Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SheffieldSteel/Admin

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 keep. --Killiondude (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SheffieldSteel/Admin

I see User:Lifebaka has asked user to delete the page here on 30 July 2009. I also see that I am included on the page. Such "walls of shame" are not what Wikipedia is intended for. Particularly when some of the alleged listings of "abuse" are highly controversial. Law Lord (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am inclined to agree with Lifebaka. SheffieldSteel should copy this offline for his own use. Inclusion on this list is a Badge of shame, which is not what Wikipedia is intended for. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:UP#NOT states that "Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." which I feel that this page goes against. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can and do see how having such a list might be useful as a reminder, although I don't have one myself. It might be a good idea to remove the links, so that editors who are mentioned on it don't see their userpages linked to it. And, considering that the list is primarily related to online activitiies, it would probably be rather less useful if it were stored offsite. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. I see no harm in the page and I think this nomination is overly precious. Crafty (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am surprised about the keep votes, because the page is plainly in violation of policy:
"In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, ...
Examples of unrelated content include, but are in no way limited to:
...
10. Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason."
(I added bold to the specifically relevant text.) --Law Lord (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but blank resolved matters, or keep resolved matters in a blanked archive. Record keeping of an admin's should not be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no problem with the page. If the user has a problem with recording admin actions, then he should go have a talk with User:Fred, as he does the same thing. Not only that, LL has shown to have a bias in relation to anything that has to do with this admin, especially shown here, where he enters a dispute for the only reason that Shef participated in it.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not get personal but rather put forward your argument as to why policy should be violated in regard to this page. Your link merely shows that I offered an outside view in a RfC; nothing else. It is true that, as far as I know, User:SheffieldSteel is the only administrator, who has listed me on his personal wall of shame. That does not make me biased, since I am merely pointing to the fact that his page is prohibited by policy. --Law Lord (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I never said that the page makes you biased, what I said was that you were previously biased, and the rfc on FH proves that, as it shows that you only got involved because you feel he had wronged you. Indeed your view addresses none of the points brought up in the FH rfc, and only serves to attack admins(the people who wronged you).— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you ask SheffieldSteel about this before nominating? I'm curious what he thinks about it, especially since he hasn't posted on this AFD. tedder (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lifebaka asked him on 30 July 2009 here. Since he had already been asked to delete it, I waited more than 2 months, before nominating it. However, I know that he has maintained such an attack page before, and he has also been asked to delete it before. He then deleted it, only to create another later on. Dæ dαlus also defended the old attack page, so sadly, he is very biased. --Law Lord (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defending the old attack page does not make me biased.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain, why you think policy should be violated in regards to this specific page? --Law Lord (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, it doesn't violate policy. You bold the specific part of the policy you believe to be relevant(re: perceived flaws), there are no 'perceived flaws' here, there are only facts, and records of actions. It is quite common for admins to keep records of their actions, should they need to revisit them, and I see no reason why this record should be deleted.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And really, one has to wonder why you (Law Lord) has such a problem with your admin actions being noted down. It's not like they're a state secret. You're an admin, you've done stuff in that capacity and people are aware of it. Crafty (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The label "(unsubstantiated accusations)" is not a fact but a perceived flaw. I know that many administrators often consider themselves above the rules that govern the rest of us. The poorly argued keep votes from administrators in this thread, merely confirm that. Administrators are free to keep such lists on their local computers. --Law Lord (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. The list is an overview of my "percieved flaws", like asking somebody to use an appropriate edit summary, or asking somebody to remove hateful content from their user page. --Law Lord (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies there. I should have checked that out before firing off my big gob. Nevertheless I still see no reason to delete the page. Crafty (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not an overview of your perceived flaws, it's an overview of all actions Shef has done as an admin, and his history with you. Linking to a discussion is not perceiving a flaw.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "(unsubstantiated accusations)" is not a fact but a perception. --Law Lord (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact, it's a cold hard fact that you backed up none of these claims. You broadly attacked people and you didn't back it up. That's what unsubstantiated means.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception. Nothing else. --Law Lord (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my perception. You said that several users attacked and harassed FH, but you did not back any of those accusations up with diffs. It is fact, and no amount of denying it will change that.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks like a useful "personal notes" page. --Carnildo (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keeping such a list would promote the possibility of a CoI if another action happens in the future or that the user is operating as if Wiki was a battleground. As such, the page serves no legitimate purpose. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not helpful for a collaborative environment. At least take Law Lord off the list. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) here. ƒ(Δ)² 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is information that can easily be found and compiled by anyone by looking through his admin logs (deletion, blocking etc.), and honestly it's just a page for him to find it easier. Seems like a wall of shame, delete it. GrooveDog • oh hai 01:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a log extract. perfectly legit. Anyone is welcome to compile a list of his own admibn actions, though most of us don't seem to find it necessary.. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except most of it is is not a list of his administrator actions – at least not the list concerning me. Also, please point to the policy that says a log of administrator actions may be kept even if it violates other user space policies. I am aware of no such policy, and as such, your claim that is is "perfect legit" must be substantiated or dismissed entirely. Please also point out how his list about me is a record of his administrator actions. You will have a hard time showing that but please try. --Law Lord (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should he have to back up his claims when you won't back up yours? Talk about hypocrisy.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, most of this list is about his administrative actions. Under your section, it simply contains his history with you for reference. That history, all of seven threads, is not more than the sixteen entries that have nothing to do with you. The list about you is a record of his interaction with you, in order to explain his warning you of NPA. Thirdly, pointing out obvious hypocrisy is not a personal attack. Lastly, WP:DTTR. Go have a read.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hypocrisy but in putting that claim forward your are talking about the person and not the topic. Since you continued doing so, having been warned not to, I think you should be blocked to prevent you from issuing further personal attacks. You should also read WP:TTR and learn from it. If warning templates at your talk page about your personal attacks bother you; you may avoid those by not attacking other editors. Which claims is it you feel I do not back up? If you could stay focused on the issues and not in your apparent anger against other editors, that would be a big help to the community. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am focused on the issues, and I have in fact already provided the statements which you did not back up, but for transparency, here they are. It is not my perception as you continue to insinuate, but fact, that there were no diffs of evidence to support the claims made in that statement. The fact that you are telling others to substantiate their claims, when you refuse to do so yourself of your own, and in fact deny that you haven't is clear hypocrisy. If you don't like that label, maybe you should stop demanding things of others when you yourself have yet to do so.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPA:Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users..

You see, my accusations of your personal behavior cite evidence, and it is therefore not a personal attack.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only evidence for the alleged hypocracy is in your mind. This is about the deletion of a page, and you spend most of your posts attempting rather unsuccesfully to have others engange in a discussion about an old RfC. Criticism is allowed, and I offered my view that the person had been subjected to attacks. I kept the wording general to avoid turning it nasty and personal. You seem to like turning things into personal nastiness, but I do not. User:DGG can decide for himself whether he wants to substantiate his claims. Your "contributions" are only causing drama. So I am going to attempt ignoring you from now on. That is the proposed first way of dealing with harassment. --Law Lord (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harassment going on. I am not bothering you at your user talk page, and the facts that I bring up in this xfd are relevant to this xfd. My contributions are not causing drama, yours are, in that you continue to deny the fact that your blanket statements about others were un-cited, and were therefore personal attacks. Tell me since you believe so firmly that it is only my perception that your blanket statements were unsubstantiated, tell me, where in that post did you cite evidence to back up your claims? It is relevant to this xfd, as your entire argument is that this page should be deleted for perceived flaws: your argument is that the perceived flaws were Sheff's labeling of your claims as unsubstantiated. So far, you have yet to provide any proof disproving that label, and in fact, I have provided proof that the label is fact, and not the perception of the user. As to the hypocrisy being in my mind, do tell how that is the case, when you make a blanket statement about users without providing evidence, then demand evidence from another user. That is the very definition of hypocrisy, and it is not in my mind as you continue to purport.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a list of admin actions for future reference. As above, this seems like something that Sheff should have been asked about before the MfD. If the last contact about this page was months ago, I doubt it was still on his mind. Dayewalker (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm. If you had bothered to read the nomination, which I suggest you do (it is at the top of this page), you will see that SheffieldSteel was indeed asked about this page – in fact, more than two months before this MfD was begun. --Law Lord (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, my "months ago" comments above are correct. Dayewalker (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think he should have been asked several times, when he did not answer on his talk page the first time? --Law Lord (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say above was that if he were asked about this page several months ago (and hasn't edited it since then), I doubt it's still fresh on his mind. A simple reminder to him about your concerns on the page might have either prevented the need for this MfD, or given us more insight into why he feels the page should exist. Dayewalker (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your thoughts on that are reasonable. However, he has not edited for several months. His last edit was on 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC). He has actually had a similar page before, which he deleted after being asked to by several editors. I never would have dreamed that he would go ahead and create another.[reply]

Comment – most (if not all) the keep votes seem to be under the impression that this is a simple vote, and if they think that the page is good, then they can just contribute by saying so. That is a misunderstanding. This page has been nominated for deletion for violation of policy. So if you want to keep it, you better explain why you think it does not violate policy or show some policy which allows it to remain regardless of its blatant policy violation. The author (SheffieldSteel) was given more than 2 months notice to remove the page himself, but he has not done a single edit since the notice. --Law Lord (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which policy do you beluieve it violates? Since you don't appear to have mentioned that rather important fact in this MFD - the only "policies" that have been mentioned so far are actually guidelines (and it's uncertain if the page even violates those). Black Kite 19:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list of actions taken on wikipedia is obviously related to wikipedia, so it's acceptable in userspace as far as that goes. Neutral records of administrative actions that occurred can't possibly be construed as an attack. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify which of the following are records of administrator actions:

At the most, one or two of them has resulted in a contested warning issued by SheffieldSteel. I can also issue warnings to a lot of useless users and administrators and keep records of that. I guess that is all in the Wikipedia spirit then? --Law Lord (talk) 21:14, 17 October 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.