Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TopGun/Noticeboard references

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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator Achowat (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

User:TopGun/Noticeboard references (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Laundry list collecting references to an opponent's wrongdoings. Doesn't seem legitimate per WP:UP#POLEMIC (seriously, didn't we have a shortcut like WP:SHITLIST or WP:DIRTYLAUNDRY for that kind of thing?) Incidentally, I agree that the opponent being dealt with here does deserve some rather narrow scrutiny, but this kind of link gathering should be done off-wiki if anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: This is not against any single opponent. A mere list of all the conduct and content dispute discussions if you look again (rather two small sections of ANI and 3RR page archive lists and mostly about content discussions). This is quite normal. Listing archived discussions for reference to the threads themselves are not in violation of any kind of policy... not nearly an attack page. Keeping this off-wiki will disrupt my quick responses to content disputes when they get dug up or something again. The page has been quite helpful for handling both the conduct and content disputes. So WP:UP#POLEMIC does not apply as it's purpose is to facilitate in an indiscriminate way rather than the one stated. I indiscriminately include all archived threads I'm involved in, including the ones like this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Partialy blank - Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

But the page doesn't only have such content. So to remove the content which is problametic and keep other things which (ga, fa list, village pump, etc) Yasht101 11:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the links that are being referred to as problematic are also just links to discussions. These do not come under any of the categories you pointed out above as they are links to discussions and not comments or diffs on users. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below the link there is stated that what is there in the link which is similar to diffs. Yasht101 11:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the 3RR list, you might notice that it is not actually a statement of what is in the diffs rather the section which I need to keep track of in the link. Just formatted so that the section names in the links come as a list. It can easily be converted in to a single link using # but that won't make it any different. Hope that's clarified. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that they are not problematic to you but it can be for someone else. Yasht101 11:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be able to understand if a specific problem was pointed out to me, but none has been. If there's one I can clarify or resolve like the one you mentioned above. If some one doesn't want me to keep track of the archives where I discussed something, it would be similar for asking to remove the templates that list links to archive discussions; and disruptive per se. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Harmless collection of links merely for keeping record of things, as clarified by the user himself. I don't think there's any need to delete it since no one's being offended or interfered by its existence. I've seen other users have similiar sub-pages. In fact, this is a good way of keeping track of things and being organised. Mar4d (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The collection is without any editorializing and is a completely neutral. It simply creates a selective history of interactions with official boards and processes to make referencing back easier. Because the list is clearly broad in scope, it isn't a WP:SHITLIST, it is simply a reference tool. To require that the individual remove the listing of ANIs and 3RR from the list, when they have clearly listed them in good faith without editorializing, is excessive and unfounded in policy. This does not violate WP:UP#POLEMIC, which is very specific and is limited to: "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems". Going back and reading the history of this page, it is brutally clear that at it wasn't created to do any of those things and no one has demonstrated any bias or bad faith in any entry here. There are no diffs pointing to the wrongdoings of any editor, only direct links to official discussions, a neutral wording of the result, and no opinions of the events. This is perfectly acceptable and well within the guidelines for acceptable use of a user page, and if anything, an excellent example of how to do this properly in a neutral fashion. I'm a little shocked that we are even debating this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see how this could qualify under WP:UP#POLEMIC. Given the number of times TopGun has been brought up on various noticeboards and the number of discussions they may have started on various noticeboards, I don't see why an archived list of links to them would be worthy of a MfD. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: Hmm, okay. If so many outside observers think it's okay, I have no objections against closing this. I just saw the editor making edits to the page that seemed to be part of an ongoing feud, and it struck me as unconstructive, but now that we've had some outside eyes on it, it's okay with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And considering the circumstance, I completely understand why you wanted more eyes on it. Most people that do a list like this do it wrong, but he is doing it in the proper, neutral way. Of course, this isn't an endorsement of any of his other actions, only of his list making methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 8 May 2012 (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.