Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/AV




 * 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  no consensus. Sorry, opinions here seem evenly split down the middle. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Newman Luke/AV
This is a WP:Attack page hiding under the guise of WP policies. It is akin to carrying out threats of frivolous litigation. This user has created two other such similar "RfC" pages for two other editors at User:Newman Luke/Zq and User:Newman Luke/dDb with whom he has disagreements over content. There are only two possibilities for him to have followed : (1) If it's a genuine RfC then he should file it without playing games. (2) If it's just there as a scare tactic for him to compile alleged negative data "credit bureau style" he's in violation of launching and running an attack page on another user. If every disgruntled user started compiling such pages with data he deems to be "negative" from his own WP:POV against other users with whom he/she disagrees for quick usage to attack them relying on various manufactured WP:LAWYERing moves on short notice should the need arise it would undermine everyone's ability to function in an atmosphere of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL knowing that one's opponent will threaten RfC's against them for holding views not in agreement with or in accordance with the attacker's own POV. This violates WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTANARCHY, WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:DISRUPT because it undermines the needed atmosphere of civility and co-operation. --IZAK (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See related MfD's at:
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/dDb
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq


 * Delete for above reason. IZAK (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. It seems clear to me that this is a draft RfC, which is permitted in User space. However, if the RfC is not properly  initiated within a reasonable period of time, let's say one week, it  should be deleted as an attack page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are violating WP:MADEUP regarding WP policies because where does it say he gets a week to keep these kind of self-concocted "RfC" pages up? Maybe he should be allowed to keep them up for a month, or a year, or for as long as he's active on Wikipedia? Or, maybe it should be a rule of 24 to 48 hours or not more than 72 hours (each page clocks time accurately)? Either he gets on with his RfCs or they are stopped in their tracks and deleted ASAP because they create an atmosphere of threats and are divisive in the extreme. IZAK (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and drop the stick, please. If you look at CSD-G10, draft RfCs are specifically allowed. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. But, what's the limit before it looks like the guy's out of control with his questionable "RfC" attack pages? 1? 2? 3? (he's already up to his 3rd one) or 10? 20? 30? IZAK (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd like to know too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I pleaded keep at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq, and even at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/dDb which is about me, because a user has the right to make up a draft for accusing other people of whatever he thinks they are guilty of. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you are so obliging about yourself when blatantly attacked. IZAK (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He has the right to file an RfC, if he does so in a timely manner. If he doesn't file it quickly (in the next week) or if it is not certified it should be deleted.  AniMate   03:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: User has started discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about the underlying premises of how much time to allow MfDs such as this one, and the nature, limits and values of such unfiled "RfC" pages on users' pages. IZAK (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as protected category. Collect (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, creating a draft RFC is a reasonable thing to do in userspace, and this is no more than 2 days old. Doing an RFC properly takes time, and filing it before it is properly researched is not helpful to anyone. The "hidden" name if anything helps to insure that it is not "in the face" of the named "subject" until it is properly filed. Should not be retained indefinately without filing, but I see not need for a hard and fast deadline, as long as there seem good faith efforts to research anf perfect the draft. DES (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. WP:USER permits the gathering of evidence in userspace in preparation for dispute resolution processes, provided the dispute resolution process is started promptly. If this page hangs around in userspace for a while without being used to file an actual RfC then deletion would be appropriate, but the page was only started the day before this MfD nomination. Hut 8.5 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointy Keep because nomination is some kind of acronym salad and TL;DR. Seriously though, if the RfC never happens, bring it back in a couple months.  Try to be more concise though. Gigs (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. My reasoning for this delete has more to do with who created and why than with the actual page. Some might see this as punishment, however I see it as freeing up resources, and valuable ones to the benefit of this project. This community is not here to put people in place, the reason we have bans and blocks is not to punish people but to free up resources so that the project can benefit even more.--Shmaltz (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What resources would be freed up, and how would this help the project? DES (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First see this where it's explained a bit more. By resources I mean resources of editors, if you have valuable resources going towards editing then it helps the project way more than when they are busy pleading with editors like NL.--Shmaltz (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not startign this MfD would have avoided taking up resources also. DES (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I was convinced by . Shmaltz argument. --Yoavd (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If the pages were for gathering evidence for an RfC that could have been done offline in notepad, by being online they amount to WP:Attack page. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:UP specifically says: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner." It is often both better and easier to formulate a possible RfC page on wikipedia to make sure that internal links are correct, and to permit the various would-be certifiers to agree on the content, as an RFC/U must be certified by at elast two editors. DES (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't understand why anyone would take up wiki resources to write pages of information detailing other contributor's activities. You have word for that or googledocs. This is a frivolous waste of time and does nothing but add to acrimony between contributors. Guy Montag (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See comment just above. DES (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's unlikely these dubious retaliatory RfCs could have been certified, and in any event it's been over a week since they were created, with no attempt to actually initiate them. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2010 (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.