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

User:Newman Luke/dDb

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:

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]