Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bigglove/draft


 * 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 Delete. Case has closed and account appears to be abandoned. After Midnight 0001 05:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Bigglove/draft

 * Delete. this attack page against me should be deleted. The arbcom case has been settled and there is no reason for these attacks on me, most of which are unfair, almost to the point of abusiveness.  If this user thinks there is a problem with me that has not been resolved, I urge him or her to bring it to a forum such as RfC or ArbCom where it can be addressed.  If not, there is no reason for a page like this to be maintained. csloat 11:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Attack page??? - And I'm the Queen of Spain! Grow some skin; take a bit of criticism. It just may help you become a more constructive editor.--WaltCip 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't about my skin; I don't particularly care what s/he thinks of me. It's not that my feelings are hurt by this page, it is that the page has no place here.  Bigglove chose not to participate in the arbcom when s/he had a chance, and s/he has chosen not to make a real issue out of any of these claims; why is it here?  How does the Wikipedia project benefit from a page full of distortions attacking another editor?  Would it be ok for me to respond in kind with a page of my own? csloat 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tagged for CSD as an attack page. -- Thin  boy  00  @153, i.e. 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Detagged per earlier refusal of speedy; Strong Delete. -- Thin  boy  00  @163, i.e. 02:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like a draft of something going to ArbCom. Perhaps we should not be hasty. As it is on a "draft" page, I think it is likely going to Arbcom once creator is done with it. Pardon me, but Commodore Sloat would seem to have a conflict of interest taking part in this discussion. It does not look like a attack page per se. Dloh  cierekim  03:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Except the case already went to arbcom, and the user allegedly preparing a case here chose not to participate in the arbcom at all. What's more, at arbcom these sort of claims were found to have no merit whatsoever.  So if this did serve a purpose in the past, that purpose is no longer relevant.  So all it is is a list of attacks on me.  If the page stays, would I be justified in adding my responses to the attacks?  Or making my own page listing my own "evidence" against User:Bigglove?  I could do that, but it seems petty.  There is no point to this page any more. csloat (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have notified page creator of this discussion. Dloh  cierekim  03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, perhaps he or she will remove it of his or her own accord. However, I don't expect it to happen - the account stopped editing in October, and, while it is not a single-purpose account per se, it seems to have been created primarily to intervene in arguments I was having with another editor (a sockpuppeteer who was recently required to stop using sockpuppets and was blocked from editing the articles he was causing trouble on).  The Bigglove account stopped editing shortly after the sockpuppeteer was asked to stop running sockpuppets.  I asked for a checkuser on this account before all this happened and was denied -- but if my suspicions are correct, I am glad to see the sockpuppeteer complying with the sanctions that were taken against him.  In any case, I doubt User:Bigglove will return. csloat (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he was going to respond but did not. If the account is abandoned, that would argue in favor of deletion.  Dloh  cierekim  03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - this was clearly written as evidence for ArbCom, but as the case in question has closed, there's no need to keep it anymore. Terraxos (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (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.