Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alfy852




 * 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 Delete. The userpage clearly violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. If the content is inappropriate it should be deleted, not blanked. The advice about blanking is for to non-admins, who can not delete by definition. Also, since the user in question was notified on 10 April about this discussion the objection of Metropolitan90 does not apply any more. Ruslik_ Zero 15:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Alfy852
Not at all an appropriate page for Wikipedia. The editor has had this page here for several years, and it's never been updated, and the editor has no other edits. It's been attacked by IPs, understandably. Woogee (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank. Barely more than test edits by a non-Wikipedian.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remind the nominator to advise the user of this mfd on his talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw no need to put a notice on the User's Talk page, since 1-it's for his own User page, and 2-He hasn't edited since creating this page. Woogee (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be a reader account. Regardless, it is asked that you notify users when you nominate their userpages for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an appropriate use of userspace, and the sole contribution of the editor in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank. No need to delete (i.e. remove history) when blanking will achieve the same end. There is no defamation, obscenity, copyvio, or other reasons that might require deletion rather than blanking. --SJK (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not blank Because the page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST in that is using Wikipedia to store an essay or poem (I don't know what this page could be described as), I see no reason to keep the information in the history. Deleting the page removes possibility that the blanking could be undone. Because the user has not edited in over half a year, and because the user is a single-purpose account, I support deletion over blanking. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination inaccurately states that the page has been here for several years (it was actually created less than one year ago), and there has still been no notice given to the user on their user talk page to (a) explain what the problem with the user page content is, or (b) notify them of the MfD nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An inaccurate nomination does not mean that there is no problem with the page. Though the page has remained here for eight months instead of the several years that was stated in the nomination, this is still misuse of userspace by a single-purpose account. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, this userpage should be deleted. As to your second point, I have left an MfD warning on the user's talk page, as well as a personalized message, so your concerns about that are now moot. Cunard (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Strongly conflicts with WP:USERPAGE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank Per SJK. Hi878 (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion is better than blanking because blanking allows the page history to remain. Because the content violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, the content should not be stored publically on Wikipedia, not even in the page history. If the page were blanked, it could be restored by an undo. This is best prevented through deletion. Cunard (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we can't trust editors to not do such silly things even after such a discussion as this, then the idea of an encyclopedia that anybody can edit is surely absurd? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those who violate WP:NOTWEBHOST have no qualms of violating it again and again. An example is documented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gosugatena (2nd nomination) by . This single-purpose account is not a constructive contributor to Wikipedia and should not be afforded the trust that is bequeathed to those who actually contribute. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Many newcomers innocently violate some rule the first time.  Usually, they learn, and if the learning process is gentle it is better for our reputation and happier all round.  You are concerned with recidivism, and indeed, we see that occasionally.  Their pages get deleted and the accounts get blocked, in a slow process that is very boring for them.  It is better to reserve community discussions for demonstrated recidivists, and to use education and gentle persuasion otherwise.  It is to be encouraged for any editor, even non-admins, to enforce clear policy by blanking inappropriate pages.  These editors should know that MfD is available for help if required, but MfD is an excessive tool in the first instance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is to be encouraged for any editor, even non-admins, to enforce clear policy by blanking inappropriate pages. You seem to have a different interpretation of MfD than what Miscellany for deletion says: "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside the main namespace (also called the 'article namespace') which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline)." No where does this say that pages that violate WP:NOTWEBHOST should be blanked; no where does it say that inappropriate content should be allowed to remain in the revision histories of userpages; no where does it say that MfD is an excessive tool. This user cannot be called an editor since he never edited any articles in the first place. This SPA will either never return to Wikipedia, or will return to Wikipedia having forgotten about this inappropriate content. "[E]ducation and gentle persuasion" cannot, and should not, be wasted on users who will very likely never see the messages. Let's say the user does return. If you construe deletion to be ungentle to the user, I consider blanking to be just as ungentle. Blanking will, like deletion, cause the user to believe that his personal essay has been deleted. If the user checks the page history, though, he will discover that he will be able to restore the inappropriate versions. Why should we give him the temptation to restore the content, become a recidivist, and face a block? Because we are in agreement that this content violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, this temptation should be removed through deletion. Cunard (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MfD should not be the first port of call for dealing with mildly problematic pages. Is it needed on the instructions here?  Are you familiar with Handling inappropriate content nn others' user pages?
 * If the editor will never return, then blanking is completely effective. It is not as if blanking and deleting have any difference in terms of server space or performance.
 * Blanking is more gentle because it does not remove the editors ability to reverse the action. It does not disempower the editor.  If the editor continues without unblanking, then he is silently accepting the point.
 * If any editor blanks the page, with a polite explanation of course, and user unblanks, this does not make the user a recidivist, because the issue had not yet been escalated to a community discussion, let alone one that achieved a community consensus.
 * Blanking with an edit summary is effective education and gentle persuasion, and when we are talking about an isolated old page of a nonactive editor, you'll find it far easier. You could have blanked the page in question here without any objection.  We don't like to have to agree to delete others' userpages unnecessarily (where blanking would suffice), and this is why some here are !voting "blank".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read Handling inappropriate content nn others' user pages, which suggests but not mandates blanking the page. On the same page, I have read User pages, which states:"Simple use as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion, although clear advertising and promotional use is. The only CSD exceptions are that test edits and the re-creation of deleted material (within limits) are permitted in user space. A user's contributions that consist solely of a lone edit to their user page should not normally be speedy deleted unless it consists solely of spam or other speedy deletable material. They may have simply created their page as their first edit, and could return at any time. Such pages should be sent to Miscellany for deletion and the user notified as normal." This tells users such as the nominator that pages created by SPAs "should be sent to MfD". Blanking is more gentle because it does not remove the editors ability to reverse the action. – why should we give single-purpose accounts the chance to reverse the removal of inappropriate content? If any editor blanks the page, with a polite explanation of course, and user unblanks, this does not make the user a recidivist, because the issue had not yet been escalated to a community discussion, let alone one that achieved a community consensus. – we are debating this inappropriate userpage in a community discussion and were the user to unblank the userpage if this discussion were closed as blank, you would have indirectly allowed him to violate community consensus. Your voting "blank" enables content that violates WP:NOTWEBHOST to remain in the revision history. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why do editors prefer blanking over deletion? Cunard (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it is silly to bring such unimportant things to a community discussion for administrative, and while we have had the discussion now, we don't want to encourage people to flood MfD with these things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Misusing Wikipedia as a webhost is not "unimportant". This is a legitimate use of MfD. MfD is not "flooded" with pages such as this, so I don't see that as a valid reason. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe if people "flooded" MfD with these things then, like with the MySpace games, people would stop creating them by the dozen every day and well-meaning editors wouldn't have to devote so much energy to arguing for the freedom of expression of users who create a guestbook page in user space and then never return to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any connection between the rate of production of pages like this and what we do with them. Alfy came and went.  He will never read this page.  Nor will Alfy#2, before or after he creates a similar page.  These pages are not worth this attention, but neither should they be routinely deleted because they do us no harm (blanked or even unblanked) but routine deletions hurt with collateral damage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an argument from ideology, not policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy describes normal practice. It is normal for MfD discussions to result in "blank" for unimportant not so offensive pages.  If the people arguing for blank do so from ideology, what's the problem?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That there is anecdotal evidence of pages being blanked rather than deleted in userspace (which in my experience typically occurs in far less clear-cut cases of policy violation than here) does not suggest that it is the default method for dealing with policy violation. You're arguing that yes, the page violates policy, but we should blank it rather than deleting it because of the "collateral damage". From your replies above, this collateral damage appears to be the theoretical hurting of the author's feelings because his letter about how much he wants to have sex with his girlfriend (really) was deleted nearly a year after he abandoned it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am not concerned about this author's feelings. I am concerned that there is an assumption that these sorts of pages should be all sent to MfD.  There is no need.  Just blank them on sight.  I did not consider this page to be a serious policy violation.  If you do think it is serious, then yes, !vote delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote (or even a !vote, urrgh). Nor is it only "serious" policy violations which are deleted. This page is useless to Wikipedia and is unrecoverably so. The assumption that these pages should be taken to MfD is called our deletion policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:28, 15 April 2010 (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.