Misplaced Pages

User talk:Smee (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)) User talk:Smeelgova (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

On November 3, 2007, Durova deleted User talk:Smee and User talk:Smeelgova , shortly before resigning her administrative privileges. On September 22, 2007, Cirt commenced editing , without disclosing that Smee and Smeelgova were his prior accounts -- see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_openly_discuss_Cirt.27s_past_identity. Recently, Durova introduced evidence in a current arbitration case regarding Cirt's interactions with Jossi, dating back to 2006, when Cirt was editing as Smeelgova. Thus, in addition to the generally objectionable nature of removing significant portions of the talk page history of a user actively editing Misplaced Pages, these particular talk page deletions hinder the formulation of a response to Durova's own evidence. John254 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment it's odd that John254 highlights the red herring of my subsequent resignation while failing to mention the security concern I submitted as evidence to the ongoing arbitration case. Suggest closing this procedurally; the arbitrators and Jimbo Wales have appropriate information in their hands. Durova 20:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_openly_discuss_Cirt.27s_past_identity, Cirt stated that "The security matter has been resolved. My previous account was Smee, renamed from Smeelgova. Discuss them if you like." , rendering the "security concern" to which Durova refers moot. The question here is not whether the deletions were correct at the time they were effectuated, but rather whether the talk pages should remain deleted. John254 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I mentioned Durova's resignation only for the limited purpose of explaining why I did not request that she reverse her own deletions before raising the matter here. John254 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Somehow John has been confused by the wrong thread. The relevant thread is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_undelete_Cirt.27s_past_accounts.27_talk_pages, submitted by Jossi (who announced his retirement after my evidence) and already commented upon by three arbitrators, none of whom saw merit to the proposal. Durova 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

These user talk pages were not deleted by order of the Arbitration Committee. The community may want to restore them, even in the absence of the Committee directing such action. John254 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So essentially you are attempting to do an end run around the ArbCom regarding the most sensitive part of an ongoing arbitration case, and using an out of context quote from an editor as your pretext for this very cavalier treatment of his privacy. Considering the aggressive and unprovoked statements you have been making about him in relation to this case, this approaches WP:POINT. Please withdraw the nomination; I wouldn't want a formal complaint to result. Durova 20:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If these talk pages needed to remain deleted due to privacy concerns, you would presumably be willing to state as much explicitly, and take full responsibility for the statement if it proved to be false. Of course, that's not what's going on here. These are the community's user talk pages; as the Arbitration Committee has not ordered that they remain deleted, the community may decide to restore them for the purpose of preserving a record of communications. Your threat which states: "Please withdraw the nomination; I wouldn't want a formal complaint to result." does not alter this situation. John254 20:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask him whether he supports your idea? Durova 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Cirt of this deletion review. In general, however, editors do not have an absolute privilege to remove significant portions of their talk page history without a compelling reason: if, for instance, I were to ask for the deletion of all revisions of my talk page from 2006 and 2007, the request would almost certainly be denied. John254 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Motion_to_undelete_Cirt.27s_past_accounts.27_talk_pages occurred before you submitted evidence concerning Jossi's interactions with Cirt going back to 2006, and that the arbitrators declined to order the talk pages undeleted on the basis of their perceived irrelevance to "the present matter". In light of your recent evidence, do you seriously claim that Cirt's talk pages from a period of time which it expressly discusses are still irrelevant? John254 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

remain deleted - those involved in the Rfar who need to can see the deleted pages, and they don't seem relevant to the remainder of us developing appropriate responses to the recent allegations of poor behavior by the user. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• question As I understand it the security concerns were edits that have now been oversighted? Is this accurate? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• keep deleted - I suggest you make your case to the Arbitration Committee if you demand these be widely available. They have not demanded they be undeleted; I suggest this is for a reason. Your own unrelated curiosity is not a reason - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• keep deleted and John254 this is POINTy disruption, see comments by three arbs: , , . Not to mention there is an ongoing arbcase about this. Suggest next available admin close this right away. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Those comments about the perceived irrelevance of matters occurring in 2006 and 2007 would only still be applicable to the extent that the arbitrators intend to ignore a significant portion of User:Durova/Scientology_arbitration/Jossi_evidence. Durova, then, in defending her deletion on the basis of such comments, appears to be suggesting that much of her own evidence is irrelevant, and should be discounted. Of course, no actual basis for these talk pages remaining deleted has been articulated -- where there is no reason to remove talk page histories, we preserve them by default. John254 23:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)