Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. As with the other nomination, opinions here are quite equally divided. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newman Luke/Zq

[edit]

(1) This deceptive and hidden, out of any context page, is a violation of Wikipedia:Attack page against User:IZAK who was not informed of it at any time on any page. (2) Rather this page has been disguised with the misleading "Zq" suffix added (that could MISLEAD users to associate it with blocked User:Zeq) so that even if the user against whom it is directed would search for it, he would not find it. (3) In fact, an examination of all the diffs Newman Luke cites on the page one sees that they are all TALK PAGES where User:IZAK has made the effort to reach out and discuss general points. (4) None of the diffs cited reveal a problem of editing violations by User:IZAK within ANY ARTICLE, so the entire premise and content of the page is moot and baseless! (5) Note to admins, User:IZAK has not had any interactions with User:Newman Luke the creator of this page in a very, very long time and even at that time disputes were intermittent and never escalated. (6) User:IZAK has always tried to keep the peace with Newman Luke, engaging him in respectful discussions befitting his obvious knowledge, and finds it surprising that Newman Luke would resort to this underhanded behavior without even informing IZAK. (7) Anyone is free to do as they wish on their own personal computers, but Wikipedia's pages must not be abused in any way. (8) This is a sneaky attack that violates WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. (9) Wikipedia should not allow attack pages to be set up disguised as "works in progress" for "files" or "dossiers" in secretive KGB-like fashion tracking content disputes, "just in case" it comes time to throw bombs at the unsuspecting target. That is not what Wikipedia's web pages are for and in addition: (10) Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTANARCHY and WP:NOTSCANDAL undermining the needed atmosphere of civility and co-operation. And talk of WP:DISRUPT, especially "disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia" he is a demonstration of that. --IZAK (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: That User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) has also created two other such trial "RfC" pages at User:Newman Luke/AV for Avraham and User:Newman Luke/dDb for User:Debresser. IZAK (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See related MfDs at:

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

NOTE: The page has now been nominated for WP:SD per {{Db-g10}} [1]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its not an attack page. Its a draft RfC. Its under a short title for my convenience in finding it. And I have no idea who Zeq is. Newman Luke (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It just shows how careless and reckless you are that you create "IDs" for people when it could quite easily be associated with other issues and users that you "deny" knowing. I was not even in dispute with you when you created that page and I have not had any interactions with you in many months. There was absolutely no need on your part to concoct this matter in regards to me simply because you are upset with others you are in conflict with now. You did this as an act of provocation and pre-emption because you now have conflicts with other Judaic editors in disputes that I have had nothing to do with. I have even been avoiding you and avoiding any editorial conflicts with you for a long time because it is so tiresome debating with you, but you have on the other hand seen fit to "prepare" an attack page against me because you are now mad at everyone and are ready to fire buckshot at the world. This is a reckless attitude for which you should be censured. Please re-read all the violations in the MfD you are clearly guilty of in this case and for which you should actually be censured. IZAK (talk) 18:06, 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 19:36, 25 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) 01:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Malik you make no sense. There are only two possibilities here: (1) If it's a genuine RfC then he should have filed it without playing games or hide and seek, and no smoke and mirrors. (2) If it's just there for him to compile alleged negative data "credit bureau style" he's in violation of launching and running an attack page on another user that should in fact be a candidate for immediate speedy deletion per WP:SD without need for this MfD which I have been generous in opening. If every disgruntled user started compiling such pages 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 debating opponent, and that's all it has amounted to, will threaten RfC's against them for holding views not in agreement and in accordance with the attacker's own WP:POV, that is then called blackmail and not editing. IZAK (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take it easy, IZAK. You posted, now it is up to the community to give its opinion. I agree with Malik Shabazz on this. A user has the right to use his userspace for making drafts. These may actually linger for extended periods. Especially in this specific case, since I know Newman Luke is "under attack", so to say, and will hardly be able to devote much attention to this specific draft in the near future. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Makes no sense either because I was not involved in his being "under attack" until this page came to my notice, and because it has nothing to do with me if he is "under attack" by other users. If a user feels he is allegedly under "under attack" by Users XYZ there is no rhyme or reason for him to himself start attacking Users ABC because that just inflames the situation, drags in parties not involved in the dispute, creates an atmosphere of mistrust and conflict and forces the newly attacked users ABC to respond, as I have done. So the attacks in this case are clearly not coming from me, but it is clearly initiated by Newman Luke who draws first blood against me and then wishes to incredulously claim "innocence" by saying he is merely innocently "doodling" and "thinking out aloud" in a very nonchalant manner. This is no way to conduct oneself. If he wants peace let him pursue WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and if he wants WP:WAR then let him follow that path, but to fake peace while preparing for and waging war is a sham and it's ridiculous and laughable. IZAK (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid draft RfC. IZAK is strongly advised to disengage from this topic--slapping a {{db-g10}} tag on the article was disruptive. We get that you may not like it, but no one will mistake this as anything other than one other editor's take on the situation until and unless it's actually made into a real RfC and endorsed. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 25 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 03:59, 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) 09:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a protected category in userspace. Collect (talk) 11:52, 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) 19:21, 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) 14:50, 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) 01:14, 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) 02:21, 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) 03:57, 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Newman_Luke/Zq&oldid=1141910817"