Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mathsci/WR


 * 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 discussion was keep: closing without prejudice to a future renom, in light of it being used as evidence in a presently open case, and the users' statement that it will be removed at the closure of the same. –xenotalk 14:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mathsci/WR
Nothing but attack on another user --Ladnavfan (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - definitely against WP:ATTACK --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 10:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC) - change of recommendation:
 * Keep as Mathsci has said they will be removed when the ArbCom case is closed. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 22:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The various bits of foul language were directed against the user who created the page. They probably violated WP:ATTACK when they were first created, but his own recital of them doesn't.  If he can take it, so can the rest of us.  Favonian (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (nomination). The page is an complaint by Mathsci about incivility towards him by another user, Abd on another site, with an astonishingly long and completely useless list of alleged examples.  Even if this accusation is correct, it's an irrelevant complaint about behaviour outside Wikipedia.  Even if relevant, such things don't belong in user space.  Even if it did normally, in this case the two users concerned are already slugging it out on these as well as other complaints all over arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley and subpages.  This is obviously just a spill-over from a long-running battle between these two.  Ladnavfan (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a temporary page linked to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision. It is not an attack page, but a reference page for the ArbCom case. As others have written and as is clear in the prefacing remarks, I do not consider these remarks about me to be personal attacks and indeed do not take them seriously. The page will be blanked or possibly deleted at my request as soon as the ArbCom case terminates. Any objections to the page should be brought up with the clerk User:Hersfold or a member of the arbitration committee. Several users have placed evidence for this ArbCom case in their user space. At one point, when Hersfold was on vacation, all my evidence at that stage was in my user space as User:Mathsci/Abd1, User:Mathsci/Abd2, User:Mathsci/Abd3, User:Mathsci/Abd4, User:Mathsci/Abd5, User:Mathsci/Abd6, User:Mathsci/Abd7, User:Mathsci/Abd8, User:Mathsci/Abd9, User:Mathsci/Abd10, User:Mathsci/Abd11 and User:Mathsci/Abd12. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is linked only from a Talk page. It is not a "reference page" for the case and it has not been linked to on any of the project pages for that case.  It is not part of the Evidence page in this case and what did or did not happen to those evidence pages is quite irrelevant.  It is simply an excuse to prolong a feud by bringing off-wiki battles into user space.  Ladnavfan (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss with the clerk for the case User:Hersfold, not me. This material could also have been added in a collapse box on the talk page of the PD. Mathsci (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Indeed this page is part of an ongoing ArbCom case. Take it on with the clerk. What is a bit surprising, though, is that Ladnavfan, on his third day on the project, takes such a special interest in this case. Are you a declared alternative account or have you changed your user name recently? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, several people noticed this. I already mentioned it on Hersfold's talk page. Aren't we used to this by now? Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Requesting closure for now As mentioned above, this page is being used as part of an ongoing Arbitration case. While the page has not been entered as formal evidence, it is nonetheless possible that Arbitrators may wish to review this information for background on the dispute the case is about. Mathsci, if it is your intention to provide this as evidence, I would ask you link to it from your Evidence section, however I would nonetheless ask that this remain here at least until the completion of the case. Thank you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sufficiently readable with the link where it is - a response to linked userspace comments by Abd. It is unimportant otherwise and I see no point in giving it undue prominence. When Stephen Bain made his comments about WR, I added a response in my evidence. You advised me later that I could remove it. That is what I did. At present there seems to be no pressing reason to do otherwise. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If Abd had written that stuff here about Mathsci, we would call it an attack page. Abd did not write that stuff here, he supposedly wrote it in another venue (links are missing).  Mathsci wrote it here.  Ergo, not an attack page.  Marginally useful for the arbcomm case.  GRBerry 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. See Sockpuppet investigations/Ladnavfan/Archive. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses! ) 20:50, 26 August 2009 (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.