Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HighwayCello/Minun: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:10, 17 February 2023

User:HighwayCello/Minun

This reads as a "list of everything bad user:XXX did" page, per WP:ATP. A good chunk of it is subjective, and the parts that aren't would be more appropriate at other venues like the already existing RFCU page (now WP:SPI), WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U (which was active at the time). This is not the right way to deal with a disruptive editor, especially if they were new. Additionally, history indicates the creator removed a (albeit malformed) speedy deletion tag themself instead of allowing an uninvolved person to review it. Zerbu ^💬 21:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knee jerk lean delete without having read it through, let alone understood the bottom of it, as it is clearly a userspace laundry list. Records like this belong under WP:SPI control, which is managed by highly trusted checkusers.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the information is determined to still be necessary, perhaps it could be moved and archived on the talk page of the RFCU case? (I'm not sure it would be appropriate to create a new SPI page just to move old information to) Zerbu ^💬 22:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I change my suggestion to blanking the page, per User:Martinp's comment as well as comments on other MfDs. Zerbu ^💬 13:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any responsible editor should be encouraged to quietly blank problematic pages. Bringing them to MfD is worse than ignoring them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Blanking saves added effort for all parties involved. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - The allegation of sockpuppetry is serious, and should be made in the proper way, by sockpuppet investigation or not at all. A page which makes such allegations in user space is an attack page. This may not qualify for G10, but is close enough that it should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess technically correct, though it seems concurrent with the notes on this page, the editor made a proper request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iloveminun (as they helpfully linked to at the bottom of this page) and if I'm reading it right, the sockpuppetry alleged was confirmed there a few weeks later. I'm not opposed to deletion since there's no value to keeping this around, but think blanking (by any editor, though technically not allowed now until this MFD runs to conclusion) would be adequate. Martinp (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How did you find a 17 year old user-subpage in the first place? As stated above, the common-sense option is to blank it yourself so as to WP:DENY any attention. Curbon7 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:POLEMIC explains that these sorts of lists of wrongdoings "should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." This list was last updated nearly 17 years ago, and while evidently it was used in a timely manner, that time has long passed. The editor who compiled this hasn't edited in 16 years, and the editor being investigated also disappeared after a brief string of sockpuppetry. If they are still around today this information will not be useful whatsoever in identifying them; it should just disappear. (FWIW, HighwayCello started compiling this list in the same month that Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets was created; they may not have known about it, and ought to be forgiven for not filing a proper WP:SPI given that that venue didn't exist until two years later). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Delete''' per nom and Robert McClenon. — [[User:Sundostund|<b><span style="color:green">Sundostund</span></b>]] [[Manu propria|<span style="color:green">''mppria''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Sundostund|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Sundostund|contribs]])</sup> 03:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * '''Comment''': How did you find a 17 year old user-subpage in the first place? As stated above, the common-sense option is to blank it yourself so as to [[WP:DENY]] ''any'' attention. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 19:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' - [[WP:POLEMIC]] explains that these sorts of lists of wrongdoings "should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." This list was last updated nearly 17 years ago, and while evidently it was used in a timely manner, that time has ''long'' passed. The editor who compiled this hasn't edited in 16 years, and the editor being investigated also disappeared after a brief string of sockpuppetry. If they are still around today this information will not be useful whatsoever in identifying them; it should just disappear. (FWIW, HighwayCello started compiling this list in the same month that [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets]] was created; they may not have known about it, and ought to be forgiven for not filing a proper [[WP:SPI]] given that that venue didn't exist until two years later). [[User:PEIsquirrel|Ivanvector's squirrel]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|trees]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/PEIsquirrel|nuts]]</sub>) 16:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)