Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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 speedy deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:A/Sandbox/The real sandbox

No longer needed. -- A ^talk/_contribs 20:54, 23 April 2009 (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.

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 speedy deleted as CSD G1. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for acceptance/Log/2006 January 6

No "Articles for acceptance" process actually exists; this page consists solely of a comment by one user saying that he "accepts" the article myYearbook.com. -- Unscented (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• delete It looks like a joke. And it is useless. It is the only page starting with Wikipedia:Articles for acceptance. Not to be confused with WP:AFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nonsensical, apparently a joke, if not a good one. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not useful or funny. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 23 April 2009 (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.

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 speedy deleted as CSD G2. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Zona de pruebas

Completely written in Spanish ("Zona de pruebas" translates to "Test page"). The full translation:

History: Marta was a girl who worked at a machine shop. Always left very late from work as it is clean. Every night when I left work to put on helmets and listen to music on his car (which was a bit too far in the park the next street). While walking was realized he had his radio interference and stood in line for the better. Had not removed the helmet when he heard these three words: "danger, car runs." Was puzzled because I did not know what was what. While it was approaching his car he realized that he was surrounded by cops. He ran to see what was happening and when approached he saw a woman with a strong resemblance to it. The police came and explained what happened: A serial murderer had escaped from prison and killed the same night to 4 women. Marta did not give credence to what he was listening, had heard the future or was a warning not to die?

Inappropriate for Wikipedia namespace. Delete or Userfy while deleting the redirect. ~EdGl ★ 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy if wanted - should have gone to the sandbox. It is the only thing the creator has worked on on en.wikipedia, with two edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weird, I visited es.wiki, typed "Wikipedia:Zona de pruebas" in the search bar, and I got redirected to enwiki. In any case, this is clearly intended for the es.wiki sandbox, so I speedy deleted it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:56, 23 April 2009 (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.

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 delete after one week if no dispute resolution process is started. Pages of evidence are allowed in preparation for dispute resolution, which the author of this page has stated is a possibility. However, indefinite retention of this kind of page is also explicitly forbidden by policy, and the author of this page has given no timeframe in which he plans to start a dispute resolution process. One week gives the author enough time to start dispute resolution or move the information off-wiki.--Aervanath (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu

Violation of WP:UP#Not - section 10 specifically - and WP:Attack page. See discussion at User talk:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu, where creator acknowledges no process is being actively considered for which this page may be relevant. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Please note, a request for CSD#G10 was declined with the suggestion that it be taken to MfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• weak keep - if User:DanielDeibler has any issue he should be taking it up on a talk page, where this collection could be used, but there seems to be no point in it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As commented, the creator did not and has not indicated that this is to be presented at any determined venue for review/resolution - it is a "work in progress" which may (yet) provide the basis of further proceedings. Since the account has not edited since 12 April it is difficult to ascertain what is intended. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and per LessHeard's comments. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - We can't have this rubbish hanging around Wikipedia, particularly when the editor in question seems to be taking his time on the issue, maximizing the potential damage for no good reason. — R² 15:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  WP:AGF. Calling it rubbish when, in the most basic sense, it is permitted on Wikipedia doesn't help form a consensus. Taking his time can also be a means to make such a report thorough, deliberate, and accurate. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm not at all sure what User:DanielDeibler's intentions are, I'm uncomfortable with this article/page remaining. It needs to be deleted now and the author taking action or not.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  See my note below, but there are valid, consensus-derived reasons by which this page is valid. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • It's not that the page is not valid, it's the fact that there is no interaction with the author here, and no sign of his intentions or a timescale. As I say the page should be deleted and the author act or withdraw.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Then I think we're on the same page here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - This page was created on April 4, and there is no sign that it is about to be used in any dispute resolution process. If the user only wants to collect evidence, let him do it offline on his own computer. If he is keeping it on-wiki, that means he intends to have others read and discuss his work. I can't see the legitimacy of that if he won't open an WP:RFC/U. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  Not opening it until he has gathered his thoughts and accurately/appropriately made comments is the more prudent thing to do. Would you rather it be an irrational mishmash or a well-thought out argument? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep User is clearly collecting evidence for an RFC per comments at User:DanielDeibler#Investigation. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "...if there is a cause for concern..." does not appear to be a commitment to any process. I would draw your attention to the non-committal responses to my request regarding the intended purpose at User talk:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Why and how would I justify committing to take the concerns to dispute resolution if I were to find there was nothing deserving of dispute resolution? --DanielDeibler (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's clear at all. The messagebox at the top of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu states: "its outcome only determines whether or not I decide to pursue further action"; this isn't a commitment to any process, and within policy, guidelines and long-established consensus at WP:AN and WP:ANI, is an improper use of user pages. The page was started on 4th April and since then, its creator has made only one edit unconnected with his investigation, and none at all since 12th April. Whereas he may have fallen under a train in the intervening period, should he return later and satisfactorily explain his apparent absence of commitment, the page may be restored; but for the time being, he has said nothing on Wikipedia in just under a week. Those of us with serious work to do could live without these diversions from that purpose. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Wait, let me understand: the user hasn't made any edits in under a week, and this lack of contribution to his research are keeping you "diverted from your serious work"? How is his time away from the situation distracting you? PS- ASG means giving a user more than 6 days to complete a task that -to my eyes at least- seems quite daunting. And I did say that he is compiling evidence, not submitting evidence. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for now, as only a few weeks old, subject to agreement here that the user has a reason and a purpose for this page. Give it no more than another month for an officail dispute resolution process to begin, or delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This opinion is largely a statement of principle. I suspect that there could me more than meets the eye going on here. On the surface, I don't see much of an issue, but User:DanielDeibler has made some efforts to document something, and User:Rodhullandemu seems to be taking it overly seriously for what it looks like. To clarify: if User:Rodhullandemu cannot plausibly tell us here his reason and purpose, then Delete at the conclusion of this MfD. If he can, give it another month. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Please refer to this edit for some clarification. That comment should have been made on the discussion page here, no? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep (at least for now): If a good faith editor suddenly behaves in a bad faith manner, we need at least some page about it. Perhaps the information should be moved to a more appropriate page. -- IRP ☎ 03:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I did not find omniscience about further actions being required. IT appears neutrally worded (the first requirement) and appeasrs chock full of diffs, as any evidence page rasonably should be. Collect (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete...unless the writer intends to submit this to WP:DR processes. A simple statement that the intent is there is sufficient for me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: the originator of this page has been aware of this MfD for 2 days now (and has also been actively editing during this period) and yet has not commented on it or made any changes to their investigation page. While I don't want to second guess them, it seems to me that they have no intention of following through with this investigation. Oops, I think I was looking at someone else's contributions... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 08:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete – points raised may be valid in a RFC, but in current form its a somewhat sinister attack page thats distracting a productive editor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment: I refer you to the question I asked here, which remains unanswered. How is a lack of action by a user on his user page distracting to anybody? How is giving the user time to continue compiling information distracting? How does not allowing this user fair time on what seems a large task show good faith? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think we need to understand why an editor finds something distracting to take into account the fact that he does. Ive replied in full on your user page, .36 FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way- it is now 20 April; the page was started on 4 April and on 12 April, its author was asked for a timescale, but has not yet offered one. Furthermore, said editor made only one edit outside this topic between 4 and 12 April, and that was to correct an erroneous message he'd left for another user. He has added precisely nothing to this encyclopedia since then. The bottom line is precisely this: "how comfortable would you feel with a gun to your head when you know neither if it's actually loaded nor whether the holder is committed to pulling the trigger"? Hmmmm? Rodhullandemu 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is no gun to your head. Don't overplay this. Information is being collected and there is no time frame. And were that user to use this info to put your contributions to an RFC or an AN/I, there would be ample time for you to respond to each and every accusation they made. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that there is precedent for keeping such a page. The significant difference is that there is not a timetable involved here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The pivotal argument here is "providing that BQZ follows up on the proposed RfC in the very near future". Without looking into it, I don't know if you did that, but anywhere due diligence would suggest that some level of commitment, or reasonable explanation for lack of such, should be forthcoming. I don't see it here. Perfectly possible of course that User:DanielDeibler is compiling something offline as far as we are concerned, but he has yet to grace the rest of us with that information. That would be an allowable defence to this MFD, but thus far, I find his silence unconvincing. Please forgive my cynicism here, but I believe you should actually "put up or shut up", and that's the nub of this discussion. Obviously I have self-interest but that doesn't cloud my judgement as to the proper application and use of process here. I yearn to hear from User:DanielDeibler what his intentions are, but this far, his apparent silence is deafening. Rodhullandemu 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I did submit for WP:RfC shortly thereafter. I disagree with "put up or shut up". We don't censor people in that manner. I would rather someone submit an RfC or other WP:DR process that is well-formulated and reasonable than hasty and full of inaccuracies. Being patient goes a long way. Additionally, we generally don't have deadlines...this is not one of those instances, but the principle (quality) is the same. Like I said, all I'm asking for is a basic idea of what they are thinking. A lack of feedback here is more problematic than saying "I just want it..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment: Per your own observation above, it's only been 2 weeks + 2 days. That user may very well be sunning himself in the Bahamas. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

...and the sole reason I !voted to Delete. I'm even willing to wait a while on such a timescale, as long as it isn't open-ended. This also shouldn't be used to vindicate any action of any party with whom he has a dispute. If he wants to keep it until later, the easiest solution is to simply blank the page and restore it if/when desired to complete such a process. Refusal to discuss is counter to WP:CONSENSUS; accordingly...my !vote. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Having this sort of thing hanging over one's head for an unreasonable time is inimical to being able to contribute here effectively. Hence my comment that the complainant should either commit or withdraw. He has been offered {{db-author}} deletion but apparently has just left it hanging like a corpse in the wind. That's unhelpful to anyone. Rodhullandemu 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand how a user page that hasn't been edited significantly in 16 days is stopping you from contributing effectively. I still don't understand how you expect good faith from this editor in being up front with their intentions while suggesting deletion of this page: not showing good faith. I would suggest that since, as you noted above, you have your own self-interest at hand, and -since you've made your POV clearly known and since the editor in question hasn't weighed in while full well knowing about the Mfd, you should let the system you trust come to a fair and trustworthy consensus on this issue. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding is no fault of mine; however, there is a real-life person at the end of this wire, for whom causes have effects. I trust the system to come to a fair and just result- but Magna Carta said 804 years ago "to no man will we deny or delay justice". Did she die in vain?. The editor could have come here and said "I am working on this offline and expect to make a proposal shortly": he hasn't. Rodhullandemu 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I have returned from vacation. To be honest, I was not expecting discussion of this page to be ongoing. I assumed, falsely, that the two users so fervently trying to silence the investigation were going to round up their buddies and get the page speedy deleted. Perhaps there is hope for Wikipedia after all. If I'd had the proper foresight to see that this was not going to be swept under the proverbial rug, I would have let the community know I was going to be absent, so I'm sorry for leaving without notice. I've read through most of this discussion (all, eventually) and I've gathered that there are two primary concerns about the investigation. First, there is concern over the intended result of the investigation. I believed I had made it clear on the investigation's talk page, in my responses to LessHeard's questions, that the purpose of the investigation was to see if there were issues that needed more direct attention by the community at large, specifically stating RfC as a possible result. In case it wasn't clear from my comments what my intent was, I have stated it in a manner I believe to be more concise, by editing the box at the top of the investigation to clarify that the purpose of the investigation is to see what, if anything, will be taken to a dispute resolution process, specifically RfC/User Conduct. Second, there is concern over the timeline/timeframe of the investigation. I will do my best to provide information on a timeframe for the investigation. I don't quite know what the community is looking for in such a statement. If someone who is requesting a timeline/timeframe could let me know what they would like as far as a statement of the investigation's timeline/timeframe, I will provide one as best I can. On one other note, if there are any specific statements/comments/wordings/etc. in the text of the investigation that anyone considers to be unfair/biased/insulting/slanderous/etc., please let me know, either here, on the investigation's discussion page, or on my user talk page so that I can correct them. I don't believe there is anything of that sort, but it's always helpful to have others review these things to make sure. DanielDeibler (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:UP#NOT, #10; and do you consider accusing your fellow-editors of, essentially, corruption is an assumption of good faith? Rodhullandemu 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I made it clear that my assumption was made in error, so I'm not sure why you are asking me this. While I'm commenting here, I'll let anyone who is interested know that I am in the process of adding more to this page, and should be done writing shortly. DanielDeibler (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not that surprised at your astonishment, the assumption of good faith requires some familiarity with the concept after all. I would comment that collecting the data with a view to reviewing whether there are sufficient grounds to process to some form of dispute resolution is not how the section is worded - the language is "preparing for", which implies intent. In my first response here I said that it was difficult to determine what process the information was intended to be used for, and your response even now does not indicate at which venue the substance may be discussed. While attempting to discuss this on the talkpage, I noted that this could be done off-Wiki and brought to the appropriate place once it had been decided upon. I now note that only when I have done as I notified you I would, by taking the matter to MfD, that you have seen fit to consider your position - and then only because you were not expecting two members of the community entrusted by their fellows to use the extra buttons in accordance with their responsibilities... have actually acted in accordance with the rules. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I'll pause to allow everyone to recover from the shock of my selected !vote. If there were issues with the clarity of the investigation's intended purpose, I believe I have corrected any vagueness in that respect with my responses to LessHeard, my above comments, and my most recent update to the investigation's page (diff). If not, then I will continue to try to clarify the intent until I've satisfied the community. As for the concerns over a timeframe/timeline, I've requested on this page, that someone let me know what the community would like in the way of a statement of timeframe/timeline for the investigation. As soon as someone gives me some direction in that respect, I'll do my best to provide one. Since several people had expressed that concern, I imagine someone will respond very shortly, so I should be able to address that concern soon. As Rodhullandemu has pointed out multiple times, I have given this investigation my full attention since I started it, taking a break from my usual Huggle patrols to make sure this investigation progresses as quickly as possible, so I don't believe there is any cause for concern as to whether or not this investigation will be conducted in a timely manner (yes, I realize he has been pointing this out in order to question my contribution to the project, but it conveniently addresses a primary concern raised here). I am making myself fully available to the community so that I can address any concerns and hopefully satisfy anyone who isn't satisfied with the manner in which the investigation is being conducted. I'd like to restate, in case it is unclear to anyone, that I have no "beef" with Rodhullandemu. I don't believe I've ever communicated or otherwise interacted with him prior to the comment he left on a warning I issued to an apparent vandal (diff) that was my original cause for concern. I'm not trying to discredit him or throw him under any proverbial buses. As far as I can tell, he has contributed a lot to the Wikipedia project. I am, however, initially concerned by some of his recent comments and I believe if there be a user conduct issue here, that the community deserves to hear about and discuss it, and that the conduct be corrected if it be deserving of correction. I also believe that the community deserves to have such concerns presented for discussion in the Wikipedia namespace only after said concerns have been carefully evaluated. This approach seems much more beneficial for the project and the community, particulary for the user in question, than the alternative of polluting the RfCs with a deluge of potentially benign and unfocused concerns. I also believe that the community deserves full access to and input on the investigation as it progresses and, as has been stated before, no good is done by carrying on such investigations behind closed doors. I'm a little concerned that some people insist on calling the investigaion an "attack page" but don't give any explanation as to how they believe it attacks the subject. The investigation may not be flattering, but if that be the case, then it is due only to the subject's own statements and actions contained there, and I don't take responsibility for anything he has said or done. I'd like to point out that comments like "We can't have this rubbish hanging around Wikipedia" and "I'm uncomfortable with this article/page remaining" aren't really productive to this discussion unless they are elaborated. This investigation is intended to help the project and the community. I don't imagine anyone is going to argue that ignoring a user conduct issue, if one exists, is good for the community or for the project, so let's try to keep any concerns focused on the manner in which the investigation is being handled, and not on its mere existence. As was stated earlier by BQZip01, there is a precedent for keeping such a page, and as with the case referenced, this investigation's page could be deleted upon completion and referral (if appropriate) to dispute resolution. As a final thought for this edit, I'd like to ask what possible harm could come from the existence of this investigation's page in my user space while it is being conducted? If there are any further concerns over the manner in which this investigation is being conducted, I am ever available to address them until the community is satisfied. --DanielDeibler (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• As the editor who posted "I'm uncomfortable with this article/page remaining" I merely meant that I would like to see the 'investigation' set a timeframe by the author, not the community as it's DanielDeibler's page and no one elses, then that timeframe adhered to and action taken or not.--Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clarifying. I didn't mean to make it sound like I want the community to set a timeframe (I think you're saying you interpreted my above comments that way). What I'm asking for is some guidance or direction as to what kind of a statement of timeframe the community is looking for (where should I state it, what should it include, should it consist of a series of targets/steps, should it be a simple estimate of when the investigation will be completed, how exact does it need to be, does it need to have a cut-off date, that sort of thing). If someone can direct me to an existing example, that should be enough unless anyone wants any specific details included. --DanielDeibler (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Daniel, this comment is to clarify why the article is an attack page, as granted its not obvious. WP:Attack page says an attack page is an article that "exists primarily to disparage its subject." Now superficially your investigation is valid . The action that kicked this whole thing off, Rods handling of user 82.2.217.135, was clearly poor form. As was Rods response to your original constructive criticism. And plainly we're not talking about an entirely isolated incident. The initial intention to address your concerns seems to me bold and admirable . However youre going about it the wrong way for the article to serve any valid purpose. Specifically the article does not serve as:

1) Suitable preparation for an RFC.

2) A fair investigation of the subjects overall conduct.

3) A fair investigation to determine whether a sanction possibly more severe than a slapped wrist at a RFC is called for.

The investigation is plainly overkill for purpose 1). The evidence that Rod occasionally makes mistakes is very clear – as recognised by Ellen, FolkBoy and others. You'd only have needed to gather 5 or 6 diffs to easily demonstrate your subject does indeed sometimes cross the line.

The investigation isnt suited for 2) or 3) as for those purposes fairness demands an even handed assessment of Rod's overall conduct – the good and the bad. The page emphatically highlights Rod's mistakes, but makes only a token effort to assess his huge constructive contribution. A fair formal investigation should analyse what sort of % of Rod's edits are bad. I'll briefly explain in case you dont have any form of analytical training. For simplicity you could classify a sample set of edits as either good or bad, taking care to ensure they are a reasonably accurate reflection of the users overall editing by populating your sample pool with edits taken at various dates and times, without any prior selection based on quality. For someone who's made about 40,000 edits , youd only need to analyse about 600 randomly distributed edits to determine the approximate % of bad edits, (with a margin of error of 4% and a confidence level of 95%) . I've took a few minutes to skim through and Im confident less than 5% of Rods edits are blatantly uncivil or overly authorative. In fact I didn't see a single bad one (there were maybe 2 borderline cases) Informally Id guess well under 0.01% of Rods edits are bad , but it takes a much higher sample size to formally achieve accuracy down to decimal places with any confidence.

Restating the above more loosely, fairness would demand Rods blatant but very infrequent mistakes are counterbalanced by a recognition of his much more numerous valuable edits. We ought not countenance witchhunts against anyone , especially not to folk who've made an immense net positive contribution to the encyclopaedia!

In conclusion , as on close inspection the article doesnt best serve functions 1-3 above, its fair to say its serves primarily to disparage its subject. Therefore it is an attack page. And , after a sensitive reading of Rod's recent comments , a spectacularly successful one. Occasional exceptions are allowed to the AGF guideline – Im beginning to suspect you may have some hidden motive for attacking Rod, have well above average psychological insight and may be deliberately pulling his strings. Accordingly Im changing my vote to speedy delete, and I wouldn't object if this increasingly dramatic AFD was purged from the record either.

Its quite possible that you simply lack the analytical skill to detect the flaws in your investigation, despite your obvious high intelligence as demonstrated by the presentation and internal consistency of your arguments . If thats the case I apologise for my suggestion of an ulterior motive and you have my respect for your determination to stand up to intolerant and uncivil admin behaviour. I hope you find this comment helpful for any future investigations you conduct.

Grrrrr! Hardly any time left for enjoyable content building or article rescue now. Started my day off nicely this has. Here's hoping someone steps in to bring this to a speedy close!FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete. No need for laundry lists like this; looks like unpleasant wikistalking. Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No good can come from keeping dossiers of "evidence" on users; it is unfair and unwarranted, particularly in the public sphere. It's inconcievable that an editor can work knowing that their every edit is being scrutinised and compiled into a case which will then be used against them: it is a ticking time bomb. Pages such as this can only worsen the battleground mentality and negative atmosphere which has enveloped much of the encyclopedia. If you have a problem with the admin which is serious enough to warrant this, take it to Arbcom, or leave it alone and get on with something useful. No amount of neutral language can disguise the nature of this page and there is nothing helpful coming from this; for the encyclopedia (which we are meant to be building, by the way), for Rod, yourself or for the community as a whole. You have not been asked by the community to investigate this (there are people who have been entrusted to look at editors' behaviour) so you should not do so using Wikipedia space. If you wish to keep score in private (away from prying eyes, where no drama can be generated), then please, please do that instead. Either way, this needs to stop. – Toon^(talk) 23:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On one point, whereas on-Wiki might be acceptable, "public" isn't, and DanielDeibler failed to apply {{NOINDEX}} to his pages. Hence they are now indexed by Google. When you're an admin, you are bound to make some enemies, rationally or not, and some people out there have it in for me and have attempting to obtain passwords on my Meta and Commons accounts, and issuing death threats. I don't know about anyone else, but I could live without that. Rodhullandemu 23:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Begin RFC or delete There are plenty of issues to contend with here already and certainly enough to present a case. It's clear what DanielDeibler has an issue with (i.e. RodhullandEmu's incivility to IPs and quick blocks on vandalism only accounts) so why does this remain as a bomb awaiting explosion or diffusion? DanielDeibler has enough evidence and rational commentary to submit a thorough RFC immediately. Anything more would be somewhat fetishitic. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misread the investigation. I only reviewed one instance of a quick block on a vandalism only account. I determined it to be perfectly acceptable and common practice, that it likely prevented further vandalism, and that its impact on the investigation was "None". I believe I only reviewed one other block, in which an editor who appeared to be trying to reorganize an article in an undesirable, piece-wise manner was blocked without warning after two minutes of editing on Wikipedia. They didn't appear to be vandalizing anything, just editing in a manner not IAW the MoS. I think I marked that one as needing further review. I don't really have an "issue" with anything. I'm just investigating user conduct. Can you explain what you mean by "Anything more would be somewhat fetishistic"? Thanks. --DanielDeibler (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:HOUND. If you're going to be serious, and consistent, you should in fairness cite and analyse every single edit summary and use page message of mine and come to an objective conclusion based on the totality; picking and choosing the ones you deem inappropriate isn't good, defensible, methodology. In those circumstances, whereas "fetishistic" might not be the correct terminology, the words "obsessive" and "unjust" certainly might spring to mind. Rodhullandemu 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are not just investigating user conduct. You are publishing and discussing another's edits for all to see. This can be done just as easily: in your head, with bookmarks, on a .txt document on your computer, or even on plain old paper. The link from your user page is hardly keeping it hidden and is a way of attracting attention to another edits that you consider problematic (or not). There are already official forums for problems of this nature (RFC/ANI etc). Giving a play by play description of his edits is verging on wikistalking. You could be so much more discrete so easily. I can only suppose you put this here to invite others to see/comment on it, in which case - take it to RFC if you think there are incivility issues. That is the correct channel. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify that I do not mean fetishitic in any kind of sexual manner (as could be implied!) but rather in terms of this definition: "An abnormally obsessive preoccupation; a fixation." Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete While I can see a purpose to a piece that started "I intend to place an RfC: here's my beef, has anyone else had a similar problem with this guy" - at least you'd know what it was for. But announcing that you are "undertaking an investigation" without any authorisation from anyone, and that you haven't decided yet what you're going to do with it, is just energy sapping. Particularly given that this whole thing seems to have started because DanielDeibler objected to an ejected vandal being referred to as a twat - a word which I would point out does not always have whatever offensive meaning DanielDeibler is ascribing to it. May I refer readers to the episode of Fawlty Towers where the sign was respelled "FLOWERY TWATS", and point out that the BBC broadcast this before the watershed. And a great deal of the rest of the piece reads as somewhat of a boo-hoo that Rodhullandemu didn't play by the rules of the "investigation". We're not playing an RPG here people, we're trying to construct an encyclopaedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete An inchoate and unnecessary diversion from the work I would otherwise be doing here; Toon has already said it very eloquently. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep + reasonable deadline for completion (a week? ten days?). When the RfC is launched, I foresee an early close due to WP:SNOW. User:Rodhullandemu has an admin style that I wish were more common: (1) treat established editors with patience and respect, when in doubt opt for page protection over blocking, and (2) swiftly block raw newbies who start off vandalizing. Part (1) is good for reasons that ought to be blindingly obvious, part (2) is a humane way of letting newbies know early on what's O.K. and what isn't before they have accumulated "sweat equity" and an attachment to their user name; this goes even more for IP's.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  With that said, I would not disagree if someone said that the time since April 5 – the day the page was started – was ample enough and that no further time need be given.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• User:DanielDeibler has more than achieved his aim of drawing attention to cases of bluntness by User:Rodhullandemu. Rodhullandemu has taken seriously a lot of comment; this MfD has served as good as any RFC could. DanielDeibler, blank the page. Let’s move on please. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This would seem inconsistent with your "Keep" vote above; would you mind clarifying whether you are changing please? Rodhullandemu 00:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I prefer such things to not be deleted, unless the user chooses {{db-u1}}. Blanking should usually satisfy all concerns. In this case, I don’t think there is anything so offensive to you in the page that would justify you insisting that the community delete it against the user’s wishes. I’d said “keep for now (01:48, 19 April 2009)”, now I say "blank, no further action (RFC or otherwise) warranted at this time". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with blanking is that it remains visible, through its edit history, to any editor. Now whereas you correctly point out that there is little of offence to me on that page, I am more concerned that it might be used in future to impugn DanielDeibler's good faith should he ever decide to pursue a similar exercise in the future, and on that point, I refer you to FeydHuxtable's above comments on the flaws in his methodology. Having studied the Chicago School in the context of criminology, I didn't want to get too technical, but I am not sure his evidence so far indicates a commitment to empiricism. It is, as stated above, a laundry list, and he should be spared the embarrassment of having it haunt him forever here. Meanwhile, it's late and I need some sleep, although I'm not optimistic. Rodhullandemu 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. If DanielDiebler wishes to continue his "investigation", he can do so off-wiki. Having this laundry list remain on Wikipedia, indexed by search engines, has a defamatory effect which outweighs the potential benefit of such an "investigation". I say this with no prejudice towards or against the prospect of a future RfC — DanielDiebler is within his rights to continue to "investigate" and, if he so chooses, to start an RfC against Rodhullandemu. But the material doesn't need to remain on Wikipedia indefinitely while he collates it and makes up his mind. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 April 2009 (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.

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 delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ashlotte

This userpage is notifies from a copy of a fictional web game. Hence violates WP:UP#Games. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. User has made zero encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not related to Wikipedia, but blanking and a warning may be OK too. There was a talk like entry made to one article, and some work on the sandbox by this User, but nothing useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There are plenty of free wikis out there that one can use to keep track of games. This one is for writing an encyclopedia. Chillum 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Snowball delete WP:NOT — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:19, 20 April 2009 (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.

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 moot, nothing to do here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:FAB!AN

This userpage is notifies from a copy of America's Next Top Model, Cycle 12 article. Violates WP:UP#Games. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blank and warn, this user has been around for a while doing various edits, but perhaps it is time for them to learn what a user page is for. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Exceedingly bad form to nominate before attempting to discuss the issue with the user informally, and apparently suboptimal practically as well; having been apprised of WP:UP#Games (or at least ApprenticeFan's construction thereof, one with which I should say I disagree, although we need not reach that isuse now), the user voluntarily blanked the page. Unless FAB!AN would that the discussion should continue toward the approbation of the content, this may, then, I think, be closed, with a very gentle minnow-whack to the nominator. 68.249.2.50 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• minnow whack? Tell them the problem and avoid lecture mode. Collect (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Break out the trouts already been removed, no need to continue the drama here... — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:18, 20 April 2009 (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.

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 delete--Aervanath (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:ILOVEORGs

This user page appears to be a progress chart for an online game being run by the author and hence violates WP:UP#Games. Plastikspork (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. User has made zero encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above comment by Mer-C 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Potential privacy issues. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:17, 20 April 2009 (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.

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 delete and restore the one version in the history with the warning.--Aervanath (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:I Love Money ORG

This user page appears to be a progress chart for an online game being run by the author and hence violates WP:UP#Games. Plastikspork (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. User has no encyclopedic contributions. MER-C 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• User Moved page to User talk:I Love Money ORG and blanked User:I Love Money ORG. I have placed a CSD on the blanked page and moved the MFD template to the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete , especially with subversive action to try and keep page without addressing issue here. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not what this wiki is for. )I changed title link so it no longer matches the name on this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Blank in lieu of deletion. There is a warning in the edit history that will get deleted if this page is deleted. Nominating user talk pages for deletion is almost always problematic even if the current content of the user talk page is inappropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Blank What metro said... — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Closed discussions

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.

[edit] 2009-04-22

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Creation science/Phantym rewrite proposal (userfied)

[edit] 2009-04-21

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rich List collaboration (deleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sifu-keith (nomination withdrawn)

[edit] 2009-04-18

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster (keep)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Tony1/Date-fragments user-friendly version (speedy delete, U1)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Classical Latin and Greek Literature (speedy delete, G7)