Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bstone


 * 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The result of the discussion was '''By nominator request, nomination no longer applicable due to massive change in nominated page content. NAC'''. // roux    06:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)  Has been re-closed by nominator after restorations   of disputed content to the relevant userpage. If anyone wishes to reopen this, I will not object and will not war over it. // roux    22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bstone
User is retired. The userpage does not belong to the user, although the community as precedent has given the user wide latitude over the userpage. I'll note that this page may loosely fit the criteria for speedy deletion on attack pages as this page appears to be created to disparage one person. It does however, fit what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This page fits the criterion item II whereas "Opinion pieces" and criterion III whereas "Scandal mongering or gossip". In reference to the above permalinked discussion.

The editor has stated retirement. A retired editor does not get to sully the good name of an active editor in good standing. I'm asking for you to consider deletion to clean up this mess. This is not what userpages are for, and this is not why we are on this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure: I raised this at ANI to see if the page could be altered, where I don't believe any consensus emerged for anything. I raise this now at MFD for a deletion discussion. It violates policy. This was not intended for forum shopping. Refer to the above permalinked discussion. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk)


 * Decline to vote - consensus at ANI is that the page should be left alone. This is perilously close to forum shopping. // roux    19:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll place a link here on ANI so that it won't be considered shopping. Let us focus on the subject of the debate, not me.  Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Decline to vote - the discussion was archived/closed on ANI over 10 hours prior to this MfD being initiated. Consensus there was that the page should be left alone, and I see nothing new presented here to cause a need to re-open the already resolved issue.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the ANI discussion was primarily about the alleged outing, and there was an (un)healthy dose of "move along, nothing to see here" in a well-intentioned attempt to reduce drama. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the prior drama, there was a reluctance to engage on the issue of the user page. It is right and proper that the deletion should be taken as a distinct process. Mayalld (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mayalld, the second ANI discussion (also started by Nonvocalscream) was entirely about the userpage content. . // roux    19:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please debate the process on the talk page, and debate deletion on this page. This page is to debate deletion. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my view that the discusion that Roux mentions was rushed to "resolved" in an attempt to reduce drama. I don't believe it was the correct way to proceed, and I don't believe that it reflected consensus. As an aside, I think that there is rather too much use of user space for parting diatribes from editors who have decided to leave due to some percieved injury. User space is not there for people to take a parting shot, and we should delete it in short order. Mayalld (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deleting this page seems unnecessarily vindictive, rather like slamming the door on a retiring user, who had been a long-term WP contributor. That user is entitled to his/her retirement rant, which is Wikipedia related. I am not familiar with the events that led to Bstone's departure and am willing to assume that the statements at Bstone's userpage are entirely and thoroughly misplaced. Still, the content of the page does not seem to me so objectionable as to require deletion. No specific users are named there and no diffs are linked. It reads for the most part as a fairly generalized rant, one that a WP user should be entitled to make. As I understand it, Bstone retired as a user in good standing, without any recent blocks or bans. Slamming the door on them seems an unnecessary overreaction which would probably guarantee that the user will not come back. Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on the comments of Barek and Nsk92 above. Seeking another outlet to try to change the outcome of an earlier discussion does seem to come perilously close to forum shopping. If the content of the page were substantially different than it is (by naming names, for instance), things might be different, but that is not the case. I would also very much think that deleting the userpage of this editor who seems to be a valuable contributor on several other wikis would be a strong indication to him that his presence here is unwanted, and I would very much resist sending such a message. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Also falls under what I would call the "two bites at the apple" principle.  There are far worse examples on WP than this, and it would appear that there might possibly be personal animus involved, which makes for very poor precedent indeed. Collect (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a court. There is no animus and I find your assumption of bad faith, a little disheartening . NonvocalScream (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be assured I did not assume ill faith on anyone's part at all. Collect (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep this seems pointless. It's fairly nonspecific, and Bstone was an editor in good standing who chose to leave. Userpages like this serve as reminders of why good people decide to leave the project. l'aquatique  | &#10017; |  talk  21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If users wish to leave semi-permanent reminders of their own foolishness and intransigence, we should let them. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep/close - Editor in good standing decides to leave, and this action has been discussed before. This is close to forum shopping. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What is with the sudden and quite public rash of administrators trying to get user pages deleted? Is it some kind of reaction to Christmas turkey?  A cranberry allergy?  Perhaps alien mind probes messing with people?  The world may never know, but I do know that - to use a term I've seen on the noticeboards before - it is beginning to exhaust the patience of this part of the community.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nominator notes: As of this writing, the content of the page has changed to such an extent that my nomination is no longer applicable.  If an admin wishes to close this as withdrawn based on the content change, I am ok with that outcome.  Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And restored. The content of the page, according to this MFD, is in the majority view to be kept and also has been discussed at other locations. My suggestion is to keep the content there until this MFD has been decided. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider it decided. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not challenging Zscout's restorations, in case anyone is concerned. He's fully justified, and while I don't necessarily agree (I think Bstone is just stirring up more drama), I am not going to contest it. // roux    22:21, 27 December 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.