Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AmericanEnki/sandbox/GamerGate Movement

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:AmericanEnki/sandbox/GamerGate Movement


WP:POVFORK of Gamergate controversy by editor flouting sanctions Neil N  talk to me 03:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sanctions do not apply to UserSpace AmericanEnki (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. "All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed (GamerGate)" --Neil N  talk to me 03:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right above the post it states it is not a Wikipedia article. I am interested to see what others have to say and if user space can fall under sanctions. AmericanEnki (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Block the WP:SOCK and delete. Wood duck eclipse.jpg..." (but it isn't)]] Refer to Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate and seek clarification on whether userspace workshopping is allowed. Short term sandboxing (which I take to be ~1 week) of mainspace material in userpsace is allowed in general.  As a simple MfD matter, this would be a "Keep".   is not named at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate, but is not allowed to edit the article or its talk page because the account is too new.  AmericanEnki is clearly an alternative account editing controversially, and should be blocked per WP:DUCK.  If blocked, delete this and any other pages created by the account.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a sock account. This is my main account. I have no sock accts. Thank you for notifying me I can keep the page in my userspace. AmericanEnki (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What brought you to Wikipedia? You seem familiar with the back rooms.
 * Usually anyone may sandbox anything, but given that you are not allowed to edit the article, or even its talk page, I think it follows that you should not be sandboxing the article either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, I would frequent wikipedia on talk pages and examine edit histories, a couple days ago I decided to make an account, simple as that really. As of very recently I decided to move away from highly opinionated topics as my edits so far have been in. The reason I know about the sandbox is because a user pointed it out to me after I made a GamerGhazi article, which was subsequently deleted. If you look at my user discussion page you will see my sentiment about wanting to move away from POV stuff, and the only reason I didnt delete this page already is because I wanted to see if it is possible to delete content on a user page based on sanctions. Im still a very early user trying to figure out how wikipedia works and apologize for any unseemly behavior previously. Also note the sandboxed article is not the same article as the GamerGate controversy. AmericanEnki (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We most certainly can delete a userpage without needing to cite any specific rule. If you are as you say, I advise you to save the content off-wiki, db-u1 the userpage, and don't come back to the topic until you are qualified to edit the talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a POVFORK of an article that, per ArbCom sanctions, its editor should not even be touching. It involved a copy and paste move without any attribution (making it a COPYVIO) and no sources were included, which is a minefield of core content policy violations. Little of this material exists in the current article, and was likely removed for a reason. Fixing these issues would require knowing which version of the article this came from, finding the sources, and starting from there. I have already removed an entirely unsourced BLP violation but there are likely other significant issues with the content as well. Woodroar (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Essentially what said. Even if there was attribution and no copyvio, this is still a POV fork of a contentious article that the project does not need. The restrictions on editing it also don't exist so people can go off and make their own little versions of it. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 17:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Woodroar. We wouldn't allow this content fork in any space. As far as I can tell (and other users have pointed out) this user is not under a specific restriction from editing Gamergate-related articles, only this 500/30 restriction, which clearly only applies to Gamergate controversy and its talk page. However, since this sandbox is clearly a copy of the article and the user has strongly implied they've done this to circumvent the restriction, I say the restriction applies, and the user's contribs to it should be reverted (i.e. page deleted). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2015 (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.