Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otheus/sarfati


 * 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 &mdash; speedy deleted as attack pages SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Otheus/sarfati
Also:
 * User:Otheus/notes
 * User:Otheus/aa

Otheus has been resurrecting and fanning the flames of a previous incident settled by arbcomm ruling after failing to gain the upper hand in a content dispute at Jonathan Sarfati. These "evidence" pages rehash old evidence and allegedly gather new regarding the long-settled Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Otheus' has an established history of having a personal ax to grind with those named on the page Guettarda, JoshuaZ and myself. We view the page as a form of oblique personal attack, attempting to cast a cloud of suspicion and innuendo over established administrators in good standing. He has been asked delete it and he has refused to do so. FeloniousMonk 04:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per author. These (sarfati and aa) pages are needed to gather and share evidence in regards to activities surrounding the aforementioned RfAr ruling against AA, of which FM, GT, and Jim62sch were parties. This ruling and the actions by these admins has recently been formally requested by anonymous IP contributors to be reviewed.
 * The admin to whom this request was made is pressed for time and involved in other disputes, I volunteered to take up the challenge of gathering evidence related to the actions.
 * There is no intent to defame or attack. Please refer to the (newly added) headers on these pages expressing as such.
 * I have made every attempt to keep this page out of the view of others. I am not attempting to disrupt or convey this evidence, except on a need-to-know basis (as much as can be done here).
 * Deletion of these notes would appear to obstruct justice -- not only my view, but the view of those who have requested this inquiry.
 * FM has made several factual errors in the above summary ( to be documented on request ). I assume his perception of "a personal ax to grind" is related to an article which he authored which I (perhaps hastily) put up for AfD. I have no idea how this constitutes "established history". Sadly, he has ignored my request to clear up the misunderstanding. Further, its not possible for me to delete these pages on my own, since I am not an admin. He ignored my request to discuss this matter before bringing it up for AfD.
 * GT has recently accused me of making personal attacks against him; I have proposed that these attacks arose from a misunderstanding and have apologized for my wording. GT challenged me to examine his block history, asking "what part of this constitutes abuse". My "notes" page is in response to that challenge; nonetheless, I have take it upon myself to remove these notes, since even though he asked for it, he didn't really want to see it. Please see my Talk page concerning these.
 * Delete per nom. In conjunction with Otheus's past activity, I can see this only as an attack page.  Guettarda 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, as above. Guettarda 19:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has no merit as a work-in-progress RfC, since the complaints themselves are clearly baseless even if the originator is not a puppet, which seems quite likely. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Guettarda and Guy. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per FeloniousMonk and Guettarda. Looks like an attack page. ElinorD (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've speedied these as they seem to be attack pages designed to stir up trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 19 March 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.