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. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newman Luke/dDb[edit]

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/AV 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) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See related MfD's at:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/AV
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 00:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I pleaded keep at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/Zq, and see no reason to change my mind just because this page is about me. Newman Luke has the right to make up a draft for accusing me later on. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should the limit be? 1? 2? 3? (so far he's created three) or 20? 30? 40? such misguided "RfC" pages? Glad to see you are so obliging about yourself when blatantly attacked. IZAK (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. (sigh) - agree with a set time frame (a week?) for posting, and deleting if not done so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tricky. I don't see anything on the Criteria for speedy deletion page which gives a guideline for how long is long enough for keeping an RfC in one's own talk space. I agree that the existence of a-ready-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace hasa chilling effect and is not in the spirit of collaborative editing. On the other hand, setting up an RfC is complex, and cannot be produced spontatneously like some rabbit out of a wiki-hat (would that I had several consecutive hours free time :)). What we really need is a guideline on how long is an appropriate length of time to have these things lingering really. Has this been discussed in the CSD archives somewhere. My connection is rather slow today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Casliber: I tend to be aware of and follow WP policies as best I can and not get involved in creating them or following discussions about them. I would say that creating RfC pages are very serious matters and if one does want to go that path they had better be ready to go all the way. Otherwise it's like storing hand grenades in your pantry. It does take time, like all serious work on Wikipedia as I know full well, but one should not waste time on negative objectives either and unfortunately this is just another manifestation of anger, obstructionism and lashing out by an obviously very frustrated user. We all get frustrated at times but that does not mean we should load up with ammo and prepare for war. As for now, all we can say is that we can follow the standard guidelines for all AfDs and CfD's etc which is usually waiting one week, but this is not a "normal" article or "category" which is what leaves me so concerned about allowing such negative posts and how it ruins the working atmosphere between editors who are engaged in enough disputes as it is. IZAK (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly - if we had a clear guideline which gave a limit of, say, one week for the existence of an unfiled RfC in userspace, after which point it could be speedied, then this discussion would be unnecessary. Formulating an RfC in one's userspace is not common but certainly not rare either. I have started a discussion on the CSD talk page, although it could equally take place on the RfC page too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• NOTE: User Casliber (talk · contribs) has started discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace 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) 09:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a specific protected category in userspace. Collect (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) 14:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was convinced by Shmaltz argument. --Yoavd (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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) 06:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 01:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete amounts to an attack page, evidence gathering could have been done offline in notepad if the intention was to file an RfC. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[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.