Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bedford/UBX

 __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:  keep. WP:SNOW keep, self-close. Consensus is this was gratuitous and I openly admit to being wrong here. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Bedford/UBX

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

More Bedford cruft; in this case the problem is linking to his extremely offensive Twitter account— but also because Cbanned users, let alone this guy, probably don’t deserve the inherent luxury of secondary userpages. Dronebogus (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick. I'm curious where others are going to draw the line between "removing offensive stuff" and "stirring up pointless drama".  Maybe some will think this is fair game too.  But for me, this MFD is on the "stirring up pointless drama" side. I've kind of had enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: I didn't realize Dronebogus had nominated multiple relatively harmless Bedford userboxes for MFD at the same time as this one. I'm even more confident this is just stirring up pointless drama, and am considering asking the community to topic ban Dronebogus from MFD if this continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominating a few things at the same time in a civil manner is not “stirring up drama” even if you think it’s pointless. What is stirring up drama is almost immediately threatening to open an ANI thread over it, which are always contentious. I was thinking I was probably getting carried away, but it’s more just mindlessly getting caught up in an activity than anything bad faith. Dronebogus (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion put forward. Stop this, please. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion.  No real problems.  Policing others’ userspace is the bigger problem here.  This was a productive contributor from 2005.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am a little upset that Bedford was summarily banned. Of course even afraid to say anything, maybe you will ban me next. Not sure what is going on here lately... And now deleting all his user space too? This seems a little much. Unnecessarily punitive. Building the encyclopedia is about building content. Not something many admins actually spend any time doing... And banning the users who do is not productive. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 12:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Bedford was not “summarily banned”. The community agreed by a large consensus that his combative and uncivil recent behavior, history of disruptive antics, and casual bigotry were entirely unacceptable. Dronebogus (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure... Why do you think he stopped editing to begin with? And if he is gone, and is not editing anymore, what is the point in banning him except to send a chilling effect? I know Bedford in RL. We have collaborated on dozens of articles together. He was one of the best American Civil War historians on WP... You don't even know the Bedford's history of what you are talking about. Maybe you should have reached out to some of the editors who have been here the past 20 years and know some of the history. What you are doing is not nice. These users are not harassing anyone. But you are harassing them. I wish you would please stop. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 17:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He left because he thinks we’re “mentally ill children”. If you know him IRL tell him to cut out the transphobia and misogyny, which is definitely “not nice”. Why must transgender and women editors pity poor Bedford, despite him treating them with contempt? Dronebogus (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – I second that opinion.  Its hard to claim that Bedford was “summarily banned” after a discussion that lasted for 12 days (yes – twelve days), used up so much time, and which by itself was an opportunity for other users to state their opinion on Bedford's conduct. IMHO, consensus reached there is more than clear. —Sundostund (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He was summarily blocked for repeated incivility and battleground behavior, which admins are entitled to do. The community debated the rightness of the action, which was endorsed, and agreed to upgrade it to a CBAN. That is how process works here. Dronebogus (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Friend, I have been here a long time. Editors like you come and go. You end up disrupting and running off long time content contributors in the process. Bedford was stalked and harassed on wikipedia by some people saying he was a pedophile. They harassed him on here for multiple years. I assume you are aware of all that, seeing you have looked so deeply into his history here... After a certain point, they provoked him to say some things that were not nice. And then this community piled on and instead of defending the man, you ran him off. And here you are piling on some more. Was he uncivil yes. Were the people trolling him and calling a pedophile worse. Yes. Did this community handle any of that correctly back then? No. And to this day you continue to pile on. That is his perspective. You just piling on. You are not being nice. I stand by my remarks. You are distorting policy. I know what they say, I was here when they was drafted. You are also being inconsistent in why he was banned. Incivilty is not an appropriate reason to ban someone. Everyone knows that. You banned him under the No Nazi policy, which is an outrageous slander. You should be ashamed of yourself. Go write an article and leave us alone. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 18:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When was he called a pedophile? I saw none of this. Dronebogus (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 19:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Provide a link, not a passive aggressive handwave. Dronebogus (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not going to dig through twenty years of difs to find them all for you. But back in those days banning went through arbcom. You can probably find it in the arbcom logs. By the way, I really do appreciate that you left the ANI thread for banning him open for 12 days. But sure would have been nice if you actually posted a notice on his talk page it was happening. You know when I found out? When they put the ban notice on his talk page. But what's done is done. I am moving on. Cheers! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 19:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * More censorship? Not nice... You seem to like deleting or hiding opinions you don't like. I wish you would please stop that. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 12:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Bedford is banned but we don't need to erase his existence from Wikipedia.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As a community, we are not obliged to indefinitely store userspaces of banned editors, especially not users like Bedford. —Sundostund (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep no valid reason for deletion. We don't delete userpages just because they're banned. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 19:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Lots of ubx stuff in there, and no valid reason is given for deletion. Twitter link might be offensive but anyone won't see it unless they click the link to a non-Wikimedia website. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and seconding Floq's call for a topic ban from MFD for Dronebogus. This is out of control. --🌈WaltCip - (talk)  12:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can just stop if you ask me to. Dronebogus (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2022 (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.