User talk:Abd/Response to Verbal

Verbal requested that this page be blanked, it was discussed at [1], permanent link. Verbal is invited to note any specific corrections here; the page itself, as a record of what was placed in evidence at ArbComm, should not be edited (except I blanked it, referring to history and to this Talk page. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please state where this was used in the case, as I was not notified despite a request at the time. Please note it was marked "draft" so I didn't respond to the inaccuracies at the time, and thought it not worth the drama of complaining since it wasn't used. Verbal chat 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case page is not likely to be seen except by someone reading the record of the case, and it is labelled DRAFT there. In addition, the blanking notice points to this Talk page, so any objection of yours may be seen.

Yes. It was marked DRAFT. However, that draft was also placed in evidence, on the case Evidence page (also blanked, by the way), and when you comment in an RfAr, it is not required that you be notified when responding. You are presumed to be following the case. When the draft was up and the case was open, the reference to this page did request corrections, and that would have been your cue to suggest them. Even if I did not agree with the corrections, I'd have allowed them on the attached Talk page, assuming that they did not themselves violate policy, or, if I agreed there was a reasonable basis, I'd have incorporated them in the document, possibly with a reference to history to show how it originally appeared. --Abd (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2010

Speedy delete

This is an attack page that was supposedly prepared for the RfA it has just been moved to today but was never used. If it had been used I would have responded at the appropriate time. It is not part of the record and should be removed. Verbal chat 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was not just prepared for the RfAr, it was actually used, Verbal is not being accurate, and he knows it was used, because he, in the discussion cited above, refers to the note DRAFT mentioned. This is just as much my evidence filed in that case as if it had been placed on the Evidence page, it was incorporated by reference.[2] (Because the entire evidence page for that case was blanked, the reference is to a version in history, as it was after the closing of the case and before blanking.)

Yes, it was placed here today. That's not relevant. The plan is, based on Verbal's complaint, to move all the similar pages, cited in the case. "Supposedly prepared for the RfA"? There is no "supposed" about that, it's clear and he must know this. This is purely disruptive, I'm afraid, I'd hoped the matter was settled when I blanked the page in response to his request.

Evidence used in ArbComm cases, whether or not the arbitrators specifically referred to it in their decision, should not be deleted without ArbComm permission. And this has been debated at MfD previously. --Abd (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was never used, was kept in Abd's user space, and was marked draft. It should be removed. I don't care about the other pages and promise not to move to delete them. This one is an attack page against me full of inaccuracies and unsubstatiated claims that was never used in the RfA and is not evidence. Note it was marked draft and was never moved or had the draft removed until today. It should be deleted now, and if Abd wan't it restored he can go to ArbCom. Verbal chat 22:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [3] where I ask for notification and a chance to respond if this was removed from "draft" and actually used. This page was outside of RfA process and practice and would have been ignored even if it were moved here anyway. Verbal chat 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the response you got, Verbal. All you had to do was look at my Evidence section at the time you posted that. It was not long, and this page was cited from that section. The editors who responded to you could have told you that, instead they responded with irrelevancies. Which was most of what was posted in that case! Who was responsible for notifying you? You already saw what was posted, and it had, you say, "inaccuracies." Since it was a draft and requested corrections, why didn't you simply respond as requested, at least pointing them out? Now you want to blame (who?) for not notifying you? Yes, I sympathize, that case became a monster, but only because hosts of editors -- including yourself -- came in with irrelevancies. --Abd (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What a waste of time! Verbal templated me on my Talk page about this speedy, I responded there, please look for it if you need to see it, and above it was a discussion of his request, where I agreed to blank the page. However, when a page is created for and is cited in an RfAr, it is part of the RfAr unless ArbComm decides otherwise. Verbal saw this page then, this can be assumed from his following of the case and his comment in it. He had ample opportunity to correct errors, and this was actively requested on the case evidence page.

Another more general case page, also created in my user space, was MfD'd. (See Verbal's request on my Talk.) It was kept. No way should this page be speedied, and if it is, there will be DRV, based on the precedent, which will, of course, cause the page to be read by many. As it is now, only a very small number of people will read it. Blanked, it won't show up in searches. So ... what is this about? --Abd (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal's persistent attempts to get this deleted

Thanks, J.delanoy, for [4]. I'm restoring the convenience link, which Verbal removed previously, I hadn't noticed. This page has been so buried by all the frivolous attempts to delete that I added a link to the history to the version standing at the close of the RfAr. I originally blanked this page on request, and that would have been that, no link would have been needed. I have many times requested that errors on the page, and pages like this, be noted, so I can correct them with disclaimers, strike-out, etc, and no specific errors have been alleged. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]