Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination)

User:Ash/analysis

This page is clearly in violation of WP:UP#NOT. I withdrew the earlier MfD after Ash claimed they were about to file some form of dispute resolution. That was a week ago. Ash seems to feel that I am attempting to set a timetable here, but I am simply trying to encourage them to file the RFC/U or ask for their "neutral analysis" page to be deleted until such time as they are ready to do so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This is a tit-for-tat nomination as per Delicious carbuncle's comment on ANI only 28 minutes before raising this MfD. The reasons to keep this page raised by multiple editors in the first nomination still apply (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ash/analysis), particularly as the dubious ANI that Delicious carbuncle raised against me is still open and another editor has since raised this WQA against Delicious carbuncle for his/her uncivil behaviour. Until these related dispute resolution processes are concluded, it would be inappropriate to raise yet another dispute resolution process creating a multi-forum discussion. As per the guidance of WP:USER, this analysis page is a way of openly gathering evidence that several editors are now involved with, taking this off-wikipedia will only create the opportunity for claims of secret collusion, which is the opposite of my preference for open and transparent resolution processes. Ash (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep As the user who opened the WQA, having such information prepared for an RfC, ANI, MedCab, or any other dispute resolution process presents itself as more and more necessary. Dc has made clear he is unwilling to participate in the WQA, (noted also by an outside party that it "appears from his talk page Delicious carbuncle is choosing not to participate), nor will he admittedly participate in an RfC relating to his editing behavior. With the inclusion of the WQA added only hours ago to User:Ash/analysis, it is completely protected and an appropriate use of userspace. The page has been removed from search engine indexes and plainly noted that the page is not an accusation of poor behavior in and of itself. If anything, that Dc views the page as an attack is only evidence of his failure to AGF. Perhaps a copy-and paste of my WQA against him added to the page in question will supply the diffs in a more blatant way, to assure Dc that there is, indeed, a dispute resolution process forthcoming (as if raising the WQA weren't enough)? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Link to 1st MfD is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a non-productive laundry list. Either take it off the wiki, or move it all to an WP:RFC/U. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Move to an WP:RFC/U. There is a real issue here that is worthy of outside comment, but MfD is not the proper forum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment To move it to WP:RFC/U when it is still not fully ready would be a waste of everybody's time. The longest period of inactivity to the page has only been 5 days (during which a very detailed WQA was created relating to the same subject), so I wouldn't really say this is "non-productive" at all. It is a fully fair, developing, work-in-progress. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The use of userspace to stage an RFC/U is to avoid the time limit controls of RFC/U and is unfair on the accused. You have a case, I presume good faith informal DR has failed, go to RFC/U and see if you have support. If you don't, it didn't belong in your userspace. IPs who get involved in this sort of stuff should register and account, is my considered opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UP: "Common uses of userspace: ...to-do lists, reminders...collaborative works, draft proposals, (constructive) thoughts on Wikipedia articles or policies and how they should be changed, etc....Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki....Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages)...Drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest or major proposed changes...Drafts being written in your own user space because the target page itself is protected, and notes and working material for articles (Note some matters may not be kept indefinitely)." Seems like according to all that, since this is undoubtedly a work in progress in active preparation for a more formal DR, this page should be acceptable. Also, regarding my registering an account, please see WP:WAE and WP:SOP (particularly #3). Thanks! 38.109.88.180 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the uses of userspace you mention are positive things. Compiling a case for DR is a negative thing, and so is treated differently. We place time limits on it. WP:WAE and WP:SOP (particularly #3) are clearly written with the editing of mainspace in mind. Engaging in DR is to get deeply intwinned in the backrooms of the project. In these backrooms, it is important to have some sense of how is how, and IPs that change, even infrequently, are a problem for most of us. The WP:SOCK rules are also poorly defined for managing committed IPs. Do you take care not to comment when you are at a different IP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying as far as a time limit. But, as I mentioned, the userpage is still active and developing. As Ash mentions below, there are DR processes already in place (both at the ANI and the WQA). Given Delicious carbuncle's seemingly unwillingness to participate in those two places already, this userpage is most appropriate as it will expedite the quick advancement of the DR process and hopefully encourage Delicious carbuncle to participate where it stands and "nip this issue in the bud". I understand the wanting to know who is whom in "backroom projects", yet, this doesn't eliminate WP:WAE. I don't agree that WAE and SOP are "clearly written with the editing of mainspace in mind". Besides, I've been a productive and non-disruptive editor with no history of blocks and wish to have more of an understanding of WikiPolicy, and wanting to IP edit shouldn't affect that...especially since I've offered to allow the user whose behaviour IS in question to Checkuser on me. (Twice: [1] and [2].) I mean, it's not like I have any cause to need to request WP:EXEMPT here since I'm not in any threat of being blocked... But for convenience of everybody's knowing, I quickly linked both my most recent static IP's together via their talk pages [3] and [4] as soon as I noticed a change. (And if we could keep the discussion about me having an IP vs. an account on my current talk page and keep this discussion about Ash's Userpage, I think that might help focus the rest of this discussion.) 38.109.88.180 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case there are multiple editors involved in experiencing either direct abuse or abuse of process by Delicious carbuncle. As linked above there is an open ANI against me from Delicious carbuncle and an open WQA against carbuncle from 38.109.88.180. Raising a DR process whilst 2 others are still open is not advised. At the end of the day, we (the involved recipients of what we feel is Delicious carbuncle's bullying behaviour) can, of course, be forced to work together in secret off-Wiki. I would have hoped for a transparent process that Delicious carbuncle could comment upon, rather than such an automatically confrontational one.

As for your opinion that IPs should not be getting involved in DR, you are welcome to hold such views, but please note the guidance of m:Founding principles point 2, which specifically protects the interests of such editors to contribute here. Ash (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the details of your case. You appear to have one. I think you would be best served to file it now. Filing it now will more properly lead to outsiders giving opinions. It may even lead to a quick resolution. The laundry list in userspace is very unlikely to lead to an amicable resolution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

With due respect that is a bit naive and wishful thinking. Delicious carbuncle has been wikiharassing multiple editors over many months. Working through issues of whether it's just a civility issue, also an abuse of the admin boards how to reconcile their attempted OUTing of other editors, near presumption of bad faith, alleging cabal, reviewing if they also need a topic ban, etc are not simple black/white issues. Currently their is an ANI thread that Delicious carbuncle keeps posting to apparently keep it from being archived. No Delicious carbuncle knows how to game things here so making an RFCU that will cut to the quick of the cost/benefit analysis of their behaviours and disruption to the larger community need to be worked out and presented in the the most productive way forward. In each of the cases of Delicious carbuncle interactions with other editors, including myself, Delicious carbuncle was the pursuer and antagonizer often asked by those Delicious carbuncle apparently had an axe to grind to leave them alone. Delicious carbuncle simply doesn't wp:Hear it and continues to rain WP:Grief. In fairness this page should be left to be developed in good faith for at least as many months as Delicious carbuncle has harassed other editors in bad faith. -- Banjeboi 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's avery serious allegation. Please either refactor it or provide diffs where complaints of harrassment have been upheld somewhere. Personalising your comments in this was is unacceptable and a personal attack on DC. ArbCom have banned a couple of users recently for habitually making claims of harrassment without evidence so its time to put up of shut up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a serious situation unfortunately. If you could specify which statements you feel need to be backed up with diffs maybe that's a good place to start and may help direct the case forward. -- Banjeboi 10:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PK, please evidence "Delicious carbuncle has been wikiharassing multiple editors over many months" with diffs of discussions where there was a clear conclusion that this was the case. I see lots of allegations but no actual evidence that there has ever been a consensus that this is the case. As I said, this is a serious allegation and serious allegations require serious evidence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: this was used, in part to reply to a question from my talk page. It seems relevant to answering both the context and spirit of why and how RFCUs are conducted. Rushing them because the one who is accused of disruptive behaviour and uncivil interactions with multiple editors dislikes it would seem to be counter-productive. A RFCU ideally would dispassionately discuss and present the case so uninvolved editors could offer insight. As Delicious carbuncle has literally filed dozens of ANI and other admin reports and apparently is active at Wikipedia Review as evidenced below, finding a path of least WP:Drama with this user has been a challenge. The whole statement reads It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. And I think it's a perfectly valid one. There are a couple of points here in this case. The statement is true even though Delicious carbuncle has yet to be more formally put to task for these frequent and consistently poor interactions with other editors. The accusations have been at least partially supported in the past and this process is to determine if the community at large feels a pattern has indeed emerged and should be addressed. Ash and myself and the anon ip are but three of the latest editors to experience prolonged and negative attention from Delicious carbuncle, all three have asked for Delicious carbuncle to desist but apparently Delicious carbuncle isn't WP:Hearing that their actions are problematic and other editors find their wikihounding unwelcome at best. Think of it this way, if three separate editors each complained that you were wikihounding them, my hope is that you would take that as serious criticism of your interactions.You'll note the rest of the Arbcom statement explains Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, which I've just explained has been tried, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. Each of us has better things to do but Delicious carbuncle insists on wikibadgering and otherwise causing WP:Grief. Thus a more structured effort to build an RFCU is underway. Frankly I don't want to rush it as that won't serve anyone's interest. As you seem familiar with Arbcom you no doubt are ware that a conscious effort to gather evidence precedes final judgement. There is the additional likelihood of offsite campaigning against the process on Wikipedia Review, how that is expressed and handled is also an issue. To be fair if I was an outside observer and not another of Delicious carbuncle's targets I may feel similar to what you express. The situation is not simple, it seems quite calculated and deliberate and is entirely disruptive. No one but Delicious carbuncle seems to be pushing for more attention as they seem unwilling or unable to disengage. -- Banjeboi 06:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Use it or lose it but don't leave it hanging around. Thats the rule... Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

CommentAs I mentioned above, it IS being used in a wholly timely manner...with the addition of the WQA info just the other day (and with the longest period of inactivity since its creation being only 5 days), it has proved that its intent is still quite unquestionably in progress. It is not "just hanging around". 38.109.88.180 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, if it takes that long to draw up a case then there is no case to answer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, it would seem. The more detailed the behavior of possible abusive editing may be; the more possible violations in question; the longer the possible history of such editing history: the longer it takes to collect diffs, compile them in an organized manner for presentation.38.109.88.180 (talk)

Delete being used to keep the threat of an RFC hanging over another editor without filing the RFC. File an RFC; if you want to keep attack pages/gather for an enemies list do it off line.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• To be clear, Delicious carbuncle is not my "enemy" and the page is not an "attack" page (particularly as I have made a point of making it unindexed). Ash (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I been enduring various accusations and insinuations from Benjiboi and Ash for months now and I have grown tired of it. I have asked both of them to stop making unfounded and unsupported attacks, but the accusations just keep being repeated and inflated. I recently started a thread at ANI when Ash posted what I felt to be a clearly deceptive and disruptive thread. There was no productive result. Although the claim has been made that I am attempting to discourage an RFC/U, I have encouraged both Benjiboi and Ash to start one so that their accusations can be put to rest. There is no reason why this could not be started immediately, or as soon as the "evidence" can be prepared. As the phrase goes, put up or shut up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting both Ash and I have felt the exact opposite is true. That you have been needlessly wikihounding our edits and have made every attempt to delete content in this one subject area ignoring consensus and simply escalating everything to ANI and other admin boards when you didn't get your way. Seems like tendentiousness is an issue and that remains highly disruptive. The reason this hasn't been started already, IMHO, is that it's pretty complex and showing the interconnectedness to what seems to be your offsite activities should also be made clear for all to see as well if that is to be a central part of the evidence. Frankly your on-wiki conduct by itself seems alarmingly poor and overly hostile to those who you apparently disapprove so the offsite conduct might not matter that much. There is also a lot of diffs and edit summaries than need to be reviewed. If there is a pattern it may be helpful to note when it seemed to start or at least become noticeable. Then there's the statistical anomaly that so many of those who you seem to be in prolonged disputes with are active in LGBT subject area, arguably all also tied in some way to gay pornography content editing. This could simply be yet another astonishing coincidence or an indication of a subject area that a basic topic ban could alleviate. When a handful of users all express the same issues with a single editor in a single topic area and that same edit has been topic banned for similar conduct there's a reasonable leap of faith that the handful of users may actually be targeted by that one editor. -- Banjeboi 14:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, this is the crux of the matter. You and Ash take any opportunity to make allegations like you just have above. You offer no evidence for your assertions, yet you feel that this is somehow acceptable. I know from much past experience that there is little point in rebutting them here or asking you to stop, but editors who are unfamiliar with the situation will likely be influenced by them. These types of accusations are characterized as personal attacks by WP:NPA but I know full well that taking this to ANI will result in the more of the same long-winded bickering that no sensible editor bothers to read, but for the record (again) please stop asserting that I am involved in some sort of off-wiki conspiracy against you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet you seem perfectly comfortable ignoring early dispute resolution processes, such as my bringing Wikilove to your doorstep or filing a WQA. Perhaps if you would give those some validity, others would see your willingness to change what (now at least) 3 editors see as an editing in an unfair manner. Just a thought. Oh, and I'm a "sensible editor", and I bother to read the ANI. Are you saying you aren't reading the ANI threads, even the ones that you begin?38.109.88.180 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling here isn't going to help your case any. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. "That you have been needlessly wikihounding our edits". This is another serious allegation. Evidence it properly or withdraw it please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment for Ash If you will check the recent history of the page in question, anybody will see that it is quite close to becoming ready to be filed. Ash, perhaps stating a time frame will settle everybody's nerves. Any idea on how long before you're ready to submit? Perhaps within this work week? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see this as just "my" RFC, I can get my statement ready this week but I would like it to be seen as being presented on behalf of more than one editor who has been falsely accused of something by DC. Consequently it needs to be drafted and then discussed and consolidated. I would prefer to present an RFC that I see as completely unambiguous as we have noticed the challenging behaviour of a number of editors interested in the gay-sexuality and gay-adult-entertainment-industry area with interests potentially more to do with making Wikipedia "safe for children" rather than addressing this topic in an encyclopedic and uncensored way. Frankly I would rather not bother and let DC carry on acting uncivilly and attacking other editors (s/he will probably get bored hitting me with the big stick of ANI eventually) rather than file an RFC with a typo in it that leaves me open to accusations of COI, lying, fraud, personal attack... in fact all the things that I have been repeatedly accused of in ANI since starting to contribute to gay pornography articles this year.
  • Benjiboi raised another (very) tricky area, that of WikipediaReview.com (WR). It does not take much Google searching to discover that an ANI DC raised against me was practically advertised for comment by members of WR (not by DC I hasten to add) or that a number of editors (and administrators) that have got themselves involved around DC have expressed opinions on WR deriding the subject of gay pornography as an encyclopedic topic on Wikipedia for various reasons (again, I hasten to add that I am not implying homophobia on behalf of such writers). I do not know if there is any guidance about off-wiki public statements made by administrators who then get involved in ANI or other disputes without declaring their previously existing interests. However I have no particular plan to raise these concerns directly in an RFC/U about DC as I have no evidence that DC is personally deliberately manipulating WikipediaReview or vice-versa and I am keen to assume as much good faith as possible. It should be noted that members of WR relate their Wikipedia accounts to their WR accounts and so even where a WR account name differs, the evidence of who is who is unambiguous. Ash (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ash, I am not completely sure what is being alleged here or about whom it is being alleged, but this is getting ridiculous. I have repeatedly asked you to stop trying to associate me with Wikipedia Review which you know to be a site viewed negatively by some Wikipedians. This is a discussion about whether or not to delete a page in your userspace, not a forum for more of your unsubstantiated personal attacks against me and un-named admins. Please remove your comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I will be happy to remove my comment if I can understand why it is a personal attack. Your member's page on WR clearly associates the account named "Delicious carbuncle" with the member's card on WR for "carbuncle" (a fact I did not refer to in my previous comment but your claim of personal attack has forced me to clarify). The WR member called "carbuncle" discusses issues related to the RFC/U under discussion here. Mentioning WR here does not appear to breach OUTING as none of this is personal information as I understand it. The statement appears wholly factual and directly related to how contributions to ANIs that you have raised against me have been discussed on WR and then those same writers have made comments in those ANIs. I repeat however, if it can be explained why this is a personal attack I will immediately remove any such information. Ash (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
        • So, rather than removing the statement after my request, you have chosen to re-assert the attempted association I have repeatedly and clearly asked you not to make? Your statements, although unclear, seem to be alleging some form of conspiracy or malfeasance organized at Wikipedia Review involving myself and Wikipedia admins. You don't see this as a personal attack? Please delete your statements. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Your comment does not seem to relate the original comment I made. There was no personal attack, and on review I still see no personal attack, in fact I made it clear that there was no assumption or implication that you were involved in any sort of conspiracy. Perhaps you should read it again, particularly where I point out about my assumptions of good faith. Could anyone else apart from DC advise as to the issue here? In the meantime I have temporarily hidden the comment as an act of good faith. Ash (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
            • OK, this is tiresome enough that its now appropriate to call time on this. Allegations of conspiracy are also serious and I urge you to either refactor your comments of file an RFC. Otherwise you are simply using this discussion to further blacken DC's name without offering to test this serious allegation in the crucible of an RFC. I'm completely uninvolved here and am sickened by the behaviour I see in this RFC. Put up or shut up Ash. Enough is enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
              • I have made no allegations about a "conspiracy" only pointing out that the ANI was discussed on WikipediaReview. Oh dear, I see you are also a WikipediaReview member, is this related to the fuss you are making here? Perhaps someone who is not active on WikipediaReview has an opinion about this particular matter? Ash (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
                • I ma? Oh shit am I too taking common cause with the likes of Lar, Durova, Slim Virgin, Abd, Iridescent and Cool Hand Luke? I'm not making a fuss I'm asking you nicely to follow this through correctly. Its becoming extremely tiresome. And you just accused me of a conspiracy there without any meaningful evidence. Nice. My warning to you on your talk page stands. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
                  • Half of your comment appears to make no sense but appears abusive, so I'll choose to ignore it on the basis that you appear to be intent on disrupting this discussion. Ash (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Two options. 1. File RFC as suggested. 2. Get storage somewhere else (e.g. Google docs, your own PC), click "Edit this page", copy the wikitext and paste into your private doc. CSD the page yourself. When ready to file copy it back from wherever you stash it. Gerardw (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - except for spam, users can use their pages as drafts for almost anything. Bearian (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Delicious Carbuncle canvassed me at my user page, see [5], inter alia in which he attacked Ash and implied he had no connection with Wikipedia Watch. I have since discovered that this latter claim by Carbuncle is, to say the least, a misrepresentation if not a [downright lie http://web.archive.org/web/20080410040632/http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=5544]. I support the Keeping of this user page and will probably support its Filing and ultimately recommend a full or partial ban of Carbuncle. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bearian, as already explained on my talk page, I chose the first admin from this list who I recognized as part of the LGBT Project (you happened to be the last active admin at that time). Ash's very serious but completely unsubstantiated allegations have still not been removed, despite another editor expressing similar concerns. I do not want my account here associated with Wikipedia Review (or Wikipedia Watch or any similar website) because of its reputation here and I have been very clear about that. I don't feel the need to comment on the links that you posted, although it is possible I will do so if Ash ever files their RFC/U and it seems relevant. At any rate, I don't understand why you would suggest a full or partial ban - can you explain the basis for such a suggestion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I’m sympathetic to the observation that lists of grievances shouldn’t last forever. A list compiled for an RFC should be eventually used, or removed. However, I have a very different view than others regarding the appropriate time frame. My experience is that sometimes people get very angry in the heat of the moment over some issue, and find that, with the passage of time, it wasn’t worth getting so upset. Requiring that an RFC be filed quickly reduces the chance that an issue might die a natural death. I don’t think we should be adopting practices that encourage conflict. Consequently, I’d prefer to think of the timing in terms of months, rather than days or weeks. In addition, properly filing an RFC should be done with some care, to make sure the right supporting information is included. Some people have lives, and pulling that information together might take some time. There’s no good reason to rush the process, which encourages both poorly assembled cases, as well as encouraging cases that might otherwise go away. If a page of this type has been inaction for, say six months, I’d think it is time to file or remove, but short of that, as long as it is non-indexed, I don’t see that value in rushing to delete.SPhilbrickT 13:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC says Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (ie not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. While, like most WP policies it's intentionally not legalistically precised, doesn't seem a bit of a stretch to consider six months imminent??? Gerardw (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

While that's a very good point, this page in question hasn't been sitting around for six months, but only since March 10th (13 days).38.109.88.180 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I'm somewhat familiar with the background of this page. While it is always best to resolve differences without drama-inducing pages like this, at this stage in the gay porn dispute a few user RfC's are probably in order. If Ash believes this is the next best step in dispute resolution he should put this up quickly while it remains relevant. I do note that the desired outcome will have to be changed before this goes live, since user RfC's cannot impose involuntary sanctions. ThemFromSpace 19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep with the understanding that this will go live very soon. The right way to do this is offline, since these pages in user space inevitably create drama. However, it seems clear that Ash is moving toward actually filing an RfC and Themfromspace is absolutely right that a few user RfC's are in order. Hurry up and get it filed, and DC should note that he'll have some latitude should he choose to compose one on-site as well. AniMate 21:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Within a week? Two weeks? A month? Seems like if a deadline is agreed upon the drama could end. Gerardw (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I made that same suggestion just yesterday. However, since Ash has obviously gotten significantly more active in preparing the page for DR in the past days, I think some leeway is in order. Especially since the page in only 13 days old. 38.109.88.180 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:POLEMIC. There is no sane reason for this list to be kept publicly. - Schrandit (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The page has been removed from search engines and is not being kept "publicly". 38.109.88.180 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Obviously. If there is some standard of when a page such as this must be acted upon or any guidelines as to timing in cases such as this sobeit. And where are those guidelines? Delicious carbuncle is quite comfortable insinuating other editors are a part of some gay porn cabal and has been quite willing to attempt to out me on at least three occasions despite repeated requests not to and being asked quite clearly by myself to be left alone, they also filed a sock investigation against me also as part of their 3-4 month campaign of harassment. When the same issue are asked of them - are you active at Wikipedia review, will you publicly state you haven't talked about me or my editing they bluster about how dare we associate them with a website where they clearly are active. Whether they are posting there or simply contacting folks offline it amounts to similar violations of the spirit of campaigning. Delicious carbuncle seems quite incapable of disengaging from users they seem to disapprove, the manifestations I'm most familiar with can be found at their pre-emptive ANI posts and other admin page posts, including the current one started by another editor but bloated and repeatedly kept alive solely by Delicious carbuncle inviting others to comment there. As part of the RFCU evidence would be an interesting study of their abuse of ANI and other admin boards. I have little doubt many editors groan when yet another appears. That they tend to be propped up mainly by one user when everyone else has disengaged or agreed the issue was unneeding of admin intervention is an indication of failing to WP:Hear consensus. How their skewed views of LGBT editors, or more precisely those who edit in LGBT areas is also troubling by that may indicate a polarizing social attitude - trying to enlist LGBT admins to address the perceived problems. Then there's the whole issue of what fails the duck test of campaigning for action on Wikipedia Review, digging through it all will certainly take time but also may be a waste of time if it just serves to stir up editors with similar POVs. Not sure how it should be incorporated but more editors have come to understand the drama-stirring that that website seems to feed on and how disruptive the entire unsourced BLP issue(s) was handled in a drama-filled rather than constructive debate. Inducing BLP fear certainly may have its benefits but as has been noted quite a few times it masks the real issues that do need attention and switches community focus into only one area. That the cite hosts banned editors who also enjoy disrupting Wikipedia for various reasons is also a concern. No this is not a simple case, yes it would nice if we didn't have to do it all. Delicious carbuncle seems unwilling or unable to disengage so an RFCU has essentially been demanded by them. This is simply part of that process, if a deadline for the page to be active/go live then where is the policy/guideline that helps us know the best way forward? Frankly I'd rather have a RFCU devoid of a lot of the personality issues so everyone can focus on the behaviours and what policies/guideline might apply. -- Banjeboi 06:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, please supply some diffs for your allegation that I am "quite comfortable insinuating other editors are a part of some gay porn cabal" or strike that statement. You and Ash seem to be taking this MfD as an opportunity to make still more unsubstantiated accusations, which is why I have been encouraging you both to file the RFC/U that you have been threatening for months now. I am frankly tired of your slurs and smears. Over the last few days you seem to have added conspiracy theories to the list. This is quickly becoming farcical. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I know that you're trying very hard lately to push the idea that I am involved in some nebulous off-wiki conspiracy, but please at least try to follow Wikipedia guidelines here. This is a discussion about whether or not a page should is in violation of guidelines and should be deleted, not a page where WP:NPA and other guidelines don't apply. If you or Benjiboi can't supply a diff, please strike the original statement (and delete your response as well, of course). But please be sure to include your Wikipedia Review theory in the RFC/U so that I will have a chance to respond. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(statement) Delicious carbuncle is misrepresenting my earlier comments. I have never said Delicious carbuncle is involved in any conspiracy, I have stated the exact opposite view. It is a fact that an ANI Delicious carbuncle raised against me was discussed on Wikipedia Review. It is a fact that Delicious carbuncle suggested that Benjiboi was part of a cabal during his/her comments on Wikipedia Review. I have no interest in including random conspiracy theories in this RFC/U without clear evidence. Ash (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You have "have no interest in including random conspiracy theories in this RFC/U without clear evidence" yet you and Benjiboi are happy to spout them here and elsewhere without clear evidence? Your definition of the word "fact" seems to be markedly different than mine. Rest assured that comment made in this MfD will be brought up during the RFC/U. Please refrain from making any other accusations here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean the RFC/U that you have no intent in participating in? 38.109.88.180 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. For those unaware the lead author has been targeted by Wikipedia Review editors. They have stated they feel threatened although that may indicate more professionally in real life rather than physically. In any case that has aptly demonstrated the concerns raised about Wikipedia Review being used and used specifically for outing people. How Delicious carbuncle may or may not be involved in this latest incident may never be known but the timing of the attack while this RFCU specifically mentioning these issues is suspect at the very least. -- Banjeboi 10:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)