Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Rambling Man/Tenex


 * 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, per unanimity of respondents, WP:SNOW. Skomorokh  17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man/Tenex
This is an attack page maintained by The Rambling Man and aimed at Tennis expert. If he wants to keep a list of my alleged indiscretions, he can certainly do that elsewhere. Tennis expert (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment hundreds and hundreds of diffs of my "alleged indiscretions" have been widely published just about everywhere across Wikipedia by the nominating editor. These diffs are forming a very important picture of an editor whose behaviour is currently subject of a user conduct RFC.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As you know, those diffs are evidence in an ongoing arbitration case where your behavior is a central issue. Unlike you, I have never maintained an attack page in my user space, and I would hope that an administrator like you would not either.  Administrators are supposed to be role models on Wikipedia, right?  Tennis expert (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now; if the content is being used to build an RFC or for reference within one, it is well within the purview of what is allowed in userspace. Upon completion of the RFC it should of course be deleted. // roux   21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If this is to be used to build an RFC, it should definitely be kept. Also, if it matters, I've read everything I could find about Tennis expert, and this all seems to be true. Hi878 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as the RFC is under way. Thus being a specifc exempt class in userspace. Collect (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, might as well add this bad faith MfD to the list as well... Nanonic (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Also, should there ever be an Arbitration case concerning Tennis expert's conduct (playing devil's advocate here), this would be necessary for evidence purposes. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it wouldn't. Wikipedia isn't the only place in the world where an editor could keep track of "evidence".  TRM, for example, could keep the "evidence" on his personal computer or on paper or on the web somewhere outside Wikipedia or an infinite number of other places.  Therefore, TRM's subpage is nothing more than part of his ongoing and longstanding effort to harrass people, more specifically me.  As for the subpage itself, notice that TRM's "incivility" section has no diffs in it.  It is purely a collection of disruptive allegations.  That's hardly "evidence" of any kind.  The subpage is offensive, violates Wikipedia policy ("Keeping a ... 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody."), and should be deleted.  Tennis expert (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to your statement on the incivility section not having diffs, I believe you need to read the page as a whole to understand. That's quite the reason it's in userspace; it's intended as a staging area for a Wikitext draft of something bigger. One might say the same about certain other long-winded userspace texts. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the whole page, Mendaliv. Posting allegations without diffs is an "attack" by any common sense definition of the term.  Also, the subpage in my user space is evidence being considered by the arbitrators, Mendaliv.  They requested that the evidence be located there.  That is completely different from TRM's subpage.  If you still don't understand this concept, let me know.  Tennis expert (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that makes it any less a staging area for a wikitext draft of something bigger. Are you saying that your arbitration evidence page is a sanctioned attack page against the participants? I'm confused. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a sanctioned evidence page for the arbitration, Mendaliv. Whether the arbitrators accept any or all of my evidence will become clear once the final decision in the case is handed down.  Still confused?  If so, you are welcome to seek further clarification on my discussion page.  Tennis expert (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Roux. This is relevant to the ongoing RfC on Tennis expert's user conduct; The Rambling Man has yet to post a personal view to said RfC/U, and thus it's reasonable to expect that he will sometime in the future. Furthermore, this sort of compilation of evidence is permitted as a specific exception to WP:UP #10. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Never posted there; therefore, it's reasonable to expect that he will sometime in the future." That's preposterous logic.  Tennis expert (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tennis expert, nothing about human behavior is logical. Your own page of arbitration evidence should show you that. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you just proved the accuracy of the argument I've been making all along about your utter lack of objectivity in the RFC concerning me. Tennis expert (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's so. I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I said. Though by the by, none of this is related to this particular MfD, and it's quite inappropriate to continue this conversation here. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, per Roux. In the absence of any context, it may appear to disparage its subject. However, in view of the particular context which is the existence of an RfC on the nominator of this article which the author appears to be preparing for, it is within acceptable bounds as a working document, and should be allowed. Note that G10 was refused by an admin. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Roux. It is distressing to many people that TE is not moderating his ownership behaviour. He has knowledge that is valuable for tennis-related articles, but on balance his actions have caused so much angst among so many respected, experienced users, that it has become a systemic problem. What I'd really like is for TE to collaborate. Tony   (talk)  16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but with reasonable deadline (suggest two weeks). At that point TRM should either fold the evidence into the ongoing RfC on Tennis Expert, use it for another proceeding such as a Request for Arbitration, or move it off-wiki. Closing admin: You may want to look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu to see how admin Aervanath handled a similar situation.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep with no deadline. Transparency is exactly the behaviour I would expect from a respected admin and 'crat. I don't see any personal attacks on there and anyone who does is maybe being a bit sensitive. Besides, it would be handy to keep in case anyone else fancies tackling the issue in future. – B.hotep •talk• 15:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep without deadline > The Rambling Man is a well-respected user, with advanced permissions that he has been granted by a broad backing from the community. I trust that this page is to be used for honourable purposes. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep - Page appears to exist for perfectly valid reasons at this time. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 11 May 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.