Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Huldra/Sandbox2

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Huldra/Sandbox2
attack page per WP:UP is not allowed Mbz1 (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This page has some "evidences" against me that are from April of last year, other evidences are simply false.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please specify which evidence is false?


 * Delete-- per WP:UP. This page has no positive purpose on the wiki. --  E♴    (talk)  23:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems like a rather spiteful nomination, given the interactive history here.  Subject has stated here that she is using the page to collect notes with the intent to file a ban request on MBZ.  This is an allowable and acceptable use of userspace if it isn't directly WP:NPA-violating.  The sandbox is largely a list of links to contentious AfDs and voting patterns, and direct quotes of other editors.  Perhaps Huldra could tone down some of the header titles such as "DRAMAH" and "using wikipedia to make a group of people look bad", and get on the ball with an actual complaint filing if that is the intent...this stuff shouldn't languish forever...but other than that this MfD is itself has more drama-inducing potential than what is on the sandbox.  At most, if this user really doesn't have time, a courtesy blanking could be done. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete According to WP:UP "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 it will be used in a timely manner." (highlighted by me) should not be at the user pages. That page was created on February 26. "Timely matter" to use it has passed, and in accordance with the wikipedia policy that page should be deleted. It actually should not have been even nominated on deletion. It should have been speedy deleted in accordance with a policy, not to say that the page is used for campaigning --Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - The "strong delete" above is also the nominator. be sure not to double-count in the final tally. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin Before taking tarc's vote into account please take a look at its uncivil comment about me: "that insufferable twat Mbz1".More examples of its hounding my contributions and me could be presented by request. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * compared with your own comments about other users, the above comment from Tarc seem pretty tame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.119.30 (talk)
 * Surprise, surprise, an IP with 4 edits total comes to this page with a comment. What is even more surprising that that very IP argued that palestinerembered could be used in some instances as RS, the very same palestinerembered that user:Huldra used extensively in her latest article. Question to IP, did you forget to log in by any chance :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well mbz if you insist on keeping year-old links to off-wiki websites of dubious quality, that's your decision, though it really doesn't bolster your case much. Whatever I allegedly believe or not about you has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter; I made several points above regarding the animosity between you and the subject, the relatively harmless nature of what is in the sandbox, noted a few headers that could perhaps be toned down, or perhaps it could be blanked until Huldra has the time to return to it.  Feel free to address those when you're done with the ad hominems. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- but strongly urge Huldra to tone it down. I do not agree that two weeks is too long according to the "timely manner" bit since Huldra seems still to be working on it. Reyk  YO!  04:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question what is the "timely manner" in your opinion? How many weeks or months or years that [....] that no reasonable editor will ever use against me should stay in the user's space of user:huldra? What prevents huldra to keep that [....] at her home computer, except of course her wish to harass me with that, as she did here already? --Mbz1 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd give it a month, tops. Given that RfCs are open for two weeks and attract copious amounts of material from many editors, I don't think it's unreasonable to give a single editor double that to get their stuff in order. Reyk  YO!  05:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that this "single editor" collected the bunch of false accusations and assumption of bad faiths about me with the only reason to harass me. Let's for example take a close look at her accusations of so called hounding. The first link takes one to the message I left at the user page a year ago! The link #2, takes you here. The link #3 takes you to me reviewing DYK of that user and suggesting using some other sources for his DYK nomination. Hounding? Give me a break. I could stop on the other "evidences", but this is not the right place. As I said that page was made with the only purpose - to harass me. If I wanted to collect evidences about any user to use it one day against that user, I would have done it off-wiki, I would not have threatened that user with my evidences. What user:huldra is doing here is very, very low indeed. I believe not only that [...] should be deleted, but the user should be warned in the strongest words possible. That page is full of personal attacks because according to What is considered to be a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack, and that [....] user:huldra is "working" on is full of such false accusations lacking any evidences whatsoever.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:UP. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. (a) A sandbox is not in public view. (b) Preparing for an RfC/U is a very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. imminent: "about to happen, occur, or take place very soon, especially of something which won't last long." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin admin:Malik Shabazz is an involved administrator, who in violation of the administrator conduct blocked me once for edit warring on the article he edited himself prior to my block. He has also edited other articles from the topic --Mbz1 (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The sandbox might be not in public view, but the link to it is in public view, the link that was posted to harass me. It is how I found out about that... That page is full of personal attacks, false accusations, assumptions of a bad faith. And what imminent involved admin:Malik Shabazz is talking about, if user:Huldra herself writes: "I intent to start ask for a ban for Mbz1 from this area...if I have time (I am extremely pressed for time, with RL-business at the moment)" If that page is kept, it will be kept in violation of few wikipedia policies, but that's OK, let harassment to go on.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as 2 weeks is an incredibly short amount of time to allow for the collection of evidence allowed in the guideline. Deleting pages such as this would undermine the guideline itself and have a chilling effect on the ability of editors to prepare evidence in a proper and coherent manner. The user here has been editing the page every few days (which is more than our usual practice of forming processes and guidelines to accommodate the one-day-a-week editor) and is not abandoned.  Jim Miller  See me 14:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wonder, if the users, who voted to keep that page ever bothered to look and to check out the "collection of evidences" that are not evidences at all. Those "evidences" are bunch of personal attacks, assumptions of a bad faith and so on. Only absolutely unreasonable users (and I am using polite words here) would ever use those "evidences" against me, but whatever, who cares. Enjoy "the evidences" :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, think it is safe to say that most Wikipedia editors are gifted with the ability to read the written word, and did indeed comprehend the material being voted upon here. But instead of vague hand-waves at the entire page, perhaps you could point to a specific entry or two that you have a problem with?  I mean there's a link there to where you used an edit summary of responded to troll, for example.  Do you object to the characterization of that at as a "personal attack" ? Tarc (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, just above I did point out accusation of so called "hounding" that has nothing to do with hounding, not even close to hounding, not even 0.0000000001% of hounding, simply nothing of a hounding. And about "troll", well, if the user after being politely asked to keep off my page and stop templating regulars keeps coming to my page over, and over, and over again with a new templates, if that very user contacts now indefinitely banned User:Sol Goldstone in order to obtain what the user believed were my private emails hacked from my hacked email account, how that user should be called? is this a PA?. (More examples of using "troll" by many other users could be provided by request)
 * Or let's see the accusation about my interaction with User:Betsythedevine. We have already made up more than a month ago before User:Huldra started "working" on her "collection".
 * I could talk more about any specific "evidence", but that mfd is not the right place to do it, and it is just a time waster.
 * I repeat yet another time: the page that is full with PA and false accusations was created with the only purpose to harass me. How else one could explain User:Huldra linking to it from her talk page?. I'm really puzzled, how the users, who voted to keep that [...] fail to see the obvious. Whatever... I would have never done anything like that to other user. If I wanted to collect evidences I would have done it off wiki, and I am sure any decent person would have done the same--Mbz1 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe that you can defend yourself against all of the accusations being compiled, then why the rush to delete it here? If it becomes an RFC/U, you can defend it at the appropriate time and page. If the accusations are false, the RFC will get nowhere fast. If it gets abandoned for a month without the RFC being filed, then it can be deleted (but I would highly recommend that another user request the deletion). Frankly, I would call an attempt by the accused to delete another users collected evidence against them a clearly disruptive act.  Jim Miller  See me 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked to delete it because of users as you are, who believe what they read to be true with no checking "the evidences". Sadly, there are many users like you are. Those "evidences" will never end up in "RFC/U", and I will never be able to defend myself, but I am being harassed by that page right now.
 * About your comment on "a clearly disruptive act". If you believe nominating on deletion the page full with PA against me to be "a clearly disruptive act", I am afraid you are not suit to become an administrator, and this would be my reason to oppose your Requests for adminship.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder, why only I'm responding questions by others. Why nobody is responding my question, which is: For what reason other than in purpose of harass me User:Huldra linked to her "collection" from her talk page?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what your gripe is with that, it was a link given during the course of a conversation with you. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you did not respond my question. Yes it was provided during "course of a conversation" with me. This sentence responds questions "when" and maybe "where" it was provided, but it does not respond the question "what was it provided for?" To threaten me? To harass me? What for? I did not look over the user contributions. I would have never known about the [....] she's "working" on, if it was not for that link. Please try to be fair! What for it was provided for at the user's talk page? --Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what you are asking is for us to speculate on Huldra's motivations? I don't really know if that's within an MfD's purview, but...I have never had any connection to this user good or bad that I recall, has a clean block log, there seems to be little in the Arb Enforcement and ANI archives other than comments by her, no complaints raised by others, no sanctions at WP:ARBPIA.  So absent of evidence to the contrary, I'd have to assume there was nothing malicious behind the usage of the link. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep in the terms outlined by Reyk. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Let the editor compile the RfC in peace, you can defend yourself when the RfC comes. Also you may be interested in the Streisand effect. Passionless   -Talk  20:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Reyk and JimMiller. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Something important worth mentioning here is that actually there have been several recent cases where users have had a RFC/U and come out as better editors as a result, which is of benefit to the whole community, including themselves. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to the closing administrator The page in question was created in violation of a few wikipedia policies in purpose to harass me:
 * 1) According to What is considered to be a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is a personal attack. As I proved with a few examples above most accusations lack any evidences whatsoever. By request I could respond to each and every accusation to show that most of them are false, others have no merit and most taking out of content.
 * 2) WP:UP. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. The link to that page is provided at the user talk page that makes it to be in public view.
 * 3) 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. imminent: "about to happen, occur, or take place very soon, especially of something which won't last long." There is no evidence any of those will be used imminently, just the opposite the user says:"if I have time (I am extremely pressed for time, with RL-business at the moment)"
 * 4) Some users, who voted to keep it are talking about RFC/U. It is my understanding that to request such kind of RFC User:Huldra and me should be in some kind of dispute. If you are to look over "evidences" collected by by User:Huldra you will find none concerning herself. I hardly know that user at all. What User:Huldra has done was hounding my contributions over a few months (up to a year) period to collect "the evidences" in order to harass me.
 * User:Huldra indicated that her goal in collecting the evidences harassing me is to have me topic banned on I/P related articles. RFC/U has no power to post such topic-bans. I hardly edit in this topic anyway. With the most "evidences" being a few months (some up to a year) old, some others that have nothing to do with I/P related articles there's absolutely no way that any such ban would be posted.
 * 1) Some users, who voted to keep that page user:tarc;user:Malik Shabazz; now indefinitely blocked user:Passionless are all involved with me big.user:Eraserhead1 has strangely became involved with me just a few minutes after it voted to keep that page.
 * 2) Other users, who voted to keep that attack page did not apparently bothered to look over "evidences", that are not evidences, but false accusations and assumptions of a bad faith. Besides the votes were made on March 8 and 9. Today is March 15.
 * User:Huldra has not "worked" on the "evidences" for the last 9 days.
 * I'd like to finish with what I started. If that attack page is kept it will be kept in violation of a few wikipedia policies. Not only that attack page should be deleted, but its creator, user:Huldra should be warned against creating such pages in the feature.
 * Closing administrator, it is not the case where closing this DR according to consensus is the right thing to do. It should be closed in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I am more than willing to respond particular questions about each and every "evidence" at my talk page, if you have one before closing this DR. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What have you said in this big, newest post that wasn't already said above? Repetition isn't all that effective; people simply disagree with your opinion that this page is a person attack. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Malik. It is entirely reasonable for editors to make good faith efforts to prepare for an RfC/U or similar proceedings. Such material cannot be kept forever, but deleting it to prevent such proceedings is inappropriate. If there is evidence that the proposed RfC/U constitutes harassment, then that evidence should be presented. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing administrator user:Demiurge1000 is not only involved with me, but the user added a few new "evidences" to the page.
 * Let's for example see two addition of the user that the user got while hounding my contributions on a few different pages, with none of them concerning the user itself.
 * #1 The user is quoting me: ""What this "grow up" is for? To prove that my initial assessment of your administrative conduct was correct? I assure you I've got all proves I needed already. Please have a nice day."", but "forgets" to say that this post was made in response to this post, in which I was advised "to grow up"
 * #2 The user provides a quote from me, but "forgets" to say that I removed my note myself in an hour after it was added
 * If the user's conduct including hounding my contributions over at least 4 different talk pages and then adding collected "evidences" of a quality I explained above is not wikihounding, trolling and harassment, I am not sure what is. And user:Demiurge1000's conduct at that page is yet another reason to delete it. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2011 (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.