Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon

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 delete.  Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon

User talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't help but feeling the motivation behind this page is nefarious. There is no need or excuse for such a "dirt file", which clearly violates WP:UP#POLEMIC. If there's a problem, natural recourse should be to WP:DR or WP:RFC/U. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Without speculating on the motivation, maintaining a dirt file in Wikipedia’s userspace violates WP:BATTLEGROUND. His proudly pronouncing that he had done so (∆ edit, here) is about as far from fostering a collegial collaborative writing environment as one can get. I hope Born2Cycle “gets” what I’m writing about here. Greg L (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Textbook example of negative material on others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Isn't it normal to question a person about something like this on their talk page before filing an MfD[1]? I'm sure this could have been resolved much quicker and informally that way, but no such correspondence occurred. I only learned about this after Greg L (talk · contribs) placed an MfD template on the page. Anyway, the page is about another user's inappropriate and disruptive behavior, and it is in my user space. Per WP:WP#OWN, "Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." It does not contain personal information. It is not an attack page; it's just a place to collect evidence in a standard manner (diffs) of a certain user acting in ways that violate policy. It is not in article or policy talk space nor in any other inappropriate place and does not violate policy, guidelines or any other rules, including WP:BATTLEGROUND, so far as I know.

  As to WP:UP#POLEMIC, it actually states:

  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 created that file yesterday. Let's give it some time, shall we?

Since neither policy nor guidelines are violated by this page, my motivations for creating it should not be relevant here. However, since they've been questioned, I'll answer. Because of disagreements, some users develop animosity for others and this is unfortunately sometimes expressed in inappropriate and disruptive behavior. Disruption and tendentious editing can be difficult to prove, as it requires collecting evidence from a variety of disparate locations over a relatively long period of time. Instead of going back in time to all of those places, it is much more efficient to collect evidence as it occurs. That's what I started doing on this page. I sincerely hope that I will never have to file a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct on dicklyon (talk · contribs), but, despite warning him way back in August [2], this kind of behavior has occurred and recurred often enough that I decided to start collecting evidence -- as it occurs -- so that I don't have dig it up (which would just be more disruption) should it continue. Since it is my right to file a RFC/u, it is my right to collect evidence in preparation for possibly filing one, if enough evidence accumulates, in this manner. What other place can I do that other than my user talk space? In fact, I notified Dick about this[3], hoping that it will serve as a deterrent - to inhibit him from engaging in inappropriate and disruptive behavior in the future.

I started collecting evidence about Black Kite (talk · contribs)'s inappropriate behavior at User_talk:Born2cycle/blackkite in November, and the problematic behavior ceased immediately. I'm hopeful for the same result here, and I submit that page and the peace that ensued as evidence that this approach is actually the opposite of WP:BATTLEGROUND, as it discourages continued engaging in inappropriate behavior (as they say, if you want to change something, start keeping track of it). In fact, if Dicklyon stops with the attacks, uncivil and disruptive behavior, I'll have nothing else to add to the file, and it will go dormant, just like the blackkite one. One can hope, eh? Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Point of information/order: The deletion proposal was properly notified to you on your talk page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, B2C, with your citing that policy. But it speaks about compiling evidence in preparation for a dispute-resolution process. Your creating that dirt file as a separate page all its own—with another user’s name as part of the title—and then crowing to Richard about it, was clearly intended to humiliate and intimidate him into caving to your desires. “I’m maintaining a very public dirt file on youuuuuu” is the obvious interpretation of …I hope this will be enough to give you pause…. Yeah, you wrote that and no amount of posturing from you can explain away the obvious. Moreover, it can reasonably be seen as baiting him. “Assuming good faith” in your intentions does not require that others overlook prima facie evidence like your knee to his groin. Just because you can go “Oh dear! Little ol’ me?” and offer up a lame excuse about brushing away a piece of lint does not explain away the obvious. If you can’t do better in a collaborative writing environment, I suggest you take a wiki‑break sufficiently long for you to study Wikipedia’s many policies governing interacting here on the project until you can abide by them. Greg L (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Knee in his groin? "Intended to intimidate him into caving to your desires"? These are unnecessarily negative characterizations of what I'm doing, and I'm surprised you see them that way. My "desires" are that he stop engaging in behavior that is uncivil and disruptive. What's wrong with that?

Nice try? It is what it is. I did it with Black Kite, it worked, and now I'm doing the same with Richard.

I am trying to resolve an ongoing dispute with him, about this inappropriate behavior. I've warned him as cited above way back in August, to no avail. He repeatedly... well, trying to avoid getting into all that is why I started this file. The hope is that just by informing him that I started compiling evidence in preparation for starting some kind of formal dispute-resolution, he is likely to see the error in his ways ("will give him pause..."), and the dispute will be resolved right there. Again, this harmless approach was immediately effective with Black Kite, so I'm trying it with Richard. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that either there is a legitimate potential case against him or there isn't. If there isn't, because he has not been engaging in inappropriate behavior and has no intention of engaging in any, then he has nothing to worry about, nothing to be intimidated about, and really nothing to complain about. In that case, the page is harmless by definition.

But, if there is a case - because he has been engaging in disruptive and uncivil behavior as I suggest - then he still has nothing to worry about, as long as he stops engaging in that behavior, which is what the existence of the page is likely to encourage. It's all good, really.

I can of course compile the evidence off-wiki (and I will), but then it wouldn't have the same deterrence effect, which is the main point of just starting to compile it (and hopefully the end of it). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting you: I did it with Black Kite, it worked, and now I'm doing the same with Richard. I see. (*sigh*). Greg L (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. What's your point? The implication of your statement is that when requests have failed to resolve a pattern of disruptive and uncivil behavior, that there is something obviously wrong with trying to resolve it by notifying the person that one is commencing to compile evidence of this behavior in preparation for possibly (if the behavior continues despite this compiling of evidence) moving on to formal DR. Please explain what you believe is wrong with it, because it's certainly not obvious to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean, in general, if person A is starting to compile evidence of inappropriate/uncivil behavior on the part of person B, isn't a page in A's user space the most appropriate place to do that, and isn't notifying B better than not notifying B? If such a notification alone resolves the situation, as it is likely to do, as it has in the past with others, isn't that a good thing? What exactly is the problem here? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow I have a hard time believing that you are really so clueless. You aren’t supposed to maintain a conspicuously titled dirt file and then go to other editors and waive the fact that you are maintaining one in an other editor’s face. Your above excuse embodied in the wiki‑quotation is just that: an excuse, and a lame one because your intentions are obvious from your actions. Furthermore, your attempts to explain anything away by stating that you did the same exact thing in the past with another editor and got your way is absolutely no justification for continuing to do so and is just digging yourself a deeper hole; it amounts to “the end justifies the means.” Now, I’ve tired greatly of your lame attempt to use this MfD as a platform to continue with your Dicklyon-bashing, as if your behavior as of late has been so exemplary and you are somehow entitled to flit about like an admin or ‘crat. There is more than enough concern here with your continued editor-bashing to start a WQA on you and I’d be more than pleased to oblige you if you persist with this lame posturing. What part of “You aren’t supposed to maintain dirt files and then wave the fact that you’ve done so” are you not comprehending here? Or is this just the classic ol’ Born2Cycle-style “The best defense is a strong offense?” You’ve just about used up your nine lives and had best just change your “Keep” !vote and be done with this because you don’t have a leg to stand on. Further attempts to use this venue as a platform to demonize your arch nemesis can only result in bad ‘cess if you persist. Greg L (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg, you're not even listening much less assuming good faith. I don't know what I did that caused you to get so steamed, but effective communication with you seems to no longer be possible.

For anyone uninvolved, I'll just point out that what Greg sneeringly calls "maintain a conspicuously titled dirt file", WP:UP#POLEMIC refers to as, "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages", which it explicitly permits (if it's used in a timely fashion and this one was created one day ago, and I started using it immediately, by notifying the subject user about its existence - whether that's sufficient or whether I'll have to compile more facts and go on to a formal process remains to be seen).

Greg also did not answer my question about whether it's better to not notify someone about whom such evidence is being compiled -- which he describes as "go to other editors and waive the fact that you are maintaining one in an other editor’s face", as if such notification is a bad thing -- than to notify them. I, for one, would prefer to be notified, and I believe this makes the effort more likely to resolve the situation for reasons I've consistently stated above, and starting with when I first made the notification.

As to the "ends justifies the means" "excuse" argument, the only reason I brought up using this method before was because my motivations were questioned. My motivation is to get someone to stop acting inappropriately. Sometimes just asking them works. In this case it didn't. So I took it to the next level - starting to compile facts about his behavior. To show that that was my motivation, I cited evidence that I had done this before for the same reason, and it worked. It's not an excuse, it's an explanation for why I did it.

Anyway, I don't need an excuse. There's nothing wrong with compiling such facts and using them in a timely fashion, the title is neutral (it's just the person's username and so the page is just as likely to be a compilation of accolades as anything else - I could have chosen a much less neutral title) and no excuse is required to justify it.

And accusing me for using this MfD as a platform for bashing a particular person is ridiculous. I didn't start this of course, and, contrary to WP:MFD guidance, I was not even given the opportunity to explain what I was doing or why before the page was nominated. Once it did start, I've actually refrained from saying anything specific about that person's behavior here. Note above where I got as far as "He repeatedly..." and stopped myself for the reasons I wrote... "well, trying to avoid getting into all that is why I started this file." That's the truth, too, whether Greg chooses to see it or ignore it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguing with you is obviously pointless. Let’s see if you can understand the reasoning of the below editors (like Beeblebrox, who is trying mightily to communicate in simple terms that might find traction with you) who find your page in violation of what we consider proper behavior on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am a neutral party to this dispute between you and dick. I think you personally jettisoned all assumptions of good faith from 35,000 feet when you posted that intimidatory warning on DL's talk page. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Since interpretation of WP:UP#POLEMIC is a key issue here -- whether it supports existence or deletion of the page in question -- I've left a notice about this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#WP:UP#POLEMIC interpretation needed. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• And here's this admin's response to that posting: delete unless you are actually preparing to pursue an RFC or other DR in the immediate future, and I've also nominated your other shit list for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Little "sin bin" pages such as the one nominated here serve no encyclopaedic or collaborative purpose; rather, they promote a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere and ultimately have little to distinguish themselves from blatant attack pages. I doubt that attempting to force a re-evaluation of what precisely constitutes WP:UP#POLEMIC at WT:UP will be enough to overcome this simple fact. SuperMarioMan 00:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. It would be reasonable to construe the page as an attempt to threaten and intimidate an editor who contributes with integrity and in good faith. Noetica^Tea? 00:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously There have been many cases like this, and they have been resolved in accord with POLEMIC: while it's ok to work in a sandbox to prepare evidence for an appropriate noticeboard in the immediate future, pages which simply list "points about editor X that I don't like" are very unhelpful for the community (no BATTLEs please). Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. I might add that it’s worth noting that if one legitimately needed a sandbox in which to prepare an imminent complaint, it can be done in a true (/sandbox) subpage. In this case, B2C created an inflammatory “/dicklyon” subpage and then left a post on the targeted editor’s talk page pronouncing that he had done so (∆ edit, here). B2C’s …I hope this will be enough to give you pause… bit in that post made it perfectly clear that his creating and maintaining the dirt file was for the express purpose of dissuading another editor from opposing whatever B2C is doing to Wikipedia. B2C’s justification for doing as he did (I did it with Black Kite, it worked, and now I'm doing the same with Richard) means only that B2C confuses any outcome that pleases him as perfectly good proof that the means justifies the end. Sure, there are all sorts of prohibited conduct that intimidates and inhibits editors and drives them away. That this greatly satisfies B2C is not an excuse for still more of it. His aggressive, wikilawyering attempts to use every textbook defense for what he’s done, including fallacious charges of “failing to assume good faith,” do not impress. Greg L (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: I could not ignore the preponderance of this page on the contribs pages of several WPians. The hate page is a clear breach of policy. Tony (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – Born2cycle must have a lot of time available for working on wikipedia, if this is how he spends it. I don't, which is why my revert comments with him are sometimes shorter than he likes. Guilty as charged. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep – actually, having reviewed the page, I can see that he hasn't actually found any dirt yet. I might need this page as evidence of how little I do that bothers him. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sweet. Well done. Greg L (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you for actually looking at the page. Apparently many people have not and are just reacting impulsively and viscerally. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:UP#POLEMIC I don't see that the editor has declared that there is no chance of a DR filing in a "timely manner". Revisit in a month or so, or whatever is a clear breach of timely.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Of course “there’s a chance” he could use it in a timely manner for a good purpose. But the author flat-out stated that the purpose of creating the dirt file was to show the other editor that he made it, that this new dirt file had the opposing editor’s name humiliatingly in the title, and to then wave all that in the other editor’s face with the expectation that doing so would have a chilling effect. As B2C further stated, he had done precisely this before and he expected it would work again. Your reasoning is akin to “So he walked up to someone smacking a tire iron into the palm of his other hand and told the other fellow he didn’t like his face… how do we know he couldn’t later use the tire iron to fix a flat?” WP:COMMONSENSE allows the community to say “Your views as to what tire irons are for are exceedingly clear by your own admission.” Greg L (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg, if it was a tire iron, I'd worry. But all he has is a short of list of my reverts and comments that he didn't like. There's no dirt, no weapon, just bluster. Like if he was threatening me with a plastic laser sword toy. I doubt that he'll change a tire with that, either. Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dick, your vote (to keep that B.S. userpage against you) is nice strategic posturing. Your point is taken (the dirt file B2C created is nothing for you to worry about). Got it. Understood. That B2C’s evidence isn’t of great concern to you isn’t the point now, is it? Now…

You don’t need to keep B2C’s dirt page anywhere on Wikipedia just so at some future date you can point to what B2C had done. Clearly, the page is going away. Beeblebrox left a notice on B2C’s talk page (at the bottom of this perma‑link), suggesting B2C post a {{db-user}} template on his dirt‑file page it so it can be quickly deleted rather than snowball the thing. Sooner or later, it’s going to be gone.

You can point to this MfD in your future dealings with B2C about how he treats Wikipedia like a battleground and actually had a hard time fathoming what others were saying because he confused “I used it before and it had a chilling effect on my opponent whom I consider poopy” with “so it’s good stuff that makes me happy and I should be able to do it lots.” If you really gotta have future access to precisely what he gathered on you, you best copy the code. Wikipedia doesn’t allow nor want precisely these sort of cheap combative stunts occurring on Wikipedia.

There is no further need for further posts from you that amount to “Is that all he’s got?!? It’s like my little sister: didn’t hurt.” Quit while you’re ahead. Greg L (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg, obviously I'm just trying to join the fun and fan the flames of this incredibly stupid situation. My "Nack" to his alert on my talk page said I was happy to ignore – that could have been the end of it. I don't need a reminder that I reverted three times at WP:AT on Jan. 4, because I got a 3RR warning for that; I don't need to be reminded that none of those reverts were of him, and one was something that I would presume he'd be in support of; my comments about that are already on the policy talk page. It doesn't matter to me, and shouldn't matter to you, when or if this page is deleted. But if you want to keep poking him with a stick, you have to let me help. Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. We only go through life once. Far be it me to try to take any fun out of the absurdity that is wiki‑drama. Greg L (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So all this is absurdity is fun and wiki-drama for you? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the intention differently. It looked to me like the main point was to assemble some observations, share them with the author in question (wouldn't we be complaining if the named editor were notinformed?), in the hope that the list would solve the problem and obviate the need for additional DR. I think it is commendable to try to work things out without dragging in outsiders, so while it may have been a little ham-handed, I don't see it as a big deal. It is implicit (and doesn't need to be explicit) that if the problem is not solved, the list would be useful in a more formal DR step. If you'd like to argue that editor's approach is suboptimal, you won't find it hard to get me to agree with you. But that's not the question before us. We are ascertaining whether a page is so clearly in violation of the guidelines that we should delete it. In my view, that question is not yet ripe.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh great. So compiling shitlists is ok, providing they might be used for discussion or evidence, and/or providing they are not transparently attacks? The problem is that if an editor makes a list of dubious links regarding another editor (not with the intention of presenting them as evidence on a noticeboard), that becomes the norm for the community. However, shame lists are not ok, and Wikipedia is not available to host them. I also agree with Greg that Dicklyon should disengage: this has nothing to do with the particular list or the particular editor—it has never been acceptable for one editor to misuse userspace with what they hope will be a shame list regardless of what the target thinks—a list of personal notes should be kept on an editor's personal computer. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it a "shitlist" or a "dirtlist"? It's what Sphilbrick says it is... "assemble some observations, share them with the author in question (wouldn't we be complaining if the named editor were notinformed?), in the hope that the list would solve the problem and obviate the need for additional DR". Exactly.

Now, is this a great way to go? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. However, I've tried it once before, and it seemed to work, so I thought I would try it again.

Patterns of borderline behavior over long periods of time can be much more problematic and disruptive than any individual incident. One problem with such behavior is that the person engaged in it is likely to be unaware of it himself. Compiling such a list of incidences, even just starting such a list as I did here, might very well bring attention to the issue, and raise the bar a bit, which might be all that is needed. Why do we have to commit to going all the way to filing some kind of formal DR drama when it could be resolved just by doing this? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and ban Born2cycle from creating these types of pages "sin bins" don't help the project in any way --Guerillero | My Talk 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The user whose behavior this page is about votes to keep it, and you want me banned for creating it. Wow. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry! Saw the word "ban" and misread it --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Your post must be answered because it lacks that essential element of *truthiness*; half is flat-out false and the other half is not a whole truth and is therefore misleading.

      First, Dicklyon was clearly posturing with his “keep” !vote. While doing so, he offered this observation: actually, having reviewed the page, I can see that he hasn't actually found any dirt yet. I’m confident that if he thought anyone other than you actually believed his tongue-in-cheek !vote might materially affect the outcome, he wouldn’t have !voted that way.

      Second, Guerillero didn’t suggest that you be banned. His words are perfectly clear (…and ban Born2cycle from creating these types of pages…), and was obviously opining that the community ought to protect itself from further disruption from you by formally prohibiting you from creating more dirt files. I find his sentiment to be a rather redundant remedy since all editors aren’t supposed to create them in the first place. The way to best forge his suggestion into the practical application of Wikipedia’s protective remedies is that the admin who closes this MfD should formally make a recommendation that if you make another humiliatingly titled dirt file in the future and wave it in another user’s face, that you be blocked (not permanently banned).

      Your fighting tooth and nail here to justify what you did as a necessary and valuable thing does not help your case and increasingly makes Guerillero’s suggestion look appealing. Greg L (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

      • More drama, Greg?

        Yes, according to you Dick's !vote is "nice strategic posturing". Sorry, but I assume good faith, and I suggest you do the same with me as well as with Dick.

        I do take issue with the "I can see that he hasn't actually found any dirt yet" characterization, which presupposes that the purpose of the page is document found "dirt" (whatever that is). I present the content of the page itself, none of which has even been discussed here because (as Dick noted) there is nothing there, as evidence that it's not "dirt", nor anything that harms WP or anyone on it.

        But thanks for alerting me to the fact that I misread Guillermo's comment. Doh! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

        • I’ll meet your “smoke & mirrors’ and raise you twenty “common sense.” The title you used when you crowed about your dirt file was == FYI - a file on your inappropriate behavior has been started == (∆ edit, here). Your ……I hope this will be enough to give you pause… in that same post was the final nail in that coffin. Your intentions were as plain as day. Pretty much everyone here knows full well what you meant when you wrote that post. It’s clear you thought you had sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and intimidatory power to have a chilling effect on Dick and his opposing your edits.

          And it’s clear that Dick doesn’t think you have much. You two’s difference of opinion as to what the contents of your dirt‑file means matters not one twit. Moreover, no one gives a darn; few if any of us other than you two have even read through the crap you assembled. The only issue here is what you intended with your ingloriously titled dirt‑file page and your nasty little post on Dick’s talk page.

          So please stop trying to play us for fools. Your arguments here on this page (I did it with Black Kite, it worked, and now I'm doing the same with Richard) are just a sad commentary on how you seem to be effectively immune to social pressure and genuinely think you can explain away bald-faced obvious facts. You got caught. Your conduct can’t be rewarded and that’s why the community views the “dirt file” / “shit list” / “sin bin” (to quote various parties here) for precisely what it is… and per your own stated reasoning. Please don’t try the ol’ magicians’ hat trick on us and endeavor to use hocus pocus to explain away the obvious. It’s really amazing and amusing to watch you perform your song and dance as you try to convince us that up is down and black is white. Greg L (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

          • Of course my intentions were clear. My intentions were to discourage the type of inappropriate behavior cited in this file (comment about people rather than content; reverting work without reading it first, etc.). That's why I wrote, "I hope this will be enough to give you pause the next time you find yourself inclined to comment about people rather than content, or revert a change without reading and evaluating it first"[4]. What's wrong with trying to discourage that kind of behavior in a manner that avoids more formal DR mechanisms? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete – Even though I said Keep above. It's time to cut this off. The page serves no legitimate purpose. Any reasonable editor would have had it deleted by now. Even though there is nothing against me on that page that has substantive merit, the larger point here is about allowing these sort of pages to exist. B2C stated repeatedly what his intentions were (his post on my talk page made that perfectly clear) and that sort of conduct is clearly viewed by the community as disruptive. I'm not calling for any repurcussions, just asking that he put an end to the nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, just to show you how consistent I am on this, any one of you here could start a page in your user space entitled "Born2cycle" and link to all the stuff associated to my "dicklyon" page, this discussion, my comments on your page, etc. Would that be disruptive? What would be wrong with that? Would that be a "dirt file"? How so? How is that different from what I did? I honestly don't see what the problem is, no matter how I look at it. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In other words, if Dicklyon started a file on me like this, in the hopes of discouraging me from continuing to engage in some behavior that he felt ultimately adds up to being disruptive or counter to the interests of WP somehow, I would not have an issue with him creating and maintaining such a file. I mean, either he would be right, which doing so would have brought something to my attention that I was not aware of (a pattern of problematic behavior), or he would be wrong, and the file would just be a compilation of links that show me doing nothing wrong. Either way, it would be a good thing.

    A third possibility is that he would be right, but I would not realize it, and so he could keep adding to that file until he had enough to go through some formal DR process, and the community would resolve it. That's the worst case, and still it's all good.

    I honestly don't see what the problem is, or how Dick, or anyone else, or WP in general, is harmed by this. As to the claims that it creates a battleground, I suggest its effect is the opposite, as it was with Black Kite. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's just sad. Whether you agree with it or not, this page is contrary to our policy on user pages, as is your desire to use it as a blunt instrument to force a change in another user. If you can't understand that you will have to settle for accepting it anyway since both consensus in this discussion and well-established policy dictate that it be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you would actually answer my question there would be a chance that I would agree with you. But as of right now, again, I honestly don't see or understand what harm there is for anyone to create a file of diffs of someone else's edits, and comments about them, as long as those comments do not violate policy, especially if the other person is notified about the file, and the reason the diffs are being compiled.

You characterize this approach as, "a blunt instrument to force a change in another user", as if I'm compiling something like inappropriate personal information that I'm using nefariously, like to blackmail him into not including some appropriate and properly sourced content that I don't want included in some article or something. In actuality, the "change" I'm trying to "force in another user" is better compliance with policy and guidelines like WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:REVERT, WP:BRD, etc., and all I'm compiling are his actual edits. What's wrong with that?

You say it is contrary to "our policy on user pages", but the only thing I can find in "our policy on user pages" is explicit allowance for this type of page, as quoted above.

Are you really hanging your whole argument on the interpretation that such a list can only be compiled once one is absolutely committed to going into some formal DR process? How is that reasonable? Isn't it better the list is somehow used to resolve the dispute without going to a formal process involving others (which is what I'm hoping it will accomplish)?

I conceded the timely point on the Black Kit page, and so tagged it for deletion and it's gone. But that one was months old and dormant. This one is just a few days and I sincerely believe can do some good. I wouldn't be here defending it otherwise. However, I'm open to the argument that I'm missing something. But, if I am, I would expect someone to be able to explain what that is. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close

Motion to close. B2C deserves no further explanation. The community here has repeatedly stated that creating pages like B2C did is a prohibited activity. Notwithstanding that, B2C repeatedly responded with wikilawyering and wiki‑babble about how the problem actually lies with everyone else here who takes him to task—all of whom obviously fail to assume his great good faith (yadda yadda). It’s obvious that B2C is going to argue that what he did was a good and necessary thing until the heat death of the universe. B2C’s consistent message point here (he seldom failed to exploit every opportunity to do so) reminded me of Koko the gorilla and her sign language messages: “Dicklyon bad stinky gorilla - me good like basket of kittens.” Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and there is no requirement that the community respond forever to tendentious faux cluelessness and defiance. I motion that this be snowballed. As for the particulars of what the actions and findings should be, I motion that the page in question be deleted. As for dragging the community through circuitous arguments about how creating pages like this is Really Good Stuff®™©, I further motion that the closing admin advise future admins, if faced with another instance of B2C doing this sort of thing, should immediately give B2C a one-week block. I have every confidence that such a finding here will be a message B2C reads loud and clear, even if he says he doesn’t and professes great bewilderment. Greg L (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no emergency here. The community, not me, deserves an explanation and answers to my questions (and by "the community" I don't mean the people who have participated here so far, but anyone who reads this in the future). You can't argue your position is favored by policy if you can't cite the policy that supports your argument, explain how it supports it, and answer the questions about it. I really think we need some uninvolved people to weigh in here who haven't had disagreements with me in the past. Frankly, all of you who have expressed animosity towards me here or during past disagreements should be recusing yourselves. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If I've had a past disagreement with you you'll have to excuse me for not remembering it. As far as the rest of it, you've gotten your answer already, multiple times, from multiple users. Sorry you don't like it, but demanding that everything be re-iterated endlessly is not going to change the obvious outcome of this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to others. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The only words from any policy that have been quoted in this discussion were quoted by me, and those words supported the creation and maintenance of this file (because it's very new and I've just started compiling the relevant information, and I'm hoping I won't have to actually go through the whole formal process). If that page is in violation of policy, I would like to which policy it is and what specifically it says that makes this file prohibited. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is Greg's latest claim: "The community here has repeatedly stated that creating pages like B2C did is a prohibited activity.". Well, if that's true, then why are there no citations of where "the community" has ever stated anything about creating pages "like B2C did", not to mention that he is very ambiguous about it is about the page that I created that makes it qualify as whatever-it-is that he's talking about. I believe Greg genuinely believes he's right and that his position is obvious, but it seems to me the lack of specificity in everything he has posted here, and now the urgency to close, is telling.

1. What policy is violated by the creation, existence and maintenance of this page?
2. What in the page itself and what words in the policy make clear that this page is even the type of page this policy is addressing?
3. What words in the policy indicate such creation and maintenance is prohibited activity? .

Shouldn't these questions be answered in this discussion before a close is requested? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• (*sigh*) No; there is no need to answer your strawman questions nor jump over hurdles you contrive. You yourself B2C, cited the very policy governing this (WP:UP#POLEMIC) in your first post here (time stamped 17:31, 6 January 2012). Go back and read that policy page. Your own actions in how you humiliatingly titled the page and what you wrote to Dicklyon to crow about the existence of that page makes it 110% clear that your intentions were to do precisely what WP:UP#POLEMIC forbids. The very title you crafted for that crowing post to Dick on his talk page, == FYI - a file on your inappropriate behavior has been started == (∆ edit, here) could not possibly have more clearly betrayed your intentions. Furthermore, your writing It would be great to never have to add to it again was absolute proof that your intention was not “preparing for a dispute resolution process … in a timely manner.”

  Your continual demanding that the community explain how your actions violate that policy—and do so to your satisfaction—does not burden the community with an obligation to comply with your demands. Persisting as you have been doing is a violation of WP:REHASH, which is one of the many forms of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. If you persist at this in the face of this impending closure, you may not like the outcome one bit. Greg L (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The file was created before I left the note on his page, and the note was part of the dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Dr#Discuss_with_the_other_party).

Anyway, upon further review of WP:UP#POLEMIC, I've blanked the file. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether to say thank you for finally doing that or to point out that UP#POLEMIC was mentioned all the way up in the nomination in additiion to being mentioned numerous times since then, so it's hard to see why it is only now that you are able to see how it applies here. In any case, this can now be closed . Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course the page was created before you left a note on his talk page. You created your dirt file at 19:01 on 5 January 2012‎. Just elven minutes later (19:12, 5 January 2012), you rubbed Dicklyon’s face in the fact you had done so. I am disinclined at the moment to allow you to post misinformation and misleading statements without revealing them for what they are. It’s wise nonetheless, that you blanked the page. As Beeblebrox wrote, time to close. Greg L (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The terms of my motion to close still stands. B2C has shown a severe and chronic lack of contrition throughout this page and practiced wikilawyering and tendentiousness like he recently filed for a patent on various improvements on those arts. He seems to have only squirted out sideways when all other avenues of escape seemed closed to him. Particularly, I am referring to my suggestion that the closing admin advise future admins, if faced with another instance of B2C doing this sort of thing, should immediately give B2C a one-week block. Greg L (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC) −

(edit conflict)Beeblebrox,I didn't read it past the part I quoted above because I thought that was enough to justify the file as it was since it was a new file. Anyway, I just did read it all the way through, and saw, "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or ...", so I acted accordingly. As I said on the outset, I wish this was brought to my attention on my talk page before this MfD was filed. I wasn't familiar with WP:UP#POLEMIC at all before this, nor the sentiments behind it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Unbelievable. Why, after so many people pointed you to it, you never bothered to actually read it all the way through is something only you would know the answer to, but maybe next time a dozen or so users refer you to a policy you should try actually reading it before declaring them wrong in their interpretation of it. Please don't bother replying to this, the discussion is over and I am unwatching this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, "because I thought [the part I quoted] was enough to justify the file as it was since it was a new file". And when I explained that, nobody said, "yeah but ...", or anything like that. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, Greg, your combative attitude has not been helpful here at all. When I created the original file about Black Kite, I notified him and he, an admin, never brought it to my attention that it was against policy or problematic in any way. Nor did anyone else. Months later I found myself in a similar situation and so started compiling problematic diffs about him, and, yes, notified him immediately. Through all this, and until this MfD was filed, I was not aware of WP:UP#POLEMIC. It was referenced above, I read it, got to the part that seemed to explicitly allow it in this case, and so I quoted and argued accordingly. No one said, "yeah but, if you read further, it also says such material should be removed or blanked", or anything like that. Further, when Beeblebrox filed the MfD on the Black Kite file I realized that since it was as old and dormant as it was the "timely" clause of the part I quoted arguably did not apply, and so I added a user-delete tag to it and it was immediately deleted. As I said over and over here I did not understand how this file was in violation of anything. But, when I finally did (no thanks to you), I blanked it accordingly, and immediately.

When you were wrongly blocked by that admin recently (User_talk:Greg_L#Blocked), I was all over expressing outrage about that mistreatment and defending you. Why you've been such an a-hole to me here is perplexing, and sad. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Take it to my talk page, where it will be afforded its due. I too will no longer be watching this page. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*) Maybe someone can close this one?

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.