Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat/Wiki-politics

User:Cool Cat/Wiki-politics
This page has been deleted per my request. This vote is kind of pointless as the page is no longer there. --Cool Cat Talk 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have asked Coolcat to delete that page, he refused to do so. User pages are part of Wikipedia, and it is both immature and irresponsible to have such target lists, even more, when the information there has been indicated to be erroneous. Fadix 22:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Our userspace it there for content that somehow benefit the Wikipedia project. It is not there to provide space for useless mud throwing rants about named wikipedians. -- Karl Meier 22:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * None of the material presented there is made up. There are diffs avalible for each and every "accusation" I make, I am too lazy to do that. I do not quite understand why blankfaze will leave wikipedia if I become an admin, I had no dispute with that person as fasr as I know. How does it help wikipedia when some people complain about stuff that relates to me for no good reason such as here or remove a post of mine with a "stupid" title with no comment towards it . All 5 people pictured on that page have been asked to leave me alone/explain self. If blankfaze bothers me again I will recall that not because I hold grudge (I dont) but because I really have no idea whats up with the threats or stalking. --Cool Cat Talk 08:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There you go again Cool Cat. However, this is not an appropiate place for you rants against other Wikipedias eighter... Seriously Cool Cat, why don't you just end your childish behavior and give an apology to the editors that you have attacked and offended with you hit-list? Another thing is that a member of the ArbCom has already criticized that you are constantly calling in your chit-chat-team, so why don't you just stop doing that also? -- Karl Meier 17:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep not covered. --Cool Cat Talk 22:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletion_policy Userpage included. Fadix 22:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This isnt over yet. That coment was for VfD. --Cool Cat Talk 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete this one and other "hit lists." says that if user's request the user page or user subpage to be removed, it must be removed. But if it does not, it can be removed by AFD. However, I think this falls under Miscellany for deletion, but no matter what the case it, hit lists should be strongly discouraged. Zach (Sound Off) 23:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not a hitlist. It is a list of peoples actions. --Cool Cat Talk 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The so-called Elders of Wikipedia "list" too, was allegedly based on peoples action. Besides, it has already been indicated what is the worth of the content. Fadix 23:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The list that Stormfront created? Zach (Sound Off) 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The worth of the content, is, about the content of Coolcat pages. Was that what you asked? The first list I was talking about, yes, it was about that. Fadix 23:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That was how I saw the list. Zach (Sound Off) 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not care about other lists, if I am forbid to record harrasment I recieve this will only make things worse. --Cool Cat Talk 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:RFC. You can post evidence there, also at WP:RFAr. Zach (Sound Off) 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not an evidence page. So it tells you on it. --Cool Cat Talk 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Re-list at Miscellany for deletion, per policy. Jkelly 23:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Zach (Sound Off) 23:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - if it is a "notes to self" page, then why should it be readable by anyone other than Cool Cat. I don't particularly see why anyone should object to it, but also, I don't see why a "notes to self" page should be on the wiki if anyone does disagree with it.  The whole issue seems blown way out of propotion to it's importance. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool Cat tells me that he has no easy place to keep it privately, so, as per my view that this is a non-issue, I'm changing my vote to keep. Now, to the people mentioned on the page - it's already obvious to most people that you all and Cool Cat are fighting, having this page isn't going to change much, either way.  Drop it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think, you will vote keep, if you were included in such a list, more so, when the content was shown to be not accurate, in the current Arbcom cases, I don't like to be associated with the CIA, neither be accused of POV pushing, when I have spent a considerable amount of time in the project, and even fought against my own personal positions in various occasions. He is free to take a host, and tell how some members hate him. I have tried to kindly ask him to delete that thing, when he already has now, over three mentors to report. And he refused. Fadix 23:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not have agree to everything you order me. Mentors ment to monitor my edits, I DONT report to them. This isnt the army boy. --Cool Cat Talk 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per JesseW, the juggling janitor. *SIGH* --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 00:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised? Perhaps, I shall start a list myself and lie about other members. And dare voting against. Oh, guess what, maybe I should include you also. Fadix 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why are we not suprised we are seeing you here, Fadix? I dare you to rant here. --Cool Cat Talk 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And if Cool Cat put it up for deletion, I would vote keep on it. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 00:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, dude, you claimed that what Coolcat has done was far from what I and others have done. Since the day Coolcat was the one that presented your RfA, you support him, whenever you find the occasions. And your claim here, is contrary to your answers to the ArbCom. But this is entirly another story. Fadix
 * Comment I think this discussion belongs in the Dispute Resolution Process, not AfD. Coolcat and Fadix have a long standing rivalry springing from Armenian Genocide, and this just seems to be a continuation of it; Fadix's comments may or may not have merit(i'm fairly neutral), but the rivalry clouds that potential merit. They need to continue talking in the various Dispute Resolution procedures from what little i've seen. If I can help, please let me know. I knew a professor in Holocaust studies back at my alma mater who could look into the accuracy of the article.Karmafist 00:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, this is a simple cases, in which a member uses his user page to slander others. I am not the only involved, he also has two administrators and two other members. Fadix 00:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fadix, most of the page on the chopping block looked like opinion, which cannot be Slander, and besides, the stuff on there that is factual(not the common perception of the term, but something that can be proven or disproven) would be libelous rather than slanderous since this is written down ;-)
 * However, like I said before, because of the current feud between you two, it'll be difficult to gain consensus since some of the people who are on the fence will see this as a tit for tat rather than an actual problem that needs to be resolved. The real problem isn't the page, but the seeming animosity between Cool Cat and everyone on that page. However, from looking at this deletion page, i'm guessing the Palestinians and the Israelis have a better chance of burying the hatchet. Karmafist 04:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it is more simple than you put it. An Arbcom cases was opened, during it, Coolcat opened this page, which is not his evidence page. He brought evidences against me, Davenbelle and Karl, not on this page, but another one. He was not able to support his claims that are in this page. Now, the Arbcom cases is at its end, and I have waited before presenting that page to deletion, for him to support his attacks. Yesterday or a day before, I have asked him to delete the page, he refused. So I presented this here. This is really a problem that need to be resolved, you bring things that have nothing to do, since this is more simple than you put it. The rivality you are speaking about, has nothing to do with it.(not to mention, that he was found to be disruptive in his edits in the Armenian Genocide page, not me). I is true, that some will not vote in all impartiality, I have not voted, while Coolcat has voted for his own page. And Coolcat, using the IRC was able to make someone change his vote, and I wonèt be surprised if he had used to get more supports. Have you any other alternative? If you have any alternative better than a deletion vote, please make it known. Fadix
 * I've said the alternative before a few times: more mediation. From what i've heard, if this is deleted, Coolcat is just going to make it again, and I assume you'll ask to delete that one, and the cycle will continue ad infinitum. The only positive thing that can happen here is you two ending this feud regardless of what's happened in the past and moving on with more constructive attitudes figuring out ways to diffuse situations such as these. Also, openly lobbying for votes may often be frowned upon here on Wikipedia, but the entire point of pages where consensus is needed is to try and sway other users through your opinions in order to get a satisfactory conclusion for all. Karmafist 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If Coolcat does reestablish the page, it won't be the first time he does such a thing. Why should he even listen to others. I still think, you don't understand very well what is happening. I am TIRED. We've passed on the Arbcom, issues and problems have been addressed, a mentorship will be the way it will work. Since now, he will have mentors, and that the cases is at its end, I thought he will have no problem deleting it, so I have asked him this. How can you proposed mediation, for a page, that should even not exist in the first place? Is it not logical, that AFTER an Arbcom, people should forget past problems and move on? Like I said, I could myself build a page, on him, I will fill thousands of words, but I left the cases in the hand of the Arbcom, and as I said, since the cases its at its end, I won't participate in it anymore and move on working on articles,(something I was doing before that thing ate my time) and this is why I thought Coolcat will have no problem to delete that thing. HE REFUSED. I have no time runing after mediation, arbitrations, just for a page, THAT SHOULD EVEN NOT EXIST. Do you imagine if every members were to build pages about others, just because nthey dislike them? More so, when the information was shown to be not accurate? I just want him, to delete those lies about me, either he present his claims to the Arbcom, or shut the $#%% of, and I already told him this, he was not able to support them, but still keep them, and will be keeping them after the Arbcom cases, and he even announce that he will bring that page back again, if it is decided that it should be deleted. Fadix 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose I don't understand then. I suppose i'm naive for believing that all Wikipedians can get along with each other, despite their disagreements. I'm beginning to believe that in real life too. However, can you answer me something -- what has this hostility between you two accomplished? Just listen to the anger in your voice in that reply. What's the point in being angry about this? When all else fails, just Ignore All Rules and continue on until the situation is resolved. I apologize if i've made it sound like this your(Fadix's) fault, from what i've seen so far, it's 50/50, and both sides need to step outside of themselves and understand this. Karmafist 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I will repeat this for the last time. Ignore what you think about Coolcat and my situation, ignore all the crap you heard at IRC. This is a simple cases I submit, the page Coolcat has that I submitted for deletion. It is as simple as that. I gave him the occasion to support what is in it, to the Arbcom, the cases is nearly over, he he was not able to support what he claim on this page. I asked him, to delete that thing, he refused. He will place it there even after being deleted. Think, just of this, my anger is irrelevant, what happened at the Armenian Genocide article is irrelevant, what is relevant, is that there is a page which contain a hit list, 5 members and not only me, and I have asked him to delete it and he refused. Can you just think about that, and only that? That was the only thing I asked, since it appears that members only understand and start thinking when it happens to them. Fadix 20:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll respond here since the colons were getting out of control. This conversation has swung me towards Weak Keep. I don't particularly like Cool Cat's politics page, but there is precedent for keeping similiar pages in the cases of Sam Spade 1 and Klonimus 2, a precedent that shouldn't change unless they try to make an actual "hit list"(with physical violence or legal threats) similiar to the Mr. Treason or Ashida Kim 3. Like i've said before, this deletion effort is worthless regardless of the result, the only way I see this being resolved is Fadix just reverting everything POV he sees from Coolcat, finding some friends to assist in the effort or making minor alterations to avoid a 3RR situation, and letting Coolcat's negative karma towards others from his user page come to fruition, because in the end, it always does. Trust me on that one. In my opinion, Coolcat won't get rid of that user subpage until it isn't worthwhile to either side. Fadix is obviously concerned with it regardless of how others percieve it. Karmafist 15:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second, I find it rather offensive that you compare Coolcat pages with Sam page. I am aware of those pages, and I don’t believe I need any memory refresh. But that you compare Coolcats hitlist with those is certainly beyond understanding. Sam Spade page is everything but a hitlist, if you pay attention, it has a clear goal, and evidences were also collected to be presented also to arbitration committee. While, Coolcat doesn’t restrict himself to evidences, but to slander and make accusations which were unsupported. Sam has a section for resolved arbitration cases, now the cases with Coolcat has been resolved, the material in Coolcat pages has nothing to do with collecting evidences, but everything to do with what he believes about members he dislike, and he even has a tag, which says that he himself question the accuracy of the material he has placed there. Coolcat act is an attempt to the credibility of the members he dislikes. In fact, you judge this cases not based on Wikipedia policies, but on other bases. First, I don’t remember having any exchanges with you before I placed Coolcat pages to deletion. Second, you come here and knows what happened in the Armenian genocide article, while you have even not participated there. You even claimed a guilt 50-50, while, not only I had problems with Coolcat, but Thoth, Raffi were even more harsh than I, when Coolcat was disrupting the pages. Davenbelle, including Streotek were also present, the pages was followed for a year at the Lithuanian Wikipedia, and a report of the Armenian genocide article talk page situation is now on a members page, and is listed among the must reads on Wikipedia:Help.


 * If you find there is nothing with Coolcat behaviour, that is fine for me, but to justify it, as if you understand what he is trying to do, that I think, I can’t tolerate, you can’t understand until it happens to you. But again, it always help sometimes to post such cases to deletion, to see whom here are ready to support other members when there is an attempt against their reputation, by cheap tricks, lies etc. And this time, it is the last time I answer, not only to you, but this whole pages. I am not interested to read the justifications that Coolcat was able to getter on IRC, neither why a pages slandering me should be kept there, when I will not tolerate as a member in the community, any such childishtic immature act, even if, it was build against Coolcat.


 * Ah, a last thing, maybe we should abolish the Arbcom also, why the need, since there are members that will tolerate members making justice themselves. Or, maybe I should also victimize myself on IRC, and threaten to leave everytime there is something I don’t like. It seems such things always pay, and that wrongdoings are even excused… it was probably a mistake to have though that I, as a member, could have asked to obtain, the deletion of a libellous pages, and even saying that I could edit POV from that page, when according to Wikipedia policies, it should even NOT EXIST. Here, I “end” my rant. Truly yours. Fadix 19:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, they are the agressive side. --Cool Cat Talk 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While I am ignoring your empy talks, and concentrating on the legitimity of the page, you are justifying and self victimizing yourself. As you probably did when you used IRC once more, to get a member change his vote. Get a life. Fadix 00:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Get a life. eh? go read WP:NPA. Based on which deletion policy is his vote? --Cool Cat Talk 00:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you serious Cool Cat? You have called me an idiot and asked me to go screw myself, and now you feel offended that Fadix ask you to go get a life? You can't be serious! -- Karl Meier 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Karl Meier. --fvw *  00:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I really think there is no harm in me creating a page recodring objectionable activity by users relating to me. I got people threatening to leave wikipedia if I become an admin, I do not quite know why and they arent telling. --Cool Cat Talk 00:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And you ranting about it is going to make it all better? If they did anything you consider unacceptable, first discuss it with them and if you remain at odds over the matter, RfC them. --fvw *  00:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried that, Dmn refused to answer and Blankfaze deleted the comment and declared it "stupid" . I am not ranting, just reminding self what people said. --Cool Cat Talk 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then you need to decide whether you want to learn to live with it or find it such a slight that you feel it requires an RfC to resolve once and for all. --fvw *  00:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot an important step: Try mediation: Either formally through the medcom, or perhaps more appropriately, ask a friend who agrees with your position to try and discuss the matter with the people you're having trouble with. --fvw *  00:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I lost complete respect/belief to dispute resolution after my ArbCom case. --Cool Cat Talk 00:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then you should give up and leave or fork. --fvw *  01:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a "no tolerance" policy towards bullies who stalk me. I am about to bail out of wikipedia completely. I am frankly tired of this nonsense. --Cool Cat Talk 01:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep list offsite until it s content becomes relevant to use on Wikipedia (i.e. Arbitration case, etc.). El_C 00:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont have that. It is related to an arbcom case somewhat. I just dont see it as evidence. Davenbelle did present it as evidece. See: Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Evidence --Cool Cat Talk 00:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Karl and Fadix; delete personal attacks and libel. User:Cool Cat can keep this shite on a piece of paper if he doesn't have offline storage space for it. nb: This is in arbitration. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Be nice. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 04:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Alway. I criticized the material, not the source of it. Please note that User:Cool Cat has a pseudo-disputed notice on the page that reads The neutrality and factual accuracy of this material is disputed at least by its creator. The point appears to be disruption. &mdash; Davenbelle 06:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah every edit I made has been a disruption. Even me recieving a barnstar was a disruption, that very statement verifies the need of the page. --Cool Cat Talk 08:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep While the motives of keeping this page may not be clear, it is clear from reading it that no threats are being made and no misbehavior is being planned (here, in any case). Userpages have always had a little protection from the more rigorous requirements articles must meet; I see no reason to hold this page to different expectations. Denni &#9775; 04:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is becoming rather ridiculous, what sort if arguments are those? His slanders and accusations have not been supported to the Arbcom. I ask anyone that vote keep, to think a little longer, than so-called user page. Think as if, a member is lying about you, on his user page. It is like someone presenting his cases on court, and the judges deciding that the evidences are lacking, and after the sentence, continuing with the same accusation. It is defamation. I should have even not presented this to be voted, but rather to a speedy delete. Sounds that some don't even understand the situation, but still vote, when the question is about having a page, lynig about members he dislike. Believe me whe I say, that I could fill thousads of words about Coolcat, but I accept that there is a limit to decency, and could, and will not, engage in such childish stupidies. Fadix 05:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't believe this material helps Wikipedia to become a better encyclopedia; rather, it serves to create ill will in the community. Keep up your good contributions, Cool Cat; I don't believe you'll need this page to carry on. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It helps me keep a track of my disputes with people. Two of the disputes are for reasons I have not made aware of. If people are stalking me or opposing my RfA with threats to leave wikipedia it is imperative I keep track of this. --Cool Cat Talk 08:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand that it helps you, but I don't believe it furthers our goal of making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. There is no need to keep this information on Wikipedia. You are welcome to track it using your own resources. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It certainly does not help wikipedia when one deals with nonsense like this: --Cool Cat Talk 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * One single incident with people does not warrant an RFC. The parties declined to comment on their threats to leave wikipeda (dmn and blankfaze). The other three.... well two are before an arbitration hearing with me (requested by Tony Sideaway). Notice the personal attack(s) by User:Fadix here. --Cool Cat Talk 08:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed this reply from Blankfaze: No threats here. A simple statement of [f]act is all. I believe you to be wildly, wildly, wildly unsuitable for adminship. You have lied about things, namely copyright statuses, on a number of occasions, one of which caused a very, very good Wikipedian to leave the project. We should not reward such conduct with the tools and aura of trustworthiness of adminship. &mdash; Davenbelle 08:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont recall asking you for that. Blankfaze needs to explain himself. He is accusing me of forcing a wikipedian leave a project. I dont see wtf is up with that. --Cool Cat Talk 08:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See: Blocking users by article pondered after block triggers admin's departure. &mdash; Davenbelle 09:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No one can hold me resposible of RickK's departure. He just overreacted to a revert war and a 3rr block which I was not a part of. --Cool Cat Talk 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To whom do you think RickK was referring to in his final statement on his user page? &mdash; Davenbelle 09:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete; not NPOV, and user space is not beyond VFD jurisdiction.  Erwin 
 * Keep The thing is, to me anyway, the list seems almost indescipherable to anyone who isn't CoolCat.  It makes it clear he doesn't like those listed, but his "points" are so bare that they don't seem to be intended for outside viewers.  For this reason, I don't think it constitutes defamation; it's almost in code. Xoloz 12:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm on that list, he is lying about me, using wikipedia. I have given the chance for him, to support those claims to the Arbcom, this is the reason why I have waited before placing it to be deleted and this, after I asked him to delete it. He was not able to support his claims. I repeat, I am on that list, the information he previde was shown to be not accurate, but he still want to keep it in Wikipedia servers. It is always amazing, how people that easily vote keep. Users like you are making it much more difficult, since it is obvious that I will do everything to get those lies about me deleted, as I am sure that any users here would do, if they were concerned, to those that vote keep, I just wish you were in the same situation, and had to get an unanimous vote, and were unable to do so. This is one of those examples, that democracy doesn't always work in Wikipedia. Fadix
 * I'm sympathetic, Fadix, but you didn't really address my point, which is: other than your name (and the general impression that CoolCat doesn't like you), I can't understand anything CoolCat says at all. The page makes very little sense, so I can't judge whether it defames you.  And, since you suggested it, I wouldn't really be bothered if someone called me names on a page that looks like it was autogenerated by a bad translation program.  The state of the page doesn't make the accusations look credible in any case; of course, CoolCat says this is deliberate, and that the checklist is for his use only. Xoloz 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in userspace. These issues are better worked out on RFC in any case. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This has already gone all the way to Arbitration, and it is now listed at RFC. &mdash; Davenbelle 09:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I am against hitlists and am only voting keep because this is outside the scope of afd. Jtkiefer  T - 20:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Vote withdrawn.  Jtkiefer  T - 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jtkiefer, while the original page was at WP:AFD, there was a request to move it to WP:MD, or misc. deletion. This is usually reserved for Wikiprojects and for Userpages. While it is my fault for not changing the links at the various locations, I will be happy to properly relist the page at WP:MD at a later date. Zach (Sound Off) 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, violation of Wikiquette. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Christopher Parham. --Apyule 08:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This has already gone all the way to Arbitration, and it is now listed at RFC. &mdash; Davenbelle 09:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best course of action, then, would be to request a temporary injuction from them? Xoloz 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. My experience with CoolCat - pretty much exclusively on the Armenian Genocide issue - is that he is "contributing" for the sole purpose of pushing a hidden agenda - and this agenda - in the AG case and seemingly here - is to create as much disruption and ill will as possible - to prevent any real progress on article(s) he finds personally offensive or that he diagrees with. I think this is exactly what he is doing here as well and I find such uncalled for slander to be inappropriate here. --THOTH 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. How is this different from the Black books episode?  He who must be obeyed weighed in on that one to say it wasn't a good idea. -  brenneman (t) (c)  03:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now Wikipedia Little black books on the other hand... --fvw *  03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zoe. Ryan Norton T 09:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any evidential content in that document should have been copied by its author to the evidence page of his arbitration case; I assume that he has already done so.  The arbitration case was closed a few hours ago.  Let us draw a line under this affair and move on. --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * delete as per Tony Sidaway. DES (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per Tony Sidaway. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 15:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Tony Sidaway. Steven 23:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)