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 deleted by Cyde [1] --BigDT 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kelly Martin/B[edit]

Page apparantly to harass people that have disagreed with certain users on RFAs. It contains, among others, every single user who opposed Sean Black's RFA. When one user asked why they were listed, Kelly Martin replied by linking to his vote on an RFA [2]. Kelly left this comment [3] on Cyde's talk page when asked what it was for: "It is used by myself and certain others to benefit our decision-making processes." In other words, at BEST, it is vote stacking; at worst, it is harassment. BigDT 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are some very serious charges. Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that it has been used for vote-stacking or harrassment? --Cyde↔Weys 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't tell what this list is for, and from I seen, I seen respectable people on this list, so believe we should have Kelly explain it before we decide what happens. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the two diffs I provided, for example. Kelly said that it is to be used in "decision-making processes". If those decision-making processes are not votes, what are they, then? Gurch asked what he did to be on the list and Kelly linked his RFA vote, which would certainly be an admission that he made the list by doing something. Phil Boswell joked [4] that ((vandal)) should be considered instead of ((userlinks)) which would certainly imply a negative view of those listed. And considering that you [5] removed the page so that nobody can possibly see and attempt to figure out what you are doing with it, you are pretty much assuring that it is difficult to see very much good faith in the matter. BigDT 22:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly there are no personal attacks on the page, and the history shows that it was there before Sean's RfA. While I can see that people who are on it might feel suspicious, it doesn't seem to be breaking any policy. AnnH ♫ 22:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't like lists, personally, but no grounds have been provided for deletion. No vote-stacking has been demonstrated. No personal attacks have been made. Mackensen (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2006 (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.