- 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 14:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
User:Zordrac/helping
Some ancient semi-attack page where a banned user brags about helping spammers and makes nasty accusations against other users. I don’t see the point in keeping this around. Dronebogus ( talk) 13:44, 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) 16:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This reads dangerously close to a "list of enemies", which could actually qualify as WP:ATP. Zerbu 💬 18:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank only: There is quite meaningful history here, and history shouldn’t be deleted just because someone doesn’t understand. Blanking is more than sufficient, and is probably a good idea for a couple of reasons. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep plus Blank. I agree with SmokeyJoe this page is within the reasonable range of user subpage activity. We are just scouring the internet for pages of which to disapprove. BusterD ( talk) 00:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete this
coprolite] by a banned user.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- User wasn’t banned when they made it. At the time, it was justified, they were the days of inclusionism-deletionism wars, and satirical pages like this cast light on them. It was not and is not coprolite.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah they were
technically banned (as a sockpuppet of the user mentioned in the above-linked case), though the
ban appears to have not been technically enforced in theory (though it
was in practice). I have conflicted feelings about deletion ... but I agree this user was waaaaaay out there. (I actually remember reading about their case back in the day on the admins' noticeboard, but was never directly involved with them).
Graham
87 10:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. I remember the times, but not these details. It is not productive for User:Dronebogus to make the community re-examine this case, let alone every such case he can find. What might be ideal is of User:Dronebogus would write a short useressay on why he is doing this, and to blank any similar pages with an edit summary link to his useressay, and for him to not make a public scene in digging up things best left buried. There is no benefit to deletion, wikiarcheology has value and deletions have downsides. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah they were
technically banned (as a sockpuppet of the user mentioned in the above-linked case), though the
ban appears to have not been technically enforced in theory (though it
was in practice). I have conflicted feelings about deletion ... but I agree this user was waaaaaay out there. (I actually remember reading about their case back in the day on the admins' noticeboard, but was never directly involved with them).
Graham
87 10:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- User wasn’t banned when they made it. At the time, it was justified, they were the days of inclusionism-deletionism wars, and satirical pages like this cast light on them. It was not and is not coprolite.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:17, 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. No objection if others find it blatant enough for it to be obvious, though it doesn't feel like it to me. 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) 12:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank per SmokeyJoe and BusterD. -- ⛵ WaltClipper -( talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank per above. — 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 14:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
User:Zordrac/helping
Some ancient semi-attack page where a banned user brags about helping spammers and makes nasty accusations against other users. I don’t see the point in keeping this around. Dronebogus ( talk) 13:44, 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) 16:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This reads dangerously close to a "list of enemies", which could actually qualify as WP:ATP. Zerbu 💬 18:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank only: There is quite meaningful history here, and history shouldn’t be deleted just because someone doesn’t understand. Blanking is more than sufficient, and is probably a good idea for a couple of reasons. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep plus Blank. I agree with SmokeyJoe this page is within the reasonable range of user subpage activity. We are just scouring the internet for pages of which to disapprove. BusterD ( talk) 00:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete this
coprolite] by a banned user.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- User wasn’t banned when they made it. At the time, it was justified, they were the days of inclusionism-deletionism wars, and satirical pages like this cast light on them. It was not and is not coprolite.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah they were
technically banned (as a sockpuppet of the user mentioned in the above-linked case), though the
ban appears to have not been technically enforced in theory (though it
was in practice). I have conflicted feelings about deletion ... but I agree this user was waaaaaay out there. (I actually remember reading about their case back in the day on the admins' noticeboard, but was never directly involved with them).
Graham
87 10:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. I remember the times, but not these details. It is not productive for User:Dronebogus to make the community re-examine this case, let alone every such case he can find. What might be ideal is of User:Dronebogus would write a short useressay on why he is doing this, and to blank any similar pages with an edit summary link to his useressay, and for him to not make a public scene in digging up things best left buried. There is no benefit to deletion, wikiarcheology has value and deletions have downsides. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah they were
technically banned (as a sockpuppet of the user mentioned in the above-linked case), though the
ban appears to have not been technically enforced in theory (though it
was in practice). I have conflicted feelings about deletion ... but I agree this user was waaaaaay out there. (I actually remember reading about their case back in the day on the admins' noticeboard, but was never directly involved with them).
Graham
87 10:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- User wasn’t banned when they made it. At the time, it was justified, they were the days of inclusionism-deletionism wars, and satirical pages like this cast light on them. It was not and is not coprolite.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 07:17, 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. No objection if others find it blatant enough for it to be obvious, though it doesn't feel like it to me. 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) 12:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank per SmokeyJoe and BusterD. -- ⛵ WaltClipper -( talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Blank per above. — 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.