Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was CSD G10 (Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject). Really, we can do without this kind of bashing of editors-who-did-something-you-don't-like. I should add that had this been an "actual" RFC it would have been deleted a long time ago per RFC policy. >Radiant< 08:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rfwoolf/Evidence

A seven-month old grudge which was baseless at the time and is now both baseless and pointless. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please amend your comments to "5 1/2 months" NOT 7 To be fair, it is not a 5-month grudge, it is blatantly obviously a request for comment about locking my userpage. Not a grudge. It's even very fair to you guy by saying that any feedback will be without prejudice. Rfwoolf 20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of impartiality: The nomination by Guy is not from an uninvolved/neutral point of view because the nominated article strongly features him. Therefore please take caution when reviewing his nomination rationale. Rfwoolf
Well that's at least 1 admin that doesn't appear to be a friend/crony, and that seems to be somewhat impartial. I agree, why delete it? Furthermore, it is a collection of evidence about an incident that occured for which recourse is still pending. Rfwoolf 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate, Friday doesn't vote to delete. Your deletion nomination should be amended accordingly Rfwoolf 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SD - User:Rfwoolf must understand that wikipedia in no BATTLE and that our main task here is editinG and not digginG. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, speedy if possible (I know WP:SK no longer applies given the two "delete"s, but if there was ever a time for IAR, this is it). This nomination (or deletion of the page) will only escalate the issue. Perhaps re-nominate in a less charged environment unless we want this to turn from a "pseudo-rfc" into an actual one. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Black Falcon ATren 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are people still kvetching about the deletion of the Anal stretching article? If there was ever a time for WP:DEADHORSE, this is it. Nitpicking over whether it was 5-1/2 or 7 months ago doesn't do much to help your case. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - wholeheartedly disagree with nom - was not baseless, was in fact used for pseudo-RFC whereby an admin read it and unprotected the user's userpage. Furthermore an actual RfC may be made still, and recourse is still pending on the issues raised in the article. Finally, the user is still using the mentioned page, and will probably be showing it to a few admins either soon or in due course. It may also serve as an argument in arbitration, although the user has no current intentions to go to arbitration. Rfwoolf
  • Keep it rather frequent that someone prepares an RfC on-wiki in user space; I'm not sure it should be encouraged, but it is not unusual. so we should not single out this one. DGG (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rfwoolf/Evidence&oldid=1089912040"