- 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. Salvio giuliano 14:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
An ancient relic of the deletionist-inclusionist wars by a blocked user that includes personal attacks and encourages vote stacking. Is this really worth keeping? Dronebogus ( talk) 13:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. Not much else to add on this, really; I can't imagine how this could ever be of any use. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 16:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This could cause actual harm if someone took the advice seriously. Zerbu 💬 18:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank: {{ Userpage blanked}}. Blank at least, old troubles not good for moving forwards. However, it could/should be blanked as an ordinary edit and not brought through mfd requiring a re-examination of the old closed story. The editor was a good editor with good intentions, who turned bad, which was a common story of the era. We don’t delete the userspace of departed users, not without very good reason, and the reason here is not very good. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The nominator could have courtesy blanked and they'd be done, without all this WP:Ragpicking. Again, once again, the usual suspects are going after the userpage of a long-since disappeared contributor, who is not around to defend it. The war against users expressing their thoughts continues. I see no personal attacks. To my eyes the page is intended as sarcasm and expresses frustration with Wikipedia. This is neither against policy, nor even a minority position; any worry that someone might be offended is eliminated entirely by using the Userpage blanked template as recommended above. BusterD ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a coprolite by a banned user. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank. Not worth keeping (per nom), but not worth reanalyzing 15+ year old conflicts by long-gone users to determine if there is a policy-based reason for deletion. Not blatant enough for it to be obvious. Pages like this are a reason why a policy to automatically blank or delete user space subpages of users gone for [10] years, for any reason, other than the main user page, might be a good idea. Martinp ( talk) 12:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank per BusterD. Let sleeping dogs lie. In my opinion, publicly branding banned users' pages through
WP:MFD is not only ragpicking but also a form of
WP:GRAVEDANCING, even if it's unintentional. --
⛵ WaltClipper -(
talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. Bringing blocked users’ userpages through MfD is Wikipedia:GRAVEDANCING and not ok. If it is a problematic relic, and you know what you’re talking about, quietly blank the page, {{ Userpage blanked}} is very good for this. It hints of disapproval while making no overt criticism of the content, it can be quietly reverted if disagreed with, and, a big one, it causes Wikipedia mirrors to mirror the blanking. Wikipedia:Don't create a Streisand effect. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank. Agree with the other supporters of blanking. — Alalch E. 13:54, 11 February 2023 (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. Salvio giuliano 14:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
An ancient relic of the deletionist-inclusionist wars by a blocked user that includes personal attacks and encourages vote stacking. Is this really worth keeping? Dronebogus ( talk) 13:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. Not much else to add on this, really; I can't imagine how this could ever be of any use. — Sundostund mppria ( talk / contribs) 16:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This could cause actual harm if someone took the advice seriously. Zerbu 💬 18:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank: {{ Userpage blanked}}. Blank at least, old troubles not good for moving forwards. However, it could/should be blanked as an ordinary edit and not brought through mfd requiring a re-examination of the old closed story. The editor was a good editor with good intentions, who turned bad, which was a common story of the era. We don’t delete the userspace of departed users, not without very good reason, and the reason here is not very good. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The nominator could have courtesy blanked and they'd be done, without all this WP:Ragpicking. Again, once again, the usual suspects are going after the userpage of a long-since disappeared contributor, who is not around to defend it. The war against users expressing their thoughts continues. I see no personal attacks. To my eyes the page is intended as sarcasm and expresses frustration with Wikipedia. This is neither against policy, nor even a minority position; any worry that someone might be offended is eliminated entirely by using the Userpage blanked template as recommended above. BusterD ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a coprolite by a banned user. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank. Not worth keeping (per nom), but not worth reanalyzing 15+ year old conflicts by long-gone users to determine if there is a policy-based reason for deletion. Not blatant enough for it to be obvious. Pages like this are a reason why a policy to automatically blank or delete user space subpages of users gone for [10] years, for any reason, other than the main user page, might be a good idea. Martinp ( talk) 12:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank per BusterD. Let sleeping dogs lie. In my opinion, publicly branding banned users' pages through
WP:MFD is not only ragpicking but also a form of
WP:GRAVEDANCING, even if it's unintentional. --
⛵ WaltClipper -(
talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. Bringing blocked users’ userpages through MfD is Wikipedia:GRAVEDANCING and not ok. If it is a problematic relic, and you know what you’re talking about, quietly blank the page, {{ Userpage blanked}} is very good for this. It hints of disapproval while making no overt criticism of the content, it can be quietly reverted if disagreed with, and, a big one, it causes Wikipedia mirrors to mirror the blanking. Wikipedia:Don't create a Streisand effect. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank. Agree with the other supporters of blanking. — Alalch E. 13:54, 11 February 2023 (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.