Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cinteotl/stats

Moved from main

 * MfD should not get involved with arb cases, unless maybe at the request of a non-admin arb clerk. If it was used in an arb com case, it can be archived or deleted per arb com policy or discretion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it actually was used in the Arb case, though. It's an attack page, and unless it can be demonstrated that deleting it would hurt prospects for future RFAs or some such for the Arb case, that shouldn't be taken into account. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't used, and I can't see that it was, then it should be deleted, or archived offline.  is recently active.  He should have chance to explain its purpose.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's allowed. Should we try to set up some system where he can explain to someone by email? Also, I forget the details, but I think he explained that he used the undeclared sock account currently named Cinteotl for editing in controversial areas. The fact that he isn't blocked indicates that I might be misremembering, or his other account was discretely blocked, or something. The page was mentioned in the ArbCom case -- I specifically remember making a statement about how offended I was at being accused of being a Christian apologist -- so ArbCom might have contacted him by email to ask for an explanation.
 * No, if he is not allowed to speak in defense of the page, that is reason for the page being inappropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You know what, maybe we should contact ArbCom just to be sure -- I don't want this page around, but I also don't want to risk stepping on any toes. But I don't want to email them, and I think "A user sub-page that was mentioned in this case has been nominated for deletion -- is that cool?" would be a super-weird "Request for clarification"...
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Shit. I just remembered, I already nominated this for deletion, and it was deleted and then undeleted for whatever reason. The reason I didn't notice this was because the page was moved when Cinteotl changed his name. The original MFD is here. I don't have time to check why it was undeleted. "all standard processes" may have included informing Cinteotl/Fearofreprisal, which I also failed to do here. I forget why I did this last time, but my deletion rationale indicates that I probably thought it would be a TBAN-violation for Cinteotl to post there, and this was my reason for not informing him this time. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per above conversation. User:xaosflux, who previously deleted and undeleted, should be notified.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just found this. The original reason for undeletion was that I did not sign and date my deletion rationale (which was an honest mistake, and I don't think is a reason for undeleting), I did not notify Cinteotl (which Cinteotl incorrectly claimed I was "required" to do, even though my reasoning for not doing so was probably his TBAN), and it "contained statistical data in support of a current request for arbitration" (but it does not appear to have been used, as no page in the ArbCom case currently links to the page). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my reversal note at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fearofreprisal/stats. I have no objection in any way to this being renominated for deletion. —  xaosflux  Talk 02:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * and - I combined all this to the talk page, please review this in its entirety and then replace any !votes or discussion about the content of the target page back on the main disucssion. This one is a bit messy, this is not meant to dissuade your opinions on if the page should be kept or deleted.  —  xaosflux  Talk 02:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only things I really think should go back on the main page is SmokeyJoe's !vote and the notice this page was previously MfDed, deleted and undeleted; I'd be happy with the rest (which is mostly kind of off-topic) going unnoticed here. I'll let User:SmokeyJoe move his own !vote back. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding User:Cinteotl and interacting with this page
Cinteotl, In my opinion, commenting on this discussion is not a violation of the remedies put forth in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus, so long as your discussion is limited to the merits of keeping or not keeping this page, preferably using policy based arguments, so long as your arguments are not regarding the encylopedic content or merit of Historicity_of_Jesus (broadly construed). Further clarification could be requested of ArbCom if you or other editors disagree. — xaosflux  Talk 02:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)