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. No prejudice against anyone editing this page to make corrections or remove any objectionable material. In fact, the author invites other editors to do exactly that at the top of the page. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 06:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:James J. Lambden/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Divisive user subpage that is being used to shame editors by creating an alternative version of arbitration enforcement logs (WP:DSLOG), with implications that certain admins are part of a cabal. Violates WP:POLEMIC. The page creator has not contributed in more than a year and a half. - MrX 🖋 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: User is documenting history of enforcement related to AP2 topics. MrX is trying to have a page deleted for obvious reasons: MrX is one of the most active complainants at WP:AE in this topic area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next personal attack in AP gets reported, Thucydides411. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SPECIFICO: Will you be reporting the one in the nom? Or is there some qualitative difference between being used to shame editors and trying to have a page deleted for obvious reasons? Levivich 20:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I'm not sure what our usual practice is with regard to deleting inactive editors' userspace pages, but the table I'm looking at bears no resemblance to the description in this nomination. It's data of AE filings; I'm not seeing any shaming or anything polemic. I can see the concern about the "Pro-Trump"/"Anti-Trump" column, but that describes edits not editors (the column heading is "Case evidence", not "Filer/subject's political stance"), so I don't see it as a reason to delete the page. By the way, before everyone gets all worked up about this, and in the interests of full transparency, please be advised I've forked this table into my userspace and plan on working on it myself. I say this so other editors don't invest too much time into arguing about whether this inactive editor's particular page is kept or not–regardless, the table and data collection will live on. I agree with Thucydides that this nomination seems to be a WP:POINTY attempt to silence valid concerns about DS enforcement on the project. Levivich 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cited policy based reasons for deletion. The page is being used to promote an alternative narrative that admins are corrupt, and motivated by their support or opposition for certain American politicians. Can you cite any policy-based reasons to support keeping this. - MrX 🖋 20:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, WP:UPYES point # 2 comes to mind to me, "Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki." Doug Mehus T·C 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually asking Levivich, but since you interjected: Where did James J. Lambden write that he planned to use the information for discussions elsewhere on the wiki, and why would that drafting process take in excess of three years? - MrX 🖋 21:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and mark historical or Userfy to Levivich's userspace to preserve the edit history per above. I'm not sure I see a polemic violation. It will be interesting to see what SmokeyJoe and/or Robert McClenon have to say if and when they make their way here. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Delete - This does seem like a WP:POLEMIC issue given the content and, importantly, its purpose/use. This is not simply a log. Those already exist in projectspace. It's also not material being prepared for use in a forthcoming case, as the author is absent and it's several years old. It is, as JJL said, a "research project" "investigating potential systemic bias in political topics on Wikipedia" (here, et al.). The author has organized various debates into simply pro-Trump and anti-Trump and seems to want to show that there's a sinister cabal of anti-Trump admins who only enforce rules against those categorized here as "pro-Trump". Even right now at AN there's someone pointing to this page as documentation of AE being "a tool for biased admins to rig the system." If there are really biased admins rigging the system, a case must be opened to address it. Maintaining a list of admins you want to accuse of being biased but never to be acted upon isn't what userspace is for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites: Where is there a log like this in projectspace? Also, consider that editors need to be able to gather and discuss evidence of problems in order to determine if there is any problem that necessitates a case request. This table (or something like it) is a prerequisite to a case request. Levivich 20:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no log like this in the sense of organized according to one user's pro-trump/anti-trump system. There is, however, a comprehensive listing of AP2 enforcement here. This sort of thing is a common tool used in preparing a case request... but is anyone doing that? If there's a case being prepared now, I'd likely strike my !vote above. It doesn't seem like it, though, as it's years old at this point. As per WP:UPNO this sort of thing "is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do have no deadlines, so can you say with certainty what a "timely manner" might be? I personally don't think it's less than five years. I note from the logs James J. Lambden had a favourable ArbCom decision in the editor's favour only in 2018 that lifted a user block. So, it's been less than two years since then, regardless of when the page was last edited. Doug Mehus T·C 21:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, we have an essay someone wrote at WP:NODEADLINES, predominantly about articles, but WP:UPNO is about userspace, and it's a guideline. Regardless, nobody has even claimed that anyone is using this to work on a case. All anyone is saying is that maybe we should keep it because theoretically it could be... when "timely manner" is even specific to those cases when someone is actively doing so. You can look through past MfDs relating to compilations like this -- a matter of years is far more than how I've ever seen "timely manner" applied (and, again, all of this presumes someone is really using it to produce a case). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Okay, yes WP:NODEADLINES is an essay, but WP:UPYES is also a policy guideline in the same way WP:UPNO. Citing previous MfDs really has no weight, as each MfD is decidedly different in different ways from the one(s) that came before and, as such, prior decisions are not precedent setting, as I understand it. Doug Mehus T·C 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      ? Yes, UPYES and UPNO are the same page. UPNO specifically concerns potentially controversial material which casts other editors in a bad light and the use of userspace to compile data related to alleged misbehavior of other users. Past XfDs are often relevant in how we have typically applied various policies and guidelines. They are not binding, though, it's true. I'm not really interested in wikilawyering this, though, so I'll wait for additional opinions to come in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I was thinking the same thing. I personally have no position here on such matters, as I haven't been editing as long as most of you, but, presumably, such a case would want to be developed by a community of users; thus, keeping all of this on-wiki is transparent and above board. I see, potentially, a need for editing here, but not deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 21:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:DSLOG. - MrX 🖋 21:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      What about taking this out of the hands of aggrieved editors and asking the Admins to log in a spreadsheet format that allows cross-tabulated inspection. It's interesting that @Rusf10: was recently sanctioned for filing unsuccessful complaints when a cross-tab show he is by no means the most prolific such filer. Yes, the pro- and con- thing is not a good column, or at least needs some objective metric. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Yeah, what's that pro-Trump and anti-Trump column claiming anyway? Is it asserting that the filing party shares that political believe, or that the administrator(s) do? It's not clear to me what it means. So, definitely, this draft could use some editing, as I noted above. Doug Mehus T·C 21:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      For what purpose? No one should be creating a list on Wikipedia that links evidence of misconduct with pro-Trump or anti-Trump editing, nor should any of it be correlated to specific admins. The guideline is clear: "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." - MrX 🖋 21:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but note that it says blanked as well. I'm not seeing the same sort of "negative evidence" and "collations of diffs" you're seeing. I'm seeing a list to potentially case threads from various areas of the project. In short, I'm not seeing anything that gives rise to warrant deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 21:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • WP:DSLOG is not a sortable table and doesn't have all the data that's in the table (for example, "Filer"). As to whether anyone is working on a case, it doesn't have to be an arbcom case to comply with UPYES. It can be any on-wiki discussion: an RfC, a VPIL, ANI, a WikiProject talk page discussion, whatever. But my understanding is that the editors who have recently been editing this page have been doing so with an eye of evidence-gathering to present either in an appeal or in some community discussion of AE (maybe at arc, maybe arca, maybe somewhere else). Levivich 21:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm currently undecided. I looked at it recently, and using the sort function was able to learn some interesting patters that I hadn't previously recognized (comment on the talk page there). It is clearly a valid concern however when editors add incomplete or misleading summary data to the spreadsheet. And that appears to have happened recently, perhaps precipitating this request? SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The stated reason for deletion is it violates WP:POLEMIC, how so? It simply documents the results of AE cases. It does not attack anyone or allege anything. Readers can look at the information and come to their own conclusions. @MrX: You accused me of making a "revenge AFD" and WP:HOUNDING you. How is this not the same? I updated this page yesterday and now you nominated it for deletion? (see [1]) I demand you either apologize to me or withdraw this nomination.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rusf10: I already explained how it violates POLEMIC. I have no reason to seek revenge on you and I don't do that kind of thing anyway. I nominated the page after I saw that an entirely different user had violated their topic ban, to add false and disparaging information to the page. - MrX 🖋 22:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You alleged that the page implicates that certain admins are part of a cabal. Where does it say that? I don't see anything on the page itself offering an opinion on admins. Also, If you are concerned about someone violating a topic ban then why nominate the page for deletion? That doesn't resolve the problem, you already removed the content that apparently upset you. I'm not buying it. If we are to believe this is a good faith nomination (even though it has invalid reasoning), then you must retract you previous allegations about me making a "revenge afd" where I actually provided a valid policy reason for deletion.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 makes an interesting point about revenge nominations for deletion. MrX, what motivated you to nominate this page for deletion at this particular time? -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & update - would like to see this chart kept current. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not OK, due to naming subject users. This appears to be a side-logging of arbitration issues. If it were user opinion on arbitration or arbitration issues, it would be fine, but it is not. It is records of facts concerning specific users, some of it negative, and as such it fails WP:POLEMIC. The only place where I can see this being appropriate is as a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration, where it is nominally under the control of Arb clerks. It is not OK in userspace or in some random place in projectspace. Move it or delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see how this is in any way polemic, noting that, "[m]aterial 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 it will be used in a timely manner[,]" is stated right there. "Timely manner" is purposefully vague, which, to my mind, means that consensus at a given time on a given case decides what it is. I would oppose moving it under the control of ArbCom or the clerks, though I would support moving it to the Wikipedia: namespace where a community of editors can decide, presumably, via the talk page on what should be included or not included. As far as I can tell, and consensus here so far supports this view, it may need some editing, but not deletion. Even Atsme, who is, arguably, one of the friendliest Wikipedians says it can be kept but should be updated. Doug Mehus T·C 02:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you Doug: Atsme is friendly, therefore keep the page, per WP:ATSME 😂 Levivich 07:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in red made blue: User:Atsme/Atsme's Law - it is now law. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich and Atsme: I love this—such wonderful levity (noting levity and Levivich share the same root lev) in an otherwise controversial MfD (although I'm not sure why; I truly don't see how "summar[ies] and paraphrases" in a user's userspace can be considered polemic). At any rate, I've created a shortcut for Atsme's wonderful essay/quotation. Though, we may need to take WP:ATSME to RfD for possible disambiguation if and when other future Laws, essays, and so forth are named after Atsme. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 13:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • It summarizes and paraphrases Wikipedia:Arbitration results. By summarizing and paraphrasing, it is being set up as a resource for WP:Arbitration Tho results. There is potential for mistakes, and it is in the sort of ownership of a single user. For this reason it cannot be in userspace. WP:Arbitration pages contain many perceived flaws, and that is the location for them. This page copies out of there some of the perceived flaws, and names individuals, and that's what makes it a POLEMIC violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• See the following lightening talk at WikiCon2019 by DGG as he addresses some of the known issues involving WP:AE. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Update it is a much easier format for searching past cases than the archives or logs. This type of information is very useful at uncovering potential biases so we can improve. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems very useful, and a helpful guide to the general trend of thinking at WP on the subject area. If anyone thinks it is not objective, they can do a similar analysis of their own. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I agree with your comments, but my reason for the ping is to ask you if I can correct your typos in "similar analysis". It's just too many typos to ignore, and thought you you may want to correct those. Doug Mehus T·C 15:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Don't forget to thank Atsme for inviting you here. I would consider it a jarring departure from the norm if this kind of material is kept, but if this is the new normal, I certainly will publish my own analysis of how editors seem to align themselves such situations. - MrX 🖋 15:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My views on the subject long antedate any discussion I may have had with Atsme., and are not primarily based upon AP. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, update and trim Having an updated, searchable, and informative log would likely help out in DS areas. Particularly contentious areas like AP2. Normal DS logs only keep track of sanctions, but a log like this keeps track of all admin actions. This will help determine what behavioral standards are being expected of editors in a topic area. Though I would remove the elements of personal analysis such as the color coding, and whom is what type of editor. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is an attack page that implies causation based on correlation (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Like quantitative fallacy, it has been used in the past to "prove" the existence of a cabal of editors/admins focusing on one metric while completely ignoring other rationales. Frankly, it is the kind of simplistic garbage used by bigots to defend their beliefs. Those that are sanctioned should examine themselves instead of looking for biases in those with the unwelcome burden of mopping up the spills. O3000 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems like a rather useful reference and should be kept up to date. I could see it being brought into main space as well, though I would have concerns with it being under the control of ArbCom. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Move to Arbcom DS log- This cannot be kept in user space as a venue for POV wars and drive-by assignments of POV motives to user names that appear in the list. On the other hand, there is other data here that constitutes useful objective information that may be helpful to Admins and Arbcom who continuously try to improve policy and process. I think that this page should be deleted with the neutral content simultaneously copied to a new-format DS Log supplement maintained by Admins or the Arbcom clerks. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I oppose moving to WP:DSLOG under ArbCom due to apparent conflict of interest in ArbCom maintaining such lists, as may be used in the discovery process of a future potential ArbCom proceeding. In effect, we would essentially be asking ArbCom, as the arbitrator, to hold onto the notes and other testimony of one or more of the parties from one side in such a future process. That's highly problematic, and we wouldn't allow it in a real world legal setting. I would, however, support a move to Wikipedia: namespace for the community to maintain. Doug Mehus T·C 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The "sides" stuff needs to be removed. But there is other data that's objective and would be typical of any sort of log -- even the doorman's log at an office or factory, for example -- that might be useful in understanding how our processes have functioned. The "Striking observations" on the talk page are nonsense and there is no constructive reason for the community to publish that kind of polemic. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As I understand it, we can refactor and remove unconstructive talk page discussions, so I have no objection to removing some or most of the talk page discussions, possibly by revision deletion, if warranted. However, I do think that ArbCom isn't the correct party to administer the logs and notes of one potential party to a future ArbCom proceeding should that come to pass. Doug Mehus T·C 17:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I must have been unclear. I don't mean that the current polemic would be published by Arbcom. The current page needs to be deleted. I meant to say that Arbcom/Admins would reconstitute the objective content it contains by adopting an enhanced log in a spreadsheet, multi-column format. Perhaps some Admins or Arbs will give us an informal reaction to that possibility. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLEMIC. This is just a compilation of grievances against various editors. If you have an issue with someone, bring it to their talk page or a noticeboard. --WMSR (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a violation of POLEMIC. I have watchlisted this page for several years and followed its development and discussions, as well as seen how it was referenced and discussed on editors' talk pages. This is a cherry-picked hitlist created by and for the use of pro-Trump editors who feel that their losses at drama boards are because they are being persecuted by admins for their political views, rather than the fact that they have adopted Trump's description of RS as "fake news". That attitude here will get any editor in trouble, because the ability to vet RS is a basic requirement.

Any editor who edits and discusses from a non-reliable source base will get in trouble because they are violating multiple policies, including forbidden advocacy of fringe POV. (Yes, such discussions on talk pages are forbidden.)

Yes, their political POV is tied into this, but it is because those POV cause them to violate policies that is the real reason for their losses and problems.

This page cannot produce any information which can parse that situation. It is an unscientific data set, and any analysis will be flawed and affected by the biases of those doing the assessment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So basically it is all a vast right wing conspiracy by those evil pro-Trump editors? Stop personalizing everything and relax. PackMecEng (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it. If you have right-wing (aka fringe) views or support Trump then you are pretty much incapable of not violating policy. Curiously, this is the exact type of commentary that has led to BullRangifer's many warnings, but never a sanction (or at least not a meaningful one).Rusf10 (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that completely misses the point. There are plenty of right-wing editors who have NOT adopted Trump's description of RS as "fake news", and they don't get in trouble here. It comes back to how editors relate to RS. Either they support them or they don't. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cases have little to nothing to do with "pro-Trump" editors (this label is very often incorrect, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument) ignoring WP:RS. The cases most often revolve around civility, 1RR, and similar procedural (or behavioral) issues. In my experience, the "anti-Trump" (again, not an accurate label, but that's how it's often perceived) faction is no more consistent in its use of high-quality RS than the "anti-Trump" faction.

A lot of the disputes actually revolve around the "anti-Trump" faction blocking reliably sourced material that they view as favorable in some way to Trump or people they associate with him. I recall the entire drama about the Joint Analysis Report (JAR) back in late 2016, which was heavily criticized in reliable sources. There was a massive argument about whether to include that reliably sourced criticism, with opponents of inclusion going so far as to belittle major international newspapers that reported on the criticism of the JAR (as if they were backwater town papers). From the standpoint of someone who was in favor of including (well-sourced) critical reporting on the Russiagate allegations, it looked to me like reliable sources had to pass a political litmus test before they would be accepted by the "anti-Trump" faction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in its present location in a sandbox as within the valid uses of sandboxes. Would be a Weak Keep in project space or elsewhere in user space. The only shaming that I see is that this list may subject editors to shame who have been found to have edited disruptively in the area of American politics, and this is a situation where subjecting individuals to shame who have engaged in shameful behavior is a reasonable method of social control. Some editors seem to have recently read the guideline against polemics and have decided to use that policy as a golden hammer to hit anything that they don't like. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misunderstood the purpose of the page. It was not meant to shame editors for the sanctions they have received. Indeed, it was maintained by those editors. It was meant to shame the admins handing out those sanctions. And it did this by arbitrarily claiming certain editors were pro- or anti-Trump based on perceived biases and projecting those biases on admins. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your perception, O3000, and Just curious...as to why anyone would think such a thing? Do you have peculiar knowledge about Lambden's thoughts and motivations that haven't been revealed on that page, or did I somehow overlook something? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few discussion on various TPs, including yours IIRC, like this:[2]. They talk of taking this to WMF or arbcom as a "bombshell". O3000 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I concur with Atsme and didn't share the same thought as Objective3000, which was that Robert McClenon may have misunderstood the purpose of the page, noting his comments where he writes, "[t]he only shaming that I see is that this list may subject editors to shame who have been found to have edited disruptively in the area of American politics, and this is a situation where subjecting individuals to shame who have engaged in shameful behavior is a reasonable method of social control." He concurs that there is no polemic violation here and, even if not explicitly stated as such, is essentially saying much of what those !voting "keep" have said. Any differences between what Robert is saying and others who share that view are inconsequential. Doug Mehus T·C 19:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keeping a log with extended details about what happens on a public noticeboard is fully acceptable in userspace, and in fact useful. Sadly, some admins have forgotten to update WP:DSLOG, and warnings have usually not been logged at all (nor information like the filer). The "case evidence" column may be WP:POLEMIC, and I would simply ask James J. Lambden to remove it, but he seems to be inactive. I think constructing some kind of a typology about other users is within what's acceptable, but this can easily be an over-simplification and it has a couple of errors here. --Pudeo (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, keeping a brief summary of arbitration enforcement events is acceptable in user space. I'd also like to comment on an above statement: "If you ... support Trump then you are pretty much incapable of not violating policy." ... but find myself unable to! If there were a clearer way to say "please delete all pages where I disagree with the author's politics", I find it hard to imagine. --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this mess has some utility for improving Wikipedia, it would be better handled elsewhere with transparency and clear-cut inclusion guidelines. This chart falsely presents editing as a score-sheet, which unavoidably leads to false balance. The location is also poor, since having this buried in an inactive user's misleadingly named sub-page is also inappropriate for many reasons. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Wikipedia:User pages § Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages, "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask." While at User talk:James J. Lambden § Data collation Lambden says "I have temporarily abandoned my effort to keep the table current but you are welcome to edit it." and "I will say again that anyone is free to edit it." as well as "NOTE TO VISITORS: Feel free to correct, expand and suggest improvements.", Lambden has not edited since 15 June 2018, so we don't know how he feels about the edits made after that date. While I'm not sure there are any guidelines about this, personally I'd err on the side of disgression and revert this to the last version that Lambden edited and mark the page as {{historical}}, while allowing other users to post links to the forks they've made in their own user spaces. Given that other users have forked this; we should keep it in order to provide proper attribution to Lambden. I disagree with assertions this violates WP:POLEMIC. I don't view this as "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" nor as "attacking or vilifying groups of editors". I hear the assertions that this chart is intended to make a point about some sort of group bias, but I don't see it as particularly effective in making the point. In particular, I don't really understand what the "case evidence" column is saying, i.e. what is meant by "pro- or anti-Trump". Content? Opinions? Behavior? So, as a "polemic", it's not very effective. Those asserting that it is should be careful what they ask for. Deleting this opens the door to deleting stuff like User:JzG/Politics, User talk:BullRangifer/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here, User:UBX/Trump loves, and User:UBX/Trump misguided, which could be viewed as more blatantly "polemic". I support continuing allowances for considerable leeway in personalizing and managing user pages, per the WP:User pages guidelines. I also question why, if this is indeed "polemic", it has taken so long for this to be nominated for deletion. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  One more point: This page is referenced by other pages, such as HERE. Deleting would impede the understanding of such archived discussions. wbm1058 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that usage of the page in question, looks like an excellent example of why this page should be deleted. The page is a collection of opinions and assumptions about both editors and admins designed to make a highly questionable point. It is polemic in nature and purpose. O3000 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Excellent points and summary—you put a lot of thought into that post. You also make a strong case for reverting to the previous edit by Lambden and tagging it as {{historical}}, thus allowing any forked versions of the page to live on elsewhere in userspace. Your final point, too, is particularly instructive and useful in that deleting this page would be highly disruptive to talk pages elsewhere. In short, I support the proposed reversion and tagging as historical, given that, though Lambden has encouraged community editing of the page, we don't know his thoughts on the edits that have taken place. Doug Mehus T·C 15:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and update a very useful list/history of sanctions. Nothing polemic in there. I like what DGG has said, "...helpful guide to the general trend of thinking at WP on the subject area. If anyone thinks it is not objective, they can do a similar analysis of their own." Lightburst (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2020 (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.