Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:42, 21 April 2009

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per LessHeard's comments. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. — R ² 15:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
- "...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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Rodhull andemu 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Rodhull andemu 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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. Rodhull andemu 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Rodhull andemu 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 ::::: 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.  [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk: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". [[Tony Hancock|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. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 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. 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/sladerous/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. [[User:DanielDeibler|DanielDeibler]] ([[User talk:DanielDeibler|talk]]) 14:29, 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 [[User talk:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu|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 [[User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu|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 [[User talk:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu|the investigation's discussion page]], or on [[User talk:DanielDeibler|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. [[User:DanielDeibler|DanielDeibler]] ([[User talk:DanielDeibler|talk]]) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)