Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Allemandtando


 * 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 debate was no consensus; there were strong arguments to delete the page per WP:STALK but also strong arguments to keep the page as it was useful evidence in a sockpuppetry case GDonato (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Abd/Allemandtando
has created this page as an evidence file against User:Allemandtando. There isn't any evidence there as yet, but he encourages users to post to it should/when Allemantando screw up. This isn't fair on Allemantando having such a page documenting his every move in someone elses userspace, with little final goal (it's certainly not a draft RfC or anything like that). We've previously deleted laundry list of grievances, and this page is just that. It's an assumption of bad faith towards Allemantando by expecting him to do something wrong.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If he wants to (or any other editors) wish to post an RfC about me or my actions, I am happy for them to do and have no objections for them to do so - but I'll be honest, this feel more like stalking - like he's never going to do anything with it but wants me to know he's watching. If he has problems, he should comply his evidence and start a RfC. I will not vote in this MfD and will only make further comment at the request of fellow editors. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per ample precedence and good sense. Might be a candidate for speedying. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - borders WP:STALK as a lot of people will be looking at his edits. D.M.N. (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever the intent of the page, the result is insufficient good faith due toward an editor. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A personal book of grudges isn't appropriate for userspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the grudge in that file, Chris? I must have missed it.--Abd (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - While I think that users should be able to use their userspace for a "dispute resolution" purpose (such as collating diffs for arbcomm), this doesn't seem to have such a "feel" to it. Looks more like a "please troll about a specific user here". That may not be the intent, but that's how it currently appears to me. Further clarification welcome. - jc37 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, Jc37, the only reason people noticed this file is that, apparently, Allemandtando was watching my contributions, for the first evidence that it had been noticed was an AN/I report from him over it and a hysterical response on his talk page. The page was designed to be rigorously neutral, and if anyone used it inappropriately, I'd remove that material. I would not permit it to be an attack page. As to AGF, I'm convinced, from all that I've seen, that an RfC would be legitimate for this editor, but the question still unresolved, for me, is whether or not it's worth the effort and wikifuss. Maybe. The purpose of this file was to be a place where I could see the activity, summarized in as neutral a fashion as I could muster, in one place. It was not intended as a draft RfC, but simply as a neutral, summary record (as neutral as possible; there might be imbalance in terms of what is selected, but that could be corrected by anyone by adding balance.) Please see User:Abd/GoRight for a sample evidence file, though that was structured to examine evidence presented in an RfC. By the way, a remarkable coincidence of names from that RfC, above. What that means, I'm not sure. I'll repeat and emphasize one thing: some !voters here seem to assume that this page was trolling for negative comment. I didn't publicize this page, nor did I have plans to do so, until and unless there was more meat in it, when it might become an evidence page for an RfC.--Abd (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. While you went to "great effort" to try to convey that on the page, doing so left the "feeling" or "sense" of "wikilawyering", designed to keep what could have been intended as a page for trolling (as I noted). However, based upon WP:AGF of your comments, I'll freely strike mine. - jc37 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course, but whatever is less fuss. That's right, there is no evidence in that file, not because there is no evidence, but because it hasn't been compiled, I started the page and have been focused elsewhere, little stuff like rescuing articles and putting my kids to bed. What a silly waste of time! I have an off-wiki copy, and can simply compile evidence into that. Note that I never publicized this file, beyond maybe one mention to an admin, but Allemendtando generated an AN/I report complaining about it, which went nowhere. Bad move, Ryan. I'd expect better from you. The file will then come back with evidence, perhaps as a draft RfC. Net effect of this MfD: zero. No matter what the outcome is. But before voting in this MfD, one might read User talk:Abd/Allemandtando which does discuss the page somewhat, and also see User:Abd/GoRight which is a developed -- but still incomplete -- evidence page. And some comments seem very strange, as if nobody has actually read the page.--Abd (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I WP:AGF, I assume that for minimizing fuss, you will yourself request speedy deletion. I'll do it in a minute, close this MfD, fuss over. Furrfu! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And, by all means take a copy of it for your own use offline.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm.... no, thanks. Bad precedent. Page itself is harmless, it contains no content at all that anyone has objected to. It doesn't solicit attacks or even complaints, and no complaint would even be tolerated on the page, only diffs, neutrally presented. (But there might be comment in Talk.) (Though I've permitted myself some usage of bold, for example, to distinguish edit warring edits -- by a clear and neutral definition -- on User:Abd/GoRight from ordinary ones -- with no presumption that such edits were "wrong.") When I meant minimum wikifuss, I meant that I wouldn't raise a fuss, beyond my normal habit of commenting on what I see. I have a copy, thank you, but the Talk page has history, which might be better left in place, as well as the page itself, so that users can see what this MfD was about. Basically, I prefer the file left in place, but wouldn't be upset by deletion if that happens. That, however, could change (not my not being upset, but my planned action), depending on what happens here. The rest of you are welcome to make as much fuss as you like. Such as filing an MfD on a harmless user page, with three editors who have mysteriously gathered together rapidly, fresh from prior encounters with me, which could, of course, be total coincidence, it's just remarkable how quickly that happened. Somebody obviously cares about this file, empty of most content, a mere frame, a notebook into which evidence may be placed. I notice stuff like this.--Abd (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. If it is simply a repository for notes to publicly available information found in the history files and is not publicly advertised for use by others what someone wants to keep track of in their user space is their own business.  That's what user space is for.  --GoRight (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep' If someone did this for me I probably wouldn't like it. This situation, however, seems to be that Abd is working to benefit a somewhat problematic user, rather than attack them. It might be similar to past user pages that have been deleted, but Abd's attitude towards the situation and his goals for the page make the difference for me. Nothing has actually been documented yet, so lets see where this goes. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral As my comments on Abd's talk page suggest, I don't hold the action of creating this page in high regard. But I also don't feel it is the community's job to enforce my (or Alle's) feelings of the page through coercion.  At the same time, the fact that the page is empty doesn't really impact my thoughts on it.  The existence of the page is the "problem", not the possible content--as has been said above, no content could go on there that isn't readily accessible through diffs and history.  The fact that it is blank is unimportant.  For further insight into my reasoning, I'll leave the comments linked above for interested readers. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a very constructive page, but not an attack page as it stands, so can't see why this shouldn't exist in userspace. Nominator should discuss this page with Abd if he has objections to it - MfD is not an effective dispute resolution tool. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is certainly not a speedy candidate, at least not from my reading of CSD rules, and it's not an attack page, it's an evidence page. Additionally, it's not an attack page (not even close to an attack page, given Abd's attitude towards it), so I'm really not certain why it was even nominated. I'd recommend withdrawal of the nomination, and a discussion at Abd's page about the propriety of the page. Abd attempted to post to Ryan's page regarding this nom (illuminating his concerns with potential problems in it) but was promptly reverted with an edit summary of "right." S. Dean Jameson 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I mentioned it being a speedy candidate - if it had been, I'd have deleted it outright and it wouldn't have come here. Userspace is to help the encyclopeda - this page does not at all. It's an open file to document when Allemantando screws up - that's not fair on him and will no doubt reduce morale to contribute to the encyclopedia. If we have concerns with an editor, we bring them up with them. If that doesn't settle things, we put it to an RfC allowing outside comments from the community - we don't sit on evidence in userspace and document a users every move, which this page is technically attempting to do. If there's problems, discuss, if that doesn't work, take it to RfC, don't just create an indefinitely open file about a contributor that he would find hard to rebute.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There were six drastically incorrect claims in Ryan's nomination, and some !voters seem to have simply accepted them, at first. Above, Ryan continues to repeat what has been pointed out to him is incorrect, in detail, and, yes, he removed it from his Talk page with the comment, "right." And then he repeats, above, some of the same misinformation. "It's an open file to document when Allemantando screws up." That's not what it's named, not what it says, not how it's been used, nor how it would be used. we don't sit on evidence in userspace and document a users every move. There isn't any evidence in the file, yet, and it couldn't possibly document every move, nor was it intended to do so. It was intended be a space to neutrally examine the editors actions, when I got around to it. There is not and never was any ongoing monitoring except by Wikipedia, which records everything. Ryan continued,"indefinitely open file about a contributor that he would find hard to rebute [sic]." Definitely, whatever was in that file would be "hard to refute" unless it was an error, in which case it would be easy. Just point out the error. The page is not to contain "accusations" or "conclusions" or "defense," for that matter, but raw evidence. The associated Talk page might have comment, as is common with Talk pages, but nothing uncivil would be allowed by me to stand in that file or its Talk. Now, my question is becoming, "Why is Ryan pursuing this, sticking to his original unfounded claims?" Is there some other agenda here? Help me out, I'm serious, I'd greatly prefer to assume good faith. But I find suspicious, this bizarre MfD for a harmless file opened for work but not yet used, that will have no effect either way on the project (because I can recreate what's needed any time), having lost a minute's worth of work, far less time than is involved in answering here. (I'm answering here because of a larger issue, the principle of wide latitude in user space). If this were explicitly a draft file for, say, an RfC, would it still be subject to such deletion efforts? Suppose the file were actually as Ryan describes, and was the beginning of an RfC, which certainly would contain "accusations," or, hopefully, more accurately, sober conclusions about editor behavior, based on evidence? The first stage in the development of that RfC would be the gathering of evidence. And how would that first stage look compared to this page, which was created less than two weeks before this MfD? How long does one have to put together an RfC? There is a two-day limit from when it is listed, before it must gain a second certification, but that's all I'm aware of, there is no time limit on creating the RfC text before listing. But this file doesn't contain accusations and is therefore pre-RfC, being only a minimal start of the gathering of evidence which, when examined impartially, might or might not "convict" or "exonerate." And no solicitation of evidence was made or contemplated at this point.--Abd (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are being a bit melodramatic, I think. For example, above you state that "This isn't fair on Allemantando having such a page documenting his every move in someone elses userspace" and yet the page currently contains nothing in spite of the fact that the user has extensive contributions .  Also, if the page is merely keeping track of things that already exist in the history files, which is the stated intent, it is not generating any new information that could be considered anything other than neutral.  It is basically a non-issue with respect to User:Allemandtando's behavior which is already being tracked in the history files whether this page exists or not.
 * On the issue of user space being used for the betterment of the encyclopedia that betterment would include editor behavior as well as content. I know nothing of User:Allemandtando's behavior and I take no stand on whether he/she should or shouldn't be the subject of such an effort or not, but I assume that User:Abd has his reasons and until the content of this page does more than just catalog references to diffs that will exist either way, I see no reason to interfere with User:Abd in his own user space. --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested that this might be speedied. It violates WP:UP/9. Such pages have been regularly deleted before. The claim that this is "neutral" is quite absurd. Does anybody seriously expect Abd to go over his collection and suggest Allemandtando for a Barnstar, or as a bureaucrat? And the argument that "the page is merely keeping track of things that already exist in the history files" is also without merit. Context and selection matter.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That's right. Indeed they do. Now, given that no "selection" has been made -- none -- Stephan's comment stands out as pure assumption of bad faith, i.e., he assumes that I would distort the record through selection bias. In any case, I'd be interested to see some examples of "such pages" being deleted, tagged within two weeks of creation, before any substantive content was added. The page, as it is, is neutral, and I'll challenge Stephan to show otherwise with a quotation from it. There is no collection there. And thus a claim that this is harmful must only stem from the name of the page, which is just the user name. Now, if I were to create a page, Draft RfC/Allemandtando, and move the present page to Evidence under that page, what could be said about it? This present Allemandtando page is intended to look like a page I complied reviewing an RfC, User:Abd/GoRight, and the RfC comment itself is a different page, which is then summarized in the RfC itself. To be useful, such a page must be rigorously neutral, and nobody has so far pointed out any bias in connection with User:Abd/GoRight (It is incomplete, by the way.) If there were bias in the Allemandtando page, it would not serve its purpose, and it would be easily dismissed. So, Stephen, why do you think this page would be negative? Do you assume that if someone is uncivil toward me, I will necessarily be uncivil toward them? --Abd (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the content of the page in question could be construed as breaching the following from your link:
 * Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process. This exception is subject to common sense, but as a general rule, two weeks is a reasonable time to prepare such a page.
 * It might just be me, but I'm not seeing it at all. S. Dean Jameson 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "including the recording of perceived flaws" - what else do you think is the purpose of the page under discussion? The actual content does not matter (there only is some of Abd's usual verbiage), the topic is what makes this unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And now we have a wonderful new principle for deletion of pages, according to Stephen, Actual content does not matter. Now, this page was not intended at all to record "perceived flaws," but rather abstracted evidence, like snapshots, not conclusions, which "perceived flaws" would be, so that guideline doesn't apply. The commentary on it might do that, and, thus, this guideline would set a rough limit of two weeks for such POV content to stand. Yes, content does matter. If the file were the "recording of perceived flaws," then this guideline would apply. But it wasn't, isn't, and won't be. (Once a summary of editor activity has been prepared, it shouldn't take long to come to some conclusions about it. For the GoRight RfC, the hard part was collecting the evidence, once that was done, what was going on was pretty obvious, and the neutral editors who have commented seem to agree. Hint: looking only at isolated diffs made GoRight look pretty bad. Looking at those diffs in the context of what was going on around them made it clear that he wasn't the worst offender, by any means, and he had been pushed and provoked.) Stephan seems to be convinced that a cautious examination of the evidence, by me, is going to produce some sort of indictment. Does he know something I don't know? (Probably not, but that's another story.)--Abd (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing new about the principle. Content can be changed. We only delete pages which have no potential value for the project, not pages that currently are lousy. And yes, I'm fairly certain that I know quite some things that you do not know. How good are you with first-order logical calculi? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should petition to have wikipedia remove the user contribution pages based on the same arguments being set forth above? :) After all, those pages really do track your every move ... --GoRight (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it's silly doesn't mean you should repeat it.... I've written an extensive comment on the history of this affair, which I decided to put in Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Allemandtando, instead of here; some of it bears on the deletion issue, but most of that has been said above.--Abd (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as long as it remains non-personal. If compiling grievances is, in Abd's opinion, in the interest of the project, then it is better done in user space than offsite.  We should minimise censorship.  If Abd violates policy, then that would be another matter.  If no policy is violated, then this deletion would be unhealthy censorship.  I would advise User:Allemandtando to try to ignore the page, if he believes Abd's concerns are baseless.  To Abd's credit, looking at incoming links to the page, it doesn't appear to have been spammed.  How was this page discovered?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * what an interesting question, so interesting that I asked it several times. Allemandtando claims that he received an email about it. The nominator, Ryan Postlethwaite hasn't said how he came to see it. Perhaps he'd care to tell us. However, it was mentioned in an AN/I report about a different file,, in a final note by Allemandtando, at 15:23, 2 July 2008.. The file was created at 14:53, 2 July 2008, so Allemandtando knew about it and responded within a half an hour, calling it a "kangaroo court." Who is stalking? I'm pretty sure that it's Fredrick day, that's his m.o. --Abd (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Time-limited keep Despite Abd's assurances that it is not intended as a draft WP:RFC/U, it's going to come across that way anyway.  I know I'd feel very uncomfortable about a similar page with my username.  If Abd wants to compile some history in a hurry (like say, give him two weeks), that's probably okay per WP:UT (point 9).  But I don't think it is appropriate to make this page permanent. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This may have been mooted by Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd), which cites the subject page as evidence. Early evidence was compiled, and in the process, it became fairly clear to me what the most likely explanation for the various mysteries around Allemandtando was. If the SSP report comes up clearly negative (not likely but possible) or inconclusive (more likely because Fredrick day uses multiple ISPs and random driveabout wireless connections), then the file will indeed be extended beyond the very short period it covers, to become the evidence for an RfC.--Abd (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since I'm an involved editor, I will not vote. However, this is an evidence page in an ongoing WP:SSP case Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd), as noted by Abd, and so procedurally it needs to stay for the duration, and on that basis, even absent anything else, this MfD should be procedurally closed. Also, in my opinion, the page does not look like an attack page, nor is it collection of "perceived flaws" per WP:UP #9, since it's just a small collection of diffs, and was empty on nomination. I don't see where it violates any policy. — Becksguy (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It stands to reason that the on wiki collection of information about a user because you think he may or may not be disruptive, but you just don't know yet, is just not on. Stating that it isn't against policy is just lawyering, it falls within the spirit of a number of them, including STALK, HARRASS, AGF, DISPUTE, BATTLE, COURTESY, COMMON SENSE, USER etc etc. This exercise should have been done in private, or at an appropriate board/process. The thinking behind the solicitation of additions pseudo anonymously, just blows my mind. MickMacNee (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee has made a number of unwarranted assumptions here. There were no solicitations of anything from anyone. What is this "pseudoanonymously"? Sure, I could do it privately, but it was convenient to use my user space, and, in fact, it is specifically allowed to collect critical information, with a presumption that you can do it, civilly, for two weeks. But the evidence file had no critical information in it, ever, just raw evidence (diffs), without critical comment, and it was promptly used on a "board," i.e., WP:SSP and WP:RFCU. I think the interpretation of the guidelines above is preposterous, but the file's existence was taken to WP:AN/I and was seen to be proper. I knew the editor was disruptive, that was quite clear, not only to me but to quite a few others, but the question was, is there sufficient evidence to take action? Further, I've found, when collecting evidence, I sometimes find that the evidence exonerates the editor from an appearance of disruption. So the collection of evidence *must* take place before a conclusion is made. I think quite a few editors don't understand this, and so we see editors who !vote in AfDs who clearly haven't taken the time to review evidence. If they are the first !voters, and the nomination is very brief, it's obvious. They simply looked at it, said "sounds right to me," and !voted to support the nomination. In one RfA, the candidate had cast such a vote, so I voted Oppose, and said why. The candidate apparently looked at the vote, said it wasn't a good thing he had done, and wouldn't do it again. So I changed my vote. We need editors and administrators who can make mistakes and acknowledge them. We have too many of the other kind already. We need more tools that enable easy analysis of editor activity, not less, and this applies in spades to administrator activity. --Abd (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're rewriting history, the page had no stated purpose before. And I fully read every aspect of this episode, so enough of the presumptions about commenting without knowledge. The fact you invited additions without signing is the pseudo anonymous part. What is the precise wording of this two week clause and where is it? Because I've never seen it. Frankly, sugar coating this as a neutral exercise is insulting everyone's intelligence here, your polemic comments elsewhere make it obvious there was a bigger point to this exercise than merely collecting evidence to prevent disruption. Fact is, you are spending more time and energy broadcasting and justifying what you did, rather than having just done it in private and properly filed a grievance when ready. The ANI thread showed no interest, because in true wikilawyer fashion, this technically breaks no rules enough for a block to stick, so no-one cares. If you can't see the applicability of the spirit of those policies here, something is seriously wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Now I see. The main page is an evidence page. Do you sign your contributions to articles? The facts on the evidence page should be verifiable by anyone. Nothing on that page, except perhaps for instructions, should be signed, because it isn't personal opinion, rather it is sourced text. No source, or not faithful to source, it's out of there, should someone put it in. And I'd verify whatever was put in. Because the file has my name on it: User:Abd/etc, I'm responsible for it, if I knowingly left something improper there. But the contributions aren't "anonymous," because they are in History. If the page isn't a "neutral exercise," it is useless, at least to me, and inaccuracies in the facts would be devastating to the use of the file in some RfC or the like. The instructions were really moot, when they were written, I'm not sure why I bothered, because I didn't solicit contributions and contrary to what Mick writes, I didn't "broadcast" it, the "justifications" -- isn't that a slightly uncivil synonym for "explanations," implying some kind of guilt being covered up -- were made in response to, yes, ignorant impresions or inclined to assumptions of bad faith like that above, by various users, mostly here, where, of course, that is entirely the point, it's an MfD. It's not true that the purpose wasn't stated, and the original statement of purpose was quoted above, so while I must assume that Mick "fully read" what he wrote, he obviously didn't absorb it. The two week period has been referenced above, by numerous editors, so, again, I don't know how such a careful reading missed it. WP:UP #9, and, again, above, that's been discussed by others, correctly. There were actually two files taken to the attention of AN/I. The first was an essay about an incident, which has a definite purpose, but which also contains what could reasonably be called criticism, and that's how Allemandtando took it, in a big way. That was User:Abd/MKR incident, about a rapid renom AfD where Allemandtando edit warred with an administrator, who properly took it to AN/I, and which was successfully diverted by introduced debate over the article's notability, which wasn't the issue at all, and I was interested in how that could happen, because several aspects were and are very important. Allemandtando was the nominator, but was really only mentioned peripherally, he is not the one who originally caused the disruption of Noticeboard process. And that file was explicitly, by a number of editors, considered perfectly legitimate. The subject file here was mentioned toward the end of that AN/I section, and did not attract much notice. The only "attack" aspect of the page would be that it was named "Allemandtando."
 * I think that Mick doesn't have the foggiest idea of the "spirit of the policies." Wikipedia is self-policing, which means that we must pay attention to editor behavior. Isn't this MfD part of that process? But with complex issues, starting, say, an RfC/U, which can be extraordinarily disruptive, should not be done, in my opinion, until all the ducks are in a row. Getting them in a row is a process, and there should be drafts, and preceding that, there should be what I did, some collection of evidence *without* the conclusions (though there can be some possible problem with data selection, definitely). And if this is open to other users, particularly the subject involved, it's quite possible that a problem could be resolved, without RfC itself, and certifying that the attempts have been made and failed is required for an RfC. Thus that file could be seen as part of pre-RfC process. By "retiring," Allemandtando may have made it moot, we'll see. It's a lot of work to gather and prepare evidence, if he's gone, is it worth it? But, in the end, this is not about him, and Mick refers, I think, to what I wrote at the end of the RfCU, about why all this is worth doing, why it is important, and it is not about personalities, it's about principles and how Wikipedia works -- and doesn't work. But I didn't "go after" Allemandtando in order to make a point. That would be disruptive. I did it because he demanded it. Which was, of course, itself disruptive. People make uncivil comments about me frequently. But I don't pursue them to their Talk pages and insist that they "put up or shut up." Speaking of Talk pages, I took a look at Micks, and saw, there, the reason why it is so important that we watch each other. We make mistakes, and when an editor gives bad advice to the clueless, it damages the project. That's why we have History and why we have Watchlists, and if we see something off, we can sometimes fix it. See you there! --Abd (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as your replies are becoming essays in themselves, and I apparently don't have the foggiest, and now you've started poking your nose into my activities without cause, bar your need to 'police' others (do I have my own /evidence page now?), then I shall withdraw. Suffice to say, the Mfd started on the two week deadline, and you had done nothing with your evidence page, not that you had indicated what type of dispute resolution it was being compiled for. As for not signing user page content, when it's a multi-contributed evidence page, I suggest you get a clue about the relevant policies (listed above). Check out an arbcom evidence page once in a while too. Finally, the 'clueless' user on my page was copy-pasting whole sections of a company website to an article, claiming verbal permission. Even with your assesment of my competence, I think I'm justified in saying that's not allowed. Instead of wikilawyering and policing the project single handedly (or through posse pages), just go and absord the spirit of those policies, you will be a better person for it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment (edit conflict) Allemandtando's checkuser request came back "Likely," as Fredrick day, which means, almost certainly, that he was colocated with Fredrick day, who used multiple ISPs, dynamic IP, proxies, and probably multiple computers to avoid checkuser detection, but with a high-traffic acccount like Allemandtando, he would be unlikely to be using proxies, and so his location was a giveaway. See Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd) (which is as yet unresolved, but, I'd say, it's now quite obvious to anyone who looks. The subject page here was the basis of the primary evidence in the SSP report and RFCU, so this MfD should be speedy closed, it would be utterly inappropriate, now, with this development, to delete the page, even if every !vote was Delete. If anyone believes that I acted improperly, they are welcome to discuss it with me on my talk page, I doubt that I will comment here again.--Abd (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense argument. Wether Allemandtando is Frederick day or not has no more influence on the propriety of your page than the question of wether a suspect is guilty or not can decide if illegal wiretaps or extorted confessions are valid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Stephen's right. The argument he imagines has no relevance to this MfD, period. And therefore, though I have further response, see it in Talk. --Abd (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (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.