Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kelly Martin/R

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete. My vote count puts this at 20 to keep, 23 to delete. Under normal circumstances I would have called this a "no consensus", Had "useless" and "unencyclopedic" been the only argument presented for deletion, I would have gone with "no consensus", since we generally have given wide leeway for what people put in userspace.

However the argument presented by Zoe, Splash, and Zero Faults, in particular this post on the Administrator's Noticeboard, illustrates that that the purpose of this page was to bait another administrator, El C in this case. While assume good faith is the default, creating pages in order to bait someone qualifies as harrassment, and assumptions of good faith only go until proven otherwise. That argument is a huge factor against keeping this page. Since none of the "keep" voters have presented a balancing factor based on the page's usefulness to building an encyclopedia, and since the page appears to have been made with the purpose of seeing if El C will speedy delete it, I am calling this a delete decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kelly Martin/R

Seems very WP:POINTy following the incident with User:Kelly Martin/B (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kelly Martin/B and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kelly Martin/R and Computerjoe 's talk 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know I shouldnt comment at the top but people are missing the main idea. The page was created to entice another user to put it up for MfD. Its specific goal stated by the creating user is just that [1] Again sorry for commenting at top, it seems people are not reading the whole page, as they are stating "innocent till proven guilty" however they already stated themselves their reason. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is WP:POINT a deletion criteria? --Cyde↔Weys 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if a page exists just to breach policy, it is a deletino criteria. Computerjoe 's talk 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page exist to breach policy? --Cyde↔Weys 19:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the original list - what was the criteria for that deletion? BigDT 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was my criteria. --Cyde↔Weys 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plea IAR. Computerjoe 's talk 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to use IAR as a justification for my actions exactly once and get burned over it quite badly. I wouldn't recommend you do the same. Doing something because it's the right thing to do may be justifiable, doing something just because you're ignoring all rules isn't. --Cyde↔Weys 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Comment until I know what it is. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a few lists of Wikipedia editors to me. Misza 13 ^{T C} 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be some sort of a puzzle ... the trick is to figure out what the list means. I don't think it has any negative purposes like some people were claiming that B did. --Cyde↔Weys 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and sigh enough is enough. Whatever happened to minding your own business? --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 19:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice colo(u)rs. Misza 13 ^{T C} 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure how this helps improving Wikipedia. Grue 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well... who cares really. Sasquatch t|c 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kelly admitted on WP:ANI that the creation of this list (or some variation of it) was a WP:POINT disruption to goad an admin into blocking her. The original list, whatever its exact intent, is unlikely to have had a positive use considering that selection criteria involved how someone voted on an RFA. The copycat lists (and that includes Kelly's list and all of the others that other users have made) are either satire or WP:POINT. It's time to grow up, take out the trash, and get on with life. BigDT 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there was no basis for the deletion of the original list, and there is no basis for the deletion of this one. Being "a list" is not a reason for deletion. I too have a "B" list. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No grounds for deletion. --Carnildo 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and while we're at it I'd like to point out my B, which is in the vein of Kelly Martin's B, only mine is populated automatically by bot. --Cyde↔Weys 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grue. Wikipedia is not MySpace or Friendster.. - Mailer Diablo 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the day has come ... you can delete this list if I can go delete the userboxes. --Cyde↔Weys 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I do believe all of the justifications I've had people give me for userboxes, despite them not being encyclopedic, may apply to this list as well. --Cyde↔Weys 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's strange that one of the most prominent opponent of userboxes populates their userspace with such trash. Grue 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde I thought you could delete the userboxes after giving time for them to be migrated per the German solution (I always liked that title). That's why the final solution, I mean German solution exists, so userboxes in the article space can eventually be replaced by userspace copies and the article space ones deleted. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly, Grue. :) - Mailer Diablo 21:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grue is spot on here. Two wrong do not make a right. It comes across as "well if you can do it, so can I". Is that what you intended? David D. (Talk) 20:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the opposite. It's "you can't do it and neither can I," so let's compromise ... delete this list and the userboxes. --Cyde↔Weys 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your eagerness to delete uncyclopedic stuff is commendable... Why not you join me and help out in deleting other unencyclopedic articles et al.? - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kelly did come out with an explanation for at least one of the lists[2], and I'm willing to AGF here that this list has some similar purpose. And even if it is some sort of "enemies list", it's not like it wouldn't exist after it was deleted, it just wouldn't be on Wikipedia. BryanG^(talk) 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per confession of trolling and disruption made by its editor. We'd delete anything that self-confessed as trolling and/or disruption; something that confesses to being both should probably be deleted at least twice as a result. -Splash - tk 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that. I think there is a meaning to the list, I just haven't found that out yet. It's like a puzzle that needs to be solved. --Cyde↔Weys 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we are going to start removing weird things in userspaces against the wishes of an active editor there are better things to delete than this. --Gmaxwell 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyde. Septentrionalis 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the Wikipedia equivalent of gluing a quarter to the sidewalk and watching people try and pick it up, shrug. We've kept these types of pages before after they've been stripped of comments/criticisms...but this is all pretty silly. Rx StrangeLove 23:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider appropriate administrative action against those listed. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Gmaxwell. --Anchoress 00:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme speedy delete, created in order to "invoke a reaction". Clearly a disruptive purpose. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I know it would feel odd to be listed on anyone's list, marked with colour and being given no explanation. Yet, a explanation was later given (see BryanG above) and while I feel its not quite satisfactory, it will have to do. So, in the light that no indication of real distruption or abuse has been given so far (besides making people feel odd for being "on the list"), I cannot find a reason to delete it. So I vote, albeit weakly, to keep. Charon X/talk 01:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Endlessly draging these pages to MFD is much more diruptive then the lists could ever be. If you don't like someone's subpage, don't look at it. If any of these pages are ACTUAL ATTACK PAGES, then flag them as CSD, if the attack status is disputed, bring it back here if you really must. (FWIW: A list of users, on its own is not an obvious attack page). There are probally a dozen forks of this page now, and MFD doesn't need to see them. Also note that recreated content doesn't apply to this out-of-process (though uncontested) prior deletions. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe. --Rob 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is a recreation of deleted content; If it was disputed, it should have gone to WP:DRV. Also... Why the heck am I not on this list?!? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD G4 only applies if the original deletion was within policy. --Cyde↔Weys 21:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That and this isn't a recreation of deleted content if anyone was actually paying attention. Any votes claiming so should be considered ill informed and possibly invalid. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AGF --Moby 05:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have prepared my own list of users who may or may not be disrupting Wikipedia - User:The wub/B. the wub "?!" 11:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is something inside her userspace disrupting anything. Just a "mental notes to self" page. --Cat out 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As pointed out above, by Kelly's own admission, this page was created not for any useful purpose, but specifically to annoy other editors. This makes it a textbook example of trolling. It gravely concerns me that Kelly Martin is still considered a respected contributor by some of the old-timers. We should have higher, not lower, expectations from longtime editors. Wikipedia is not myspace, let's play our dramatic games elsewhere. Friday (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These pages are in fact disruptive. The ANI discussions are adequate evidence of that. I've read the explanation that BryanG points us to that Kelly offered for her work. Basically, a social experiment. If meaningful research was wanted, there are swarms of discussions lying around that could be analyzed and reported on statistically. Instead, she provoked something that can't rise above the level of an anecdote. She loses nothing of the experiment if everything is deleted, as she is an admin. This social experiment explanation also tells us that keeping the page is of no value to Wikipedia the encyclopedia. GRBerry 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She admits that the R list was intended as a form of WP:POINT. These lists have wasted hours of user time. And worse there is now a craze for lists. School yard antics is not productive to improving the content in the main space. To those that argue that the original B list was private. If that were true, why did she have live links to peoples user page? Her B list was effectly advertising itself anytime some used 'what links here' from their own user page. I don't think people discovery her page this way can be accused of snooping. David D. (Talk) 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping this sets a bad precedent of divisiveness. Cliques should not be encouraged here. I think there's more to benefit (from WP:BEANS alone) by deleting this than keeping this. -- Samir धर्म 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr... I'm not sure a random list of names qualifies as a clique... Sasquatch t|c 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I view this as a continuation of the B and Q lists. When a group of admins add names to a list in userspace without explanation given to others, I think it qualifies as clique-like activity. -- Samir धर्म 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I am reminded of some schools' ban of red or blue bandanas, or some dance clubs' rules forbidding hooded sheatshirts, because they define these things as "gang-related activity". Barno 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment The page calls Elkman "a general waste of time." Anybody else think that's a personal attack? I abstain on this, by the way. Xoloz 23:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elkman added this emself, in this edit, so I wouldn't call it a personal attack. Michael Slone (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xaosflux. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, I would be glad if this were to go to some other websites. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 10:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Samir and Terence Ong. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to Kelly's reputation, it appears to be a hitlist of some sort. Karmafist 12:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no strong reason to delete; innocent until proven guilty. Λυδαcιτγ 18:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Misza13. It's just a list, and ~~— if I've read everything correctly — just a list being used to study consensus-building in Wikipedia~~ a random list at that. I also don't believe for a minute that Kelly would sneak around behind a colourful little list if her true intention were to build and act upon a hitlist. Michael Slone (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too, but in fact this comment refers to the /T list. This comment explains the purpose of the list in question: "The /R list was a list of random users with random colors assigned to them. There was absolutely no meaning to the list that El C deleted. I created it for one express purpose: to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it. <snip> Kelly Martin (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)". Λυδαcιτγ 03:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it and block Kelly. Everyking 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment glasshouses and stones, Everyking, glasshouses and stones... Charon X/talk 12:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe and Samir. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless Kelly explains its purpose much more thoroughly (including explaining the color codes). I've thought about this vote for as long as this MfD has been up. I presume that I'm on this list and the /B (/Bad?) list because I opposed Sean's recent RfA. Kelly said on AN/I that the color codes correspond roughly to how trustworthy she thinks the users in question are. If I'm doing a bad job, or if what I am doing here is not completely up to par, I want people to tell me directly. If the page is so that Kelly, and whoever can solve the puzzle, knows which users she likes and doesn't like, that doesn't help the users that she doesn't like become better users. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, B doesn't stand for "Bad". It doesn't actually stand for anything, yet it is entirely meaningfull. Have I given away enough clues about this yet? --Cyde↔Weys 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you aren't... scratches head in confusion
Delete unless Kelly conclusively explains what it's for; if she does (or already did), point me to it and I'll change to keep, if it's harmless. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, just found out she did. Well, in that case, ignore this MfD and get back to editting. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Abstain: storm in a teacup. —Ashley Y 01:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave Alone. ~~This was only created to evoke a reaction. By getting in a twist over this, we are doing exactly what Kelly Martin wanted us to do.~~ This isn't doing any real harm, although it does seem a bit pointless. ><Richard0612 ^UW 13:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed with striked out comment above. I don't understand why Kelly would enjoy that, but that's not my business, I don't understand why this is anything other than a distraction. Attic Owl 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I struck that bit out because it seemed a bit too attack-y, and also, I wondered whether that really was the case. Even so, it's still a bit odd ><Richard0612 ^UW 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment NPA doesn't apply: CIVIL does! Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I'm not even sure CIVIL applies but inciting unrest that results in wasted time is defintiely a problem. Is there a WP:INCITE-RIOT? David D. (Talk) 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the purpose of having a bunch of names on a page. There may be nefarious intent. Attic Owl 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kelly seems to have forgotten that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that she should be spending her time here contributing to it rather than keeping "little lists". Perhaps deleting this will remind her. User:Angr 08:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a WP:POINT violation. Enticing users to file MfD's by creating suspicious situations after being accused of other suspicious activities is just ... not encyclopedic. Users intent was spelled out here [3] --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete petty trolling. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grue, BigDT, and Zoe. Joe 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove the bottom note. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want to keep the content even though it says its an admission of why the list was created? Wouldnt that just bring about the same situation, are we attempting to agitate people? Social experiments, especially those that pruposefully attempt to manipulate people should not be conducted on Wikipedia, this is after all an encyclopedia, not a play ground. I am surprised the admin in question hasnt just removed the content themselves and it speaks volumes that they would leave it there considering the situation that has come from it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the user has a list of users in various colors in her userpage, apparently for her own use. So what? It's the user's page. Keep. - Mike Rosoft 15:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not for her personal use, its for the sole purpose of manipulating or enticing another user to report it for AfD, its beyond school yard games and this is an encyclopedia not a social experiment. There is a note at the bottom of the page in question outlining her reason for making it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:04, 2 August 2006 (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.