Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elonka/ArbCom log

• Note to closing admin - Elonka has linked to this page as evidence in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:*The page being discussed (not this particular page) was being linked. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Related discussion

|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

|Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi-ScienceApologist clarification

|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement

}}

This content is redundant to the arbcom enforcement board and case logs, and in any case Elonka is heavily involved in these disputes and not accepted as an honest broker by many of the editors concerned so is definitely the wrong person to be maintaining such a log. Consensus has come down firmly against Elonka's inclusion of similar material elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy. Leave this to the ArbCom. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Guy. I can see how the "log" might be useful for Elonka, but it doesn't seem that hard to keep the notes off-wiki. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is userspace, and saying someone is dishonest as a reason for deletion in userspace is an extraordinarily weak argument. If it is an Abrbcom matter, leave it to Arbcom, and thus MfD is the wrong venue. If it is simply a matter of "IDONTLIKEIT" in userspace, sorry. Collect (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

::This is not an arbcom matter, MfD is appropriate. Verbal chat 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Violation of WP:ATTACK and as it is in a sense a continuation of a list which has already caused much drama and been removed from an article talk page, I regret to say it is now also a violation of WP:POINT as well as tendentious in general. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Elonka's behavior screams that she's insecure about her appearance, and is covering her ass by making sure that anyone hostile to her is on one of her 'neutrally compiled lists compiled by me, an neutral editor', ensuring that she can point to a list and say, 'I was neutral but S/he's on it, so s/he can't be neutral about me!'. I call to remove her attempt at armor. ThuranX (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

*Delete. I consider this a hate page. If it was being used for something like an RFC or RFA then I could see a reason for this short term. But the listings are already in other locations and easy to find. I also agree with the comments by JzG, CalendarWatcher, and ThuranX. Though ThuranX says it a little too strong for me the meaning s/he is trying to say I agree with. I should add again, lists like this have no proper place to help the project. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)*Since things have changed and the arbs are talking about things I say it is being used now to keep track so she can use it for her contributions to discussions. It should be deleted though after all cases are resolved. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: We've not made allowances for these materials by other editors and administrators in the past, unless they were to be used for an RFC (etc.) in the near future. I don't see the case here. seicer | talk | contribs 16:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• If she needs someone to double-check her concerns within a certain area, wouldn't she need to keep a list somewhere so people can double-check? I personally advised Elonka to seek secondary-input instead of acting on her own. Can someone point out to me how is it an attack page? Because I'm not seeing the "attacks" or "incivility". - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:*For the time being, Keep, as it is being used as part of an RfAR statement. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. These kinds of scratchpad pages are extremely common. It's just a collection of links to articles where I have worked as an administrator, and a collection of diffs that are needed for other purposes around the project (such as at ANI, or for block/ban messages). Maintaining this list off-wiki is a hardship, as then it loses the benefit of utilities such as WP:POPUPS to quickly scan the list for the diff that is most useful. And right now, the discussions about these diffs are extremely active. Once the dispute at the pseudoscience pages dies down, I'll be removing that section of the page. --Elonka 17:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Hit lists like this have no place on wikipedia, arbcom enforcements are already documented and logged elsewhere. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This page contains mostly evidence about my actions more than any other editor. And this evidence (taken out of context like it is) could look badly for me as an editor. That said, I think keeping evidence like this is a normal part of Wikipedia (especially for an admin) and I have seen many other editors do exactly the same thing. Unless there is an official ruling in Wikipedia policy against this (i.e. In their own userspace, a user nor admin cannot keep a log of other user's actions.) then I really can't justify supporting the deletion of this one. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^{User_talk:SlimVirgincontribs} 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. per Levine2112. - Agathoclea (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, plus a multitude of other reasons (attack page, webhost, etc). Elonka can keep her lists on her own PC. Elonka is not arbcom's rottweiler. Verbal chat 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Arbcom doesn't keep pets. Well, maybe cats. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Full disclosure: I admit that I am an involved editor in this list.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete disruptive, drama-causing and seems prejudicial to editors on the list.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for a very long list of reasons I'm too fat-fingered to type. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This page does nothing to further the writing of the encyclopedia; its only effect to to increase drama. And per above. -Atmoz (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Please rename this to something else if it is kept, in case of accidental confusion with directly ArbCom originated material.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sure, like User:Elonka/Scratchpad? --Elonka 19:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Tracking where one is working seems perfectly acceptable to me. And this seems like the type of thing that is much better to have in open view, rather than in a text file on someone's computer or on a private wiki (where this content would inevitably wind up if it's deleted here). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:* I think that would be much better done through some dispute resolution mechanism, with mediation being the obvious choice to me due to the number of editors and the length of time it's been running. Regardless, the user space of one of the partisans is a really bad place for this to be and we've already had it removed by consensus from at least one other venue for largely that reason. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Pointless and unreliable drama-mongering. Skinwalker (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Laundry list which will only create wikidrama rather than solving problems. Mathsci (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per Guy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Levine. I think that provided this is temporary, it's within the spirit of WP:USER which says "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." The Arbitration case has a place for a log of blocks and bans, but not I think a place to log which editors have been informed of the sanctions; it might clutter it too much, but admins enforcing the sanctions do need to keep track somehow, since sanctions can only be applied to editors who have been informed of the special restrictions. JzG, please consider refactoring the use of the word "honest" in the nomination statement. Striking out: per Protonk just below, apparently "honest broker" is a special phrase not necessarily referring to honesty as such; in addition, the phrase is used indirectly in the nomination statement. Apologies to JzG; thanks to Protonk; sorry, Elonka.^{(00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC))} ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• It is less the word 'honest' than the phrase 'honest broker'. Alleging that someone is incapable of neutral dealings between parties in a dispute is not the same as alleging they dissemble. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the attack section underneath the actual ArbCom list. Shot info (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Levine, and per my comments on AN/I about the validity of an "honest broker" comparison when dealing with a "side" that doesn't want an honest broker, they want one that agrees with them. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This list appears to be a simple aide-memoire to remind Elonka of what has gone before. It is not a laundry-list of grievances, because many of the entries are not of grievances but simple happenings. I know of the ongoing dispute whereby Elonka is said to be an involved editor who should not be taking actions, but that dispute is not relevant here. Elonka could just as well keep such a list on paper by her computer; it is better for the interests of transparency (as well as accuracy) that it is kept onwiki. I cannot find a policy which would justify deletion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Swat and Sam. I can see nothing in Wikipedia:ATTACK#Personal attacks that warrants such a characterisation as attacking. Racial, etc epithet? Nope. Use of affiliation to discredit? Nope. BADLINKS? Nope. Accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence? No. Threats? No. Though it is an alternative to keep an offline copy, transparency is key. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep What part of this page is an "attack" or "enemies list"? I've argued passionately before that we should be very cautious about allowing users to generate "pre-RfC" scratchpads, so I'm not inclined to want this page kept. Nevertheless, the page content is less than objectionable and the heading asserts clearly the nature and purpose of the page. I'm ok with giving leeway to a user in their userspace. Honestly, if we delete this, she can just recreate it on google docs or on notepad at home. Hell, she could do it with a pen and paper. Deleting this page doesn't expunge the list from memory, just from view by others on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I think that more drama has been spent on this page's existence vel non that is warranted - it plainly seems divisive and I would ask that User:Elonka seriously consider removing it volunatarily to reduce the temperature. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep That some editors who have made problematic edits aren't happy that warnings and notices are being tracked is unsurprising. Several of them want the tracking admin to stop attempting to manage their behavior. But it is simply not credible to claim that this is an attack page, and it stretches beyond my ability to assume good faith to call for a deletion of records such as this and also to simultaneously claim that a new "neutral" arbitrator is needed. A new neutral dispute manager/mediator/arbitrator will need a list such as this - and so will any group of such admins. Yet the same people are making both sets of claims. I don't find them credible in either set. GRBerry 00:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Akhilleus - it's not per se problematic, but should really be maintained offline in order to minimise drama. Orderinchaos 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Further comment (someone should feel to refactor if they feel the urge, but I am lazy) This list could be maintained offline - and when people learned about it we'd have long drama threads on WP:AN about how OMG, Elonka iz using sekrit evidence!!11 or some similar cries against admin abuse. --Tznkai (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question - is the log intended to facilitate anyone else's understanding of the various pages (above and beyond info on relevant arbcom or article pages)? If so, there maybe some reason to keep it onwiki, otherwise its presence is a net negative in already volatile situations. Depending on the answer to this, as facilitation of communication may trump its removal, but for purely one user's use I don't think it is a good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• :The people arguing for getting rid of it also regularly argue that Elonka needs to bow out of administering this mess and let another admin take over or at least have other admins work with her. (I tried that once, and gave up after an earlier major drama flare - the battling warriors are good at making administering this mess to be a painful effort with low return.) If they are sincere in the desire to have someone else take over, then there is real reason to keep it on wiki. If they aren't sincere in that claim, why should we believe them in this claim? They effectively refute themselves. GRBerry 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• : Even if it's beneficial for understanding, why not keep such a thing on Wikipedia space under AE or on the appropriate cases? rootology (C)(T) 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• :GRBerry is not quite right. Elonka has made systematic errors of judgement in assessing editors in fringe science and pseudoscience. Two such editors were community banned sockpuppeteer User:Jagz and User:Zero g over articles in eugenics and dysgenics. Although these did not fall within the remit of ArbCom enforcement, Elonka's assessments would not be useful to other administrators: they were a maverick mix of hunch and grudge. Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and dump any useful content to AE or the case logs, where they should go. rootology (C)(T) 16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Case log is only used for restriction/notification, generally. And this is more of a "who did what, when"-- it wouldn't serve any purpose to put this under AE, as this would be an on-going timeline, if chosen to be tracked that way. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Inappropriate. Violates WP:USER. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Akhilleus. Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Under WP:UP#NOT #10, we find, "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." Even if this is construed to be negative information, keeping notes on complex Arbcom cases seems like a good enough reason to me. Note-taking is often essential to keeping facts straight, and for notes on something of this nature, a userspace subpage would be the appropriate place to keep them. Perhaps, as a compromise, after each update of the page, Elonka could apply a courtesy blanking and use the past revisions when she needs to review her notes. --Dynaflow babble 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment Huh? You'd be right if that was, in fact, what she was trying to do. However, it's a self-determined list of who is and who is not a bad boy for the purpose of editing anti-science POV articles. But you have your opinion, and I guess you're entitled to it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Projecting motives onto other editors is something I will not pulled into. I happened to see the link to this MfD at the top of a rather long ANI thread, came here first without reading the thread so I wouldn't prejudice myself one way or the other, and judged the facts as I saw them as an uninvolved editor. My conclusion is that Elonka is keeping notes, including an annotated list of diffs (the majority of which seem to be her own), which track the events of a dispute in which she is involved. To me, that looks much more like the acceptable behavior listed at WP:UP than it does a flagrant violation of WP:NPA. --Dynaflow babble 02:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - What does this honestly violate? I know it is a source for drama. Is that now a deletion criteria? If so, then delete. If not, then keep. Sigh. More drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per MZMcBride and Sam Blacketer: if Elonka finds this list useful, she may as well keep it out in the open, to the extent that her userpage is "open". I don't read it as an attack page against an individual or group. An attack page might be if she ganged up 100 diffs against one single editor. This is a more balanced record on both sides of a conflict: maybe not perfectly balanced, but not obviously biased either in my view. Crystal whacker (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless preparing for a case, keeping a laundry list like this is always deleted. Always. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.