Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:!!


 * 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. I would like to clarify a few points:
 * I never said that Durova left the project. Upon rereading what I wrote, I see where the misunderstanding came from.
 * "As most of you may recall, !! was blocked by an administrator who has since resigned, and left the project after an Arbcom case relating to this block." You most cetainly did say it. black and white, no confusion! Giano (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I intended that User:!! had left the project, not Durova. That's why I put a comma after the word "resigned", so that the last part of the sentence would refer to User:!!. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's really hard for me to believe that !! will ever return under that username. He asked an administrator to protect his userpage and user talk page and to delete the talk page history, and the ArbCom case specifically encourages him to continue editing under the username of his choice.  Those are pretty unambiguous signs to me.
 * Risker's point is well taken. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:!!
If we're discussing deletion of User:Alkivar, we should discuss this also. As most of you may recall, !! was blocked by an administrator who has since resigned, and left the project after an Arbcom case relating to this block. His final message to the project is what you see on this userpage. It has remained like that since December 2007. !! has not returned, and clearly will not return (at least under that username).

I have a certain degree of tolerance for people leaving rants on their userpage, especially out of legitimate frustration. At a certain point, though, it's time to move on. The continued existence of this userpage in its current state is an embarrassment to the former administrator whose words are quoted, and to the project as a whole. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think revisiting past issues in this way is conducive to "moving on." This page, I think, is harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I was not aware that Durova had left! This page is doing no harm. !! was a very valuable editor, and while it is here it is always possible he may return. Giano (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep His paged is linked to by both an important arbitration case and the disproved sockpuppet report, both of which establish him as a user in good standing; that fact, as you will recall, was called into question. Editors in time to come may only hear part of the story; being able to read !!'s take on the situation will permit !!'s reputation to remain clear.  Risker (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep His userpage is not a rant. Leave user pages alone. I hope !! will change it when !! returns. ---Sluzzelin talk  17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Salutary expressions of frustration can be good. !! made a lot of excellent contributions before this business - do we really want to give him the indignity of redlinking his user name like a newbie in the histories of those pages on top of everything else? --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, duh. Seriously, why is this even nominated? Just because Alkivar is nominated? You don't even give a rationale. Can someone just speedy close this as keep already? -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Durova has very much not left the project. -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  17:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep of course. The fact that another page is being considered for deletion is not a reason to nominate something for deletion. Removing anything that could conceivably be embarrassing to another user is clearly a ridiculous policy, especially when the user concerned left in good standing. Hut 8.5 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - reminders of our institutional stupidity are not bad. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Doing no harm, improper rationale. SashaNein (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (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.