- 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: no consensus. This is pushing two weeks old and there is no consensus to delete, revdel, or keep. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus ( talk) 21:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
User:Marxist-Leninist and Anti-revisionist
This user page violates a number of Wikipedia's user page policies, consisting largely of divisive polemical statements that are more suited to a personal blog than an encyclopedia.
I raised concerns directly with the user months ago, but received no response. When another user inquired about their thoughts that "LGBT identity activists are reactionary and anti-working class", they refused to answer as they wanted to only talk about their editing. (Which is odd, as this was something they had edited, but I digress)
Given both the policy and that they explicitly stated that they only want to discuss their editing, I propose their user page be deleted for the purpose of neutralising such provocative statements. If they want to rebuild their user page without them, then they are more than welcome to. Grnrchst ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, and I think it's worth considering taking this user to ANI. Advocacy for genocidal regimes and anti-LGBT hate speech are both grounds for a WP:ZT/ WP:HID ban. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom and Thebiguglyalien. There is more than enough material for an ANI report regarding this user, IMHO. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Update: Since posting this MfD, the user in question has blanked the page and replaced its content with a retired tag. [1] -- Grnrchst ( talk) 07:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @ Grnrchst: Their blanking and a retirement tag doesn't really mean anything. The history of this user page must be expunged, regardless of its current state, having in mind its (previous) utterly unacceptable content. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 23:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete while the page started out acceptable in the very first edits it immediately devolved into a wall of polemic and Stalin-praising. There is nothing salvageable in the history so why not just get rid of it? The user can easily replace a “retired” template on a new page. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep I don't see anything wrong with the previous revision of this user page. It's just the names of a bunch of people whose ideas the user agrees with, and besides that, a brief listing of their political opinions, none of which is anything out of the ordinary for a userpage on Wikipedia. If there is any issue with the user and their conduct, then it should be discussed at WP:ANI, but this userpage is, in my view, not itself disruptive and I see no issue with the previous content being retained in the history.That being said, although I see no compelling reason to delete this, I also don't see any compelling reason to retain it, either, so, whatever. Overall, I think it would have been preferable to ignore this. silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 13:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)<Never mind, changing vote. Revdel the previous revisions per HouseBlaster. silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 05:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)- I don’t think it should have been ignored, mfd’ing can serve as an important wake-up call that a userpage is absolutely not acceptable. Dronebogus ( talk) 05:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- The previous content is quite clearly a WP:POLEMIC violation. However, the current {{ retired}} is fine. Is revdel the polemic history an option? If so, do that. Otherwise, I guess count this as a weak delete, with a preference that the page be recreated with the {{ retired}} template. House Blaster talk 03:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Whatever the page history, this is to be viewed as the current content. The current content is within policy. When and if it turns (back) to be against policy the first action is to have a policy based discussion with the editor, not to go for deletion. How many angels can dance on the head of a tin? 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrent
FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- pin
-
Dronebogus (
talk) 14:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I chose a larger target, but it is a very small tin. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. There's nothing offensive on this userpage as of this datestamp and therefore no compelling reason to delete. This crusade policing of thought on userpages is becoming disruptive. Now we're picking on active editors and not even talking to them before we nominate their userpage for deletion. Causing them to retire. I would object to revdel on the page history. I like to know what any user says about themself, even if a small number of editors object. Somebody wants to take this to ANI? Please proceed. BusterD ( talk) 19:48, 15 December 2022 (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.
- 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: no consensus. This is pushing two weeks old and there is no consensus to delete, revdel, or keep. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus ( talk) 21:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
User:Marxist-Leninist and Anti-revisionist
This user page violates a number of Wikipedia's user page policies, consisting largely of divisive polemical statements that are more suited to a personal blog than an encyclopedia.
I raised concerns directly with the user months ago, but received no response. When another user inquired about their thoughts that "LGBT identity activists are reactionary and anti-working class", they refused to answer as they wanted to only talk about their editing. (Which is odd, as this was something they had edited, but I digress)
Given both the policy and that they explicitly stated that they only want to discuss their editing, I propose their user page be deleted for the purpose of neutralising such provocative statements. If they want to rebuild their user page without them, then they are more than welcome to. Grnrchst ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, and I think it's worth considering taking this user to ANI. Advocacy for genocidal regimes and anti-LGBT hate speech are both grounds for a WP:ZT/ WP:HID ban. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom and Thebiguglyalien. There is more than enough material for an ANI report regarding this user, IMHO. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Update: Since posting this MfD, the user in question has blanked the page and replaced its content with a retired tag. [1] -- Grnrchst ( talk) 07:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @ Grnrchst: Their blanking and a retirement tag doesn't really mean anything. The history of this user page must be expunged, regardless of its current state, having in mind its (previous) utterly unacceptable content. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 23:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete while the page started out acceptable in the very first edits it immediately devolved into a wall of polemic and Stalin-praising. There is nothing salvageable in the history so why not just get rid of it? The user can easily replace a “retired” template on a new page. Dronebogus ( talk) 09:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep I don't see anything wrong with the previous revision of this user page. It's just the names of a bunch of people whose ideas the user agrees with, and besides that, a brief listing of their political opinions, none of which is anything out of the ordinary for a userpage on Wikipedia. If there is any issue with the user and their conduct, then it should be discussed at WP:ANI, but this userpage is, in my view, not itself disruptive and I see no issue with the previous content being retained in the history.That being said, although I see no compelling reason to delete this, I also don't see any compelling reason to retain it, either, so, whatever. Overall, I think it would have been preferable to ignore this. silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 13:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)<Never mind, changing vote. Revdel the previous revisions per HouseBlaster. silvia ( User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) ( inquire within) 05:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)- I don’t think it should have been ignored, mfd’ing can serve as an important wake-up call that a userpage is absolutely not acceptable. Dronebogus ( talk) 05:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- The previous content is quite clearly a WP:POLEMIC violation. However, the current {{ retired}} is fine. Is revdel the polemic history an option? If so, do that. Otherwise, I guess count this as a weak delete, with a preference that the page be recreated with the {{ retired}} template. House Blaster talk 03:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Whatever the page history, this is to be viewed as the current content. The current content is within policy. When and if it turns (back) to be against policy the first action is to have a policy based discussion with the editor, not to go for deletion. How many angels can dance on the head of a tin? 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrent
FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- pin
-
Dronebogus (
talk) 14:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I chose a larger target, but it is a very small tin. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. There's nothing offensive on this userpage as of this datestamp and therefore no compelling reason to delete. This crusade policing of thought on userpages is becoming disruptive. Now we're picking on active editors and not even talking to them before we nominate their userpage for deletion. Causing them to retire. I would object to revdel on the page history. I like to know what any user says about themself, even if a small number of editors object. Somebody wants to take this to ANI? Please proceed. BusterD ( talk) 19:48, 15 December 2022 (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.