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 delete. The page could be undeleted if and when an Arbcom appeal takes place, though since the Arbitrators would be able to read it in any case that might not be necessary. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cinteotl/stats[edit]

User:Cinteotl/stats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Out-of-date user subpage meant to accompany an ArbCom case, the result of which was the page's creator being indefinitely banned from the topic of the page. The page itself consists largely of the user's attempts to recontextualize an earlier ANI thread, in which he highlights "accusations" made by myself and several others, and insinuates that we were making these accusations without evidence. I don't know about the other users involved, but I wrote what I did without intending it to be nitpicked and every sentence not accompanied by a diff be recast as an accusation made without evidence and for that out-of-context recasting to be kept indefinitely in someone else's user space. An earlier version of the page explicitly accused me and numerous other (non-Christian) editors of editing with a Christian agenda. No good can come of keeping this borderline attack page on the site, and the page's creator isn't even allowed edit it per the terms of his TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is out-of-context because at the time I, User:Ian.thomson, User:Jeppiz and so on wrote these things, anyone could look at the talk page in question and see immediately that what we were saying was accurate, but almost all of the discussion had been archived before Cinteotl/Fearofreprisal copy-pasted this into his user space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page was previously nominated, deleted and then undeleted (see here). The undeletion was made on request of the original creator (see here). The creator's username was changed in the meantimes, and this page was accordingly moved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Cinteotle[edit]

This MfD is somewhat fragmented, with discussion on both this page, and on the related talk page. My comments here are in response to the discussions on both pages.

I am the owner of the user page in question. As a matter of background, I am subject to a topic ban, imposed by ArbCom on 30 Dec 2014, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus.

• User:Hijiri88, the nominator in this case (who was also a party to the arbitration) has stated that I'm not "even allowed edit" the page in question, "per the terms of [the] TBAN." He also said of me, "I don't think he's allowed" to discuss the page. He may be correct in both cases, though only ArbCom can say with certainly. It is not my desire to risk being sanctioned.
• Hijiri88's comments in this matter raise claims he made in the arbitration. Again, there is no way that I can address those comments without crossing lines that could lead to sanctions.
• MfD is unable to properly address the deletion discussion, because, as the page owner, I cannot address the merits of the page without risk of being sanctioned. (See [1].)
• The only venue on WP that can properly address the deletion discussion is ArbCom. That is the only venue where the topic ban can be waived.
• ArbCom "retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes." [2] So, as is the case here, a user page that was evidence in a matter heard by ArbCom remains under ArbCom jurisdiction.
• It is my intention to appeal my topic ban, so the page under discussion will be evidence in an upcoming ArbCom proceeding.
• Hijiri88 said "You know what, maybe we should contact ArbCom just to be sure." User:Xaosflux said "Further clarification could be requested of ArbCom if you or other editors disagree." User:SmokeyJoe said "MfD should not get involved with arb cases, unless maybe at the request of a non-admin arb clerk." So, including me, 4 out of the 4 editors involved in this discussion are suggesting that this may be an ArbCom matter.

For all the above reasons, the proper course of action is to open an Arbitration Enforcement case, then procedurally close this matter as Venue Inappropriate. Cinteotl (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as of now the Arbitration Committee seem to largely disagree that this is "venue inappropriate". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: This may be better to just list at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way opposed to any admin closing this out as wrong venue, my involvement with this was due to action on the prior MFD and ensuring that Cinteotl would be aware of this discussion and be able to participate as approriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request for clarification opened. I'm sure no admin would be irresponsible enough to close this without checking first whether the Arbs had weighed in, but as of now it's two or three to zero in favour of letting this MFD run its course. Hijiri 88 (聖やや)

Comment Arbcom are admins so even if deleted could review the content if required.Amortias (T)(C) 11:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Took the words right out of my mouth. I said this page was never used by Cinteotl in the ArbCom case "publicly", because I don't doubt that he emailed links to them, but if it's only Arbs who might hypotheticallt need to see this page in the future, then deleting should not have been a problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning "delete" but prefer this to be considered under the purview of ArbCom. Uncomfortable noting the complexity of the story, and the fact that the nominator and userpage author have a history together. If there were not ArbCom history, I would say "delete as negative information on others, unless taken promptly to ArbCom".

from WP:POLEMIC: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arbs appear to have no issue with its deletion, so delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per links in nomination, the page was previously deleted at MfD then undeleted by request in October 2014. The page history shows no edits since November 2014. The page fails WP:POLEMIC since it has not been used for an upcoming appeal. Per the advice from arbs at WP:ARCA, Cinteotl may keep a copy on a personal computer and may request undeletion if actually required for an appeal. Keeping battleground stuff like this on-wiki, even if blanked, is toxic for the community. Cinteotl should add ((db-author)) to save us wasting more time, and Cinteotl should move on from past grievances—life is not always fair, but working to keep stuff like this on-wiki is not helpful and will count as a big negative in the event of an appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.