Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC

 __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 This  clearly is a draft of an RFC that has yet to be filed. The merits of the rfc are not relevant to this discussion so any comments about that were disregarded. If this is not filed in a timely manner it can be renominated per WP:POLEMIC. Given the level of support for keeping the page at this time it seems reasonable to close this now instead of tying it up here for seven days. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC


User page with the stated intent to violate UP. Any editor concerns should be brought to the appropriate venues, not here. Tgeairn (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:USER: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition of the Messagebox. That makes things considerably clearer! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Viriditas. We're doing our best to compile this quickly and file it. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:USER. There's nothing wrong with the page being drafted in userspace before moving to the formal RfC process. In fact, that's exactly what user sub-pages are meant for. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  07:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Factual information is permitted, but this page goes beyond that to include unwarranted accusations. I came across this page because I was mentioned on it. This is, pure and simply, an attack page. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a specific objection, I would be willing to listen to it. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed this question. See below. StAnselm (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep The page was created two days ago and working on a draft like that is the recommended procedure (much better than dropping something half-baked onto a page, then tweaking it while people are already responding). If there is an attack, please identify it, but such an attack would have to be pretty extreme (and with no evidence) for there to be a problem because drafting such a report is standard operating procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should it have to be extreme? This was the attack that caught my eye. There are diffs provided, but they are certainly not evidence of tag-teaming, and the accusation is completely false. So do I just delete it myself? StAnselm (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's part of my talk page: you don't get to delete things on it unless you posted them. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. StAnselm (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? That diff shows text "Tag Team reversions by User:StAnselm to reinsert weasel words. This led to page protection by User:TParis later" with three diffs that show StAnselm making an identical edit on 23 August 2012 at 22:49, 23:18, 23:23. Sorry but text like that supported with diffs like that are not anything like an "attack", and certainly do not warrant the deletion of a draft RfC. I am only commenting here because this MfD was at the top of my watchlist, and I have no opinion on the underlying issue or the editors involved, and do not endorse the text I quoted above—I'm just saying that such text is not an attack. The time for a reply is when the RfC is launched (and if it isn't, the page will be deleted). Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a personal attack. WP:WIAPA includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Just because a whole lot of diffs were linked, it doesn't mean that evidence has been presented. StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That LACK evidence. He supported it with diffs. It's not at all an attack page by any reasonable conclusion. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  09:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realise, don't you, that the edit comes from a user who has been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks? Why would you trust it? Why would User:StillStanding-247 keep it on his page? StAnselm (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: StAnselm had tagged the page db-attack, in keeping with his above !vote. I have declined the speedy as it is not an unambiguous/obvious case (the multiple policy/process/guideline-based KEEPs here demonstrate contesting of the speedy). DMacks (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The stated intention is to prepare for an RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, as all above have noted, collection of data for an RFC is specifically within the bounds of WP:USER. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - If this were a legitimate RfC than this would obviously be a 'keep'. However, this RfC is focused on misrepresenting diffs, creating massive assumptions of bad faith (such as attempting to link the Conservative Notice Board, deleted in 2006, to WikiProject Conservatism, created in 2011), and making blatantly false claims (such as that WikiProject Conservatism created User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias when it was actually created solely by Lionelt with no involvement from anyone else) and focusing on ad homenim attacks on the project and/or its members:
 * This is clearly not intended as a fair RfC, as it is filled with massive assumptions of bad faith and borderline personal attacks. Further, the user attempting to file this RfC clearly decided not to follow dispute resolution protocol, even the easy one listed on the main RfC page - prior to starting this, he had never discussed any of these so-called issues with the project. That gives the impression that he is not interested in discussing things with the project and its members, but he is instead trying to 'get' users that he has been in numerous disputes with rather. As such, I do not consider this a legitimate attempt to have an open RfC.  Toa   Nidhiki05  13:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is nothing more than a personal sandbox -- something that is encouraged by wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep From the history the page is getting edited quite frequently and we should AGF that the editors intend to publish this RfC.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 13:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely legit sandbox-type page. Getting thoughts together and ducks in a row. A working draft, under construction. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to User:StillStanding-247/RfC/draft. The page does not qualify as a user talk page and lacks enough diff to qualify it as a "compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process" noted at the top of the page. It also fails the items listed in the page header. Moving it to be a subpage of User:StillStanding-247/RfC should take care of these problems by making the page a user subpage rather than a user talk subpage (which are judge by two different standards), espeically since the page only was created two days ago and, per the terms of the page, will be delete/move to RFC by September 23, 2012. In general, this user page effort is judge by the guideline terms summarized in Template:Evidence subpage. As long as the 30 day limit is adhered to and the pages don't get too out of control, I don't seen any issue with it. I revised User:StillStanding-247/RfC in an effort to focus the discussion on things that matter. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (or, purely cosmetically in my opinion, move it to a subpage where it is marked "draft"). We allow users to prepare material for dispute resolution in user space, and that is what this is. There is no reason to doubt that the user intends to bring the material into dispute resolution within a reasonable amount of time. We do not allow "attack pages" to be kept in user space as an end in themselves, but that is not what this page is. One can argue the merits of the case being prepared, but MfD is the wrong way to carry out that argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. POLEMIC, the guideline cited in the deletion rationale, specifically and explicitly states that a compilation of evidence for an RFC or similar, to be used in a timely fashion, is permitted, and Still has stated specifically and explicitly that this is the purpose of the draft. What a silly and frivolous deletion request. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence for an RfC/U against the author. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. POLEMIC, the guideline cited in the deletion rationale, specifically and explicitly states that a compilation of evidence for an RFC or similar, to be used in a timely fashion, is permitted, and Still has stated specifically and explicitly that this is the purpose of the draft. What a silly and frivolous deletion request. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as evidence for an RfC/U against the author. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but watchlist Policy, as cited above, fully supports the keeping of this page, and as such I would encourage that it not be deleted. However, I'm more than a little concerned about NPOV violations (on BOTH sides), and so I've watchlisted that page. As I say on my user page, NPOV is one of my three highest priorities on the Wiki, and that particularly concerns things like this. Rest assured, I'll be participating in this upcoming RFC, and WILL call the nominator out if it is advertised or worded in a misleading manner. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is not an attack page, this is clearly a draft for an Rfc, and is even labeled as such. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:00, 25 August 2012 (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.