it's outside of policy because of WP:POLEMIC, it may help if you read whether it's a policy (it's not). Also, the criteria is "such as Dispupte resolution" not "only for Dispute resolution." I have a valid Wikipedia reason for creating and keeping those links and I intend to use them in a timely manner. There, done.--DHeyward (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLEMIC. The page has a pointy title and pointy text, and cannot be interpreted as a compilation of diffs that might benefit the encyclopedia. No form of dispute resolution would be interested in several of the links I tried. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are correct and the WP:HOUND will not need DR and we can get back to topics that interest us. POLEMIC isn't policy or criteria for deleting talk page user space of established editors. It says so right in the "Read this before you file an MfD" section. --DHeyward (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: You cannot have it both ways, either POLEMIC is controlling or it isn't. If it isn't, as you are arguing here, then you cannot claim that POLEMIC allows your page, because you've just argued that POLEMIC is null and void. That is an untenable contradiction. My position is uncontradictory: POLEMIC applies, and your page does not meet the strict conditions it lays out for an exception to its rules. BMK (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not prohibited by POLEMIC guideline (if "not prohibited" and "allowed" confuses you, I can change to not prohibited by the guideline - you're aware it's not policy, right?). MfD, though, allows established users very large leeway including links. (read it, you'll like it). --DHeyward (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the caveat that it will be used in DR. Considering Liz brought this up at AN/I without bothering to notify DHeyward indicates the diffs may be needed.--MONGO 04:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bring a case about DHeyward or this page to AN/I. I referred to this page in the context of a conversation about another user page where there were similar concerns. And it was at the tail end of this conversation which was about a different editor. I didn't realize that referring to the existence of a user page required me to notify the creator that I had mentioned one of his subpages in a discussion about someone else. If this was indeed an incorrect judgment, I apologize to DHeyward. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - page is in use for dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATTACKPAGE. jps (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet any ATTACKPAGE criteria? Nothing negative about any person is said and every sentence ends in a diff. It's the opposite of an attack page. --DHeyward (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided that all peoples mentioned are involved in a DR case within a reasonable amount of time. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An aside- if it is decided that this page should be deleted per any of the policies it's in violation of, this archive of it should probably go too. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: Seeing as you've now blanked the page (which I believe is discouraged if it's up for discussion?) you should probably delete your archive at the link above as well. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This kind of thing is supposed to be in preparation for a DR process you actually have a firm intention of starting. Not "Imma dump all this stuff here in case I need it". It's also not clear from looking at the diffs just what the point is. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HOUND. Guess how someone found the page and, adding user template to call attention and then broadcast on ANI. After commenting at AE and then following me to articles and user space they don't edit, just to harass is HOUNDING. Look at the links and editor interaction. How do you document hounding except in real time? --DHeyward (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the links in the page don't make any kind of case that you're being "hounded", and you're not preparing for a dispute resolution process that you actually have firm plans to start. Repetitively badgering everyone who disagrees with you is not going to help either. Reyk _YO! 06:45, 26 March 2015 (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.