Wikipedia:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing



At times, when a certain user is blocked indefinitely, their friends and/or supporters will watchlist the blocked editor's userpage and repeatedly remove block/ban/sockpuppeteer templates, or else revert attempts to replace the userpage with just the templates.

Frequently, the editors who remove the templates or revert the blanking of the userpage accuse the editor placing the templates or removing the extraneous user page of "gravedancing". This accusation is made regardless of who placed the template or blanked the userpage, and regardless of actual agenda. This may continue for years after the original block was enacted and involve multiple editors.

The end result is that, although most userpages of blocked/banned users on Wikipedia are blanked and replaced with just administrative templates, there will always be a few who appear exempt from this.

Spotting actual gravedancers
At times, when a certain user is blocked, their opponents will template their userpage or talk page as a form of parting shot. This is gravedancing. The following are signs that you are dealing with a real gravedancer:


 * A history of disputes with the blockee.
 * An established pattern of deliberate wikihounding of the blockee.
 * A repeated stated desire to see the user in question blocked, beyond the normal course of voting in a block/ban discussion.

Dealing with false accusations of gravedancing
When you are falsely accused of gravedancing, the best thing to do is ignore it and let the userpage remain in the other editor's preferred version. Over time, if multiple people have attempted to blank the userpage and been reverted, this could constitute a slow revert war. However, your attempts to argue for consistency among the userpages of all blocked/banned editors will typically be dismissed in favor of arguments stating that the "userpage is fine as is" and "why does it matter?" It's best to leave well enough alone when facing resistance.