Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Guido den Broeder subpages




 * 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 keep While I understand the need for people to want to excise our community's more unfortunate history, sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie, and finally die a proper death in the recesses of some banned editor's user pages. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder subpages
I had speedy deleted a few subpages rom the user page of recently rebanned User:Guido den Broeder. The pages were a few times restored and redeleted, due to at first a misunderstanding and later a genuine objection to the reason I speedy deleted them. In the end, a DRV was started, because most people agreed that my interpretation of CSD U2 (userpages of non existent users) does not apply to banned users, with the additional remarks that I was too involved to be the deleter, and for some people also the argument that Guido den Broeder objected to the deletion.

In my opinion, these subpages (the main user page is not nominated) no longer serve any purpose for Wikipedia, and only serve Guido den Broeder. Since he is banned, it is not our job to provde links to his own Wiki, or to another userpage of his where he provides a copy of the wiki-experiment essay that was a deciding factor in his first ban. The rest of these pages only serve as navigational helps on pages that no longer exist in that form (e.g. his user talk page, which is now a redirect to his user page).

Included are also three user talk subpages. These are not his archives, but copies of two deleted articles (through Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging) and of the talk page of an article. These three pages are in violation of WP:UP. -- Fram (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages in this nomination:
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Toolbox
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Articles
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Visit
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Menu
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Sandbox
 * User talk:Guido den Broeder/Vereniging Basisinkomen
 * User talk:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging
 * User talk:Guido den Broeder/Simon Wessely
 * Delete all - WP:DENY, WP:WEBHOST, etc. Be sure to keep main talk page and archives for ease of future reference, though with banned or whatnot. // roux   07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as subpages of a deleted banned user's userspace. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for referring to him as a "deleted user"; that was entirely accidental. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions, to clarify. Is this user unambiguously banned, with little liklihood of a reversal of the ban any time soon?  Are all of these pages completely unrelated to the past or continuing development of any mainspace content or project space issues?  Do any of the pages contain content relevant to understanding issues related to the user's banning?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The user was community banned, was unbanned by Arbcom on or about May 22nd, and was rebanned just days ago by the ArbCom. Chance of a speedy unban seems very slim since he just blew the final chance he got. The 7 user subpages are completely unrelated to the banning. The three talk page subpages are copies of pages that were deleted long ago: the deletion discussions and so on first highlighted some of the problematic editing, but I don't believe that keeping these pages around would help anyone in understanding the issues, and would not be really relevant anymore since they are truly old history by now. Fram (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the comments made by some Arbitrators, if he does get unbanned, it will be in a few years when there's new Arbitrators that have no idea who he is. The sitting ones won't unban him. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of answers to questions 2 & 3 is disappointing. I find the Orwellian references apt.    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The innocuous pages would be better treated by archiving (by converting to redirects to the userpage)
 * Some pages have a specific use; Move to subpages of WikiProject User Rehab/Case studies/User:Guido den Broeder/ the following:
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Articles --> here
 * User:Guido den Broeder/Visit -->  here
 * User talk:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging -->  here
 * User talk:Guido den Broeder/Simon Wessely -->  here  (most importantly, declining U1 request). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all per community and arbcom ban (also supported by Jimbo), and policies mentioned in other arguments. Preserving these is of no benefit to the project, which should be the main concern. Verbal   chat  09:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Guido asked on IRC for /Vereniging Basisinkomen, /ME/CVS Vereniging, and /Simon Wessely, to be deleted. They probably qualify under WP:CSD therefore, but I'm going to leave it for someone uninvolved to do it. Daniel (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete user subpages of unperson. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep den Broeder is not an "unperson" in other areas of Wikipedia, and I find such a claim that this is a WP practice to be quite distasteful.  Afterthought reasons for some of the pages do not alter the primary reason given - that den Broeder no longer exists. All it will do, in point of fact, is make us look quite like the old Soviets if we excise them.   And where den Broeder asks for a deletion of a page, it is reasonable for it to be done as a courtesy, and not as a punishmnet. Collect (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a banned user with no chance of coming back (see Decision by the Arbitration Committee — June 1, 2009, Discussion at the administrators' noticeboard — June 1, 2009 and Initial ban discussion — December 2008), they now serve no purpose and we are not a webhost. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all.I think the unbanning of Guido was the last chance to edit the project when he was back for a week then rebanned. These subpages do nothing to help the project. As others have said Wikipedia doesn't do webhosting. Not useful to the project at all.-- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some could be restored if there's another chance. R. Baley (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep all I see no reason to delete these pages. We don't normally delete pages from banned users without a reason and no reason ahs been given here. Deleted pages take more, not less server space so arguments that they serve no purpose here aren't helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the User talk:Guido den Broeder/Simon Wessely page; it's essentially a bunch of now-banned agenda-driven editors and User:Jfdwolff. Since pretty much everyone on that talk page is banned except for Jfdwolff, I don't see it serving a further purpose. As to the other pages, whatever. The neat freak in me says clean them up, but I can see Joshua's point that they're not really doing any harm. MastCell Talk 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: We do not practice damnatio memoriae here. --Carnildo (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - we're not forgetting him, for his userpage and talk page still exist and their past histories available for all to inspect. The keeping of copies of past versions of pages, or pages otherwise deleted per AfD is not a permitted role for usersubpages and should be removed. A link though from userpage back to this discussion would a) keep available what would then be red links, which admins at a later date could undelete if he were to be allowed to return or a convincing case made for access to the material and b) indicate what was deleted and why refactored material was inappropriate in user space. David Ruben Talk 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all Useless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as they serve no purpose. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 11:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all as deleting them serves no purpose.  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to those supporting a "keep all": why does WP:UP not apply to the three talk page subpages? Fram (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point of deleting them? Looks like the front user page has already been blanked with banned, and I'm not sure why we have any interest in actively preventing someone from viewing historic page versions, banned user or not. As Fram points out, it may be worth deleting some of these pages individually, but in general I don't see a need to erase people from the wiki. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, why would we keep pages that are of absolutely no use to Wikipedia, but which are of use to a banned user? What is the benefit of keeping them? Fram (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Userpages of banned users are useful in much the same way that documents from the Nixon administration remain useful even after his resignation from office: they preserve the record. This provides a cautionary tale for current users, as they might find examples of what not to do; it also provides a highly useful body of text for use in WP:DUCK tests. Many users like to copy bits of formatting from one userpage to another, or may even just want to review the thoughts and essays of a banned user. If the user kept a record of projects they were working on, it'll be easier to pick up where they left off if we keep those pages. In more than a few cases, I think "damning the memory" of a departed user is harmful if it demoralizes people who would have called that user a friend. You mention these pages are of "absolutely no use" to Wikipedia, and are of use to a banned user, but I don't see how either of those is going to be universally true, not for all banned users nor in one banned user's userspace. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carnildo's concise reasoning. --GRuban (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete only the three article pages that were deleted elsewhere, leave the rest alone There is no justification for deleting everything. Why not nominate just those three article pages?  A banned user can't possibly work on the articles, so he has no reason to keep them on his page.  The rest should remain there.  Banning someone doesn't mean erasing all signs of their existence.  Never destroy without a reason.   D r e a m Focus  13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Those were the only contentious ones, but since Guido has asked for them to be deleted the rest just seems to be housekeeping. Verbal   chat  14:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The proposal is not to "erase all signs of their existence", the user page, talk page, and all article edits are left alone. The reason for deleting is that they are of no benefit to Wikipedia at all, one of them links to an essay that lead to the previous banning of this user, and others lead to his personal wiki-site. Why should we keep links around to the website of a banned user if they serve no other purpose at all? User:Guido den Broeder/Menu is the header of his earlier talk page. Why would we keep this? What's the benefit of having User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer around? From the policy Wp:NOT: "More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion." These pages do not make collaboration any easier, and are used for self-promotion. Fram (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the rules said you could have whatever you wanted on your user page, as long as no rules were violated. Most user pages do not have content that exists to make collaboration easier.  And how is it self promotion to link to other parts of your user page?  That doesn't make any sense.  Unless a page is specifically violating a rule, you need to leave it be.   D r e a m Focus  14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The /visit page links to other websites. The /Articles page as well. And what you think the rules say is obviously not what they actually say, since my quote comes from WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They link to wikisage and wikimedia pages. That's the same as linking to a wikipedia article.  All funded by the same source, and hosted on the same servers.  It isn't self promotion to link to articles you've worked on.   D r e a m Focus  15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikisage is not hosted or funded by the same source or servers, it's Guido's personal wiki-site. The Wikimedia foundation has no connections to it. Fram (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I agree that any links to it, should be removed. No need destroying the rest though(other than the three article pages of course).   D r e a m Focus  15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I suppose, but ideally, we'd have just left the pages and not ever bothered about them again… AGK 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete those he requested be deleted, keep all the rest. They might be useful to someone, they cause no harm, and they are in userspace where arguments like USEFUL and NOHARM are just fine.  Hobit (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While it is unfortunate that he isn't able to work with the restrictions given to him, we should not equate him to a run-of-the-mill vandal. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 9 June 2009 (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.