Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cazedessus

 __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 (and replace with an indefblock template). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Cazedessus


Indef'd user. User page is pretty much an essay/screed about his personal view of Kit Carson and how bad some people are for disagreeing. (And also contains the fact that apparently he thinks dictonary definitions have to be mispelled to avoid copyright infringement). The Bushranger One ping only 06:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Amazingly enough, opinions are allowed in userspace. No apparent "attack" which would allow it to be deleted.  No self-promotion etc.  No actual grounds for deletion - default to Keep. Collect (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough, nothing you have said is in the least relevant. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice how Calton never even receives a warning for making remarks like this? 186.2.144.143 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice how this indefinitely banned editor -- checkusers note, he's now in Honduras -- can't let go of their petty grievances. --Calton | Talk 08:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just dismissing opinions is not cause for warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this how you're going to respond to people? Take what they've written and echo it back at them in the form of stupid sarcastic bullshit? Do yourself and everyone else a favour and just shut your yap if that's going to be your attitude.  Reyk  YO!  09:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to Calton's deliberately provocative and mocking tone. The reason you're giving me a hard time and him a free pass is that he agrees with your opinion in this MFD and I disagree with it. Reyk  YO!  06:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please also remember to assume good faith, as your assertion above could not be further from the truth. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why are you giving me a hard time and him a free pass? I am within my rights to object to the way Calton has responded to people in this MFD and I am not the only one who feels that way, yet you're continuing to defend his obnoxious tone. Reyk  YO!  07:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because, while I don't agree with his tone either, unlike you, he did not use profanity or use what could be interpreted as a personal attack. "nothing you have said is relevant" is addressing the argument; "shut your yap" is addressing the arguer. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's no law against profanity here, so that's kinda irrelevant. And I think it's a bit rich for you to "interpret", by turning your head and squinting at it in a bad light, anything I've said as a "personal attack"- and then turn around and tell me to assume good faith. I know that commenting on people's behaviour on Wikipedia is not a personal attack; neither is telling someone to knock it off. Finally, you've missed the point entirely. What annoys me about Calton's tone isn't what you've quoted above; it's him copying the words of the people he's responding to and twisting them around. Everyone hates being on the end of that kind of thing and, since AGF isn't a suicide pact, it can only be a deliberate attempt to rile people up. That is, it's trolling. It's unfortunate that you don't recognize that, and puzzling that you seem to regard a "cut the crap" response as being somehow worse. I think we're done here. I'm obviously not going to change your mind on the issue, and you can never convince me that I was wrong to say something. So there's no point in either of us banging on about it. Reyk  YO!  11:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on taking that mind-reading course. I'm afraid, however, it doesn't seem to have worked out too well. By the way, did you have an actual response here to the bogusness of "free speech" argument? Or do you support preserving the rants of the permabanned and trolling -- as opposed to anything that actually supports the actual point of a user page -- as inviolable principle of free speech? If User:Cazedessus wants to harangue Wikipedia whilst contributing nothing, there are many fine free web-hosting services available to him -- I believe Wikipedia even has an article or two outlining them -- and he can always ask a helpful admin to send him his deathless prose if he needs it. --Calton | Talk 08:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Collect. Opinions are allowed in user space. Furthermore, I think it was a bad idea to nominate the user page of a user you've indefinitely blocked, knowing they can't respond here. Reyk  YO!  21:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bad idea to keep this page, so I guess it evens out. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you appear to have missed the point of my comment entirely, let me spell it out: a useless user page is a useless user page, and it's entirely irrelevant who nominates it for deletion. And User:Cazedessus not being able to respond is, more or less, the reason for this MFD -- as his inability to respond is because of both his permaban AND his user-talk page being locked down, entirely through his OWN doing. In other words, if he could respond, it would mean he's still able to be an editor -- you know, actually contribute to Wikipedia -- and this explanation wouldn't even be necessary. Was that clear enough? --Calton | Talk 08:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the editor in question was editing in good faith, but with huge competence issues and a really short fuse. They weren't blocked from editing their user talk until AFTER this MFD was started. Cazedessus flipped his lid because he saw the same person who'd indeffed him now nominated his user page for deletion and interpreted that as persecution and censorship. That's obviously not the case but I can understand how it would look that way. Remember that an indef block is not supposed to be an infinite one. People can and sometimes do get their shit together, return to editing, and become productive editors. Bushranger's decision to nom this user page, and Cazedessus's angry response to that, has pretty well slammed the door on that possibility forever and that's why I think it was a bad idea. What I think Bushranger should have done is avoid all appearances of being involved- someone else could have nominated the user page for deletion if it's problematic which, judging by the emerging consensus at this MFD, it's not. Reyk  YO!  21:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Banned users (particularly socks and sockmasters) are not going to want their userspace anymore. However, I'm not sure that the same holds true for indefinitely blocked users, since they may reasonably become unblocked in the future. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Attack page for a user unlikely to ever be reinstated. Continuing to host this isn't productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's been indefinitely blocked, his user-talk page has been locked, and he's never coming back. User pages are an aid for editors, not a permanent webhost or memorial for the whinging of indefinitely blocked edit warriors. If he wants to whinge about Great Injustice, there are many fine blogging services available, or he can self-publish them at his own expense. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep history Blank the page (replace with an indefblock template) if seen as appropriate, but leave the history intact for future reference. That is pretty normal practice and it reduces the page's soapbox value to near zero.  IMHO the page does contain some potentially useful info for other people working on the Carson article.  71.141.89.4 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The editor had been participating in Wikipedia off and on for five years (until he was blocked yesterday). The fact that he was blocked recently doesn't mean that he will never be unblocked. The actual content of this user page is opinionated, but not offensive, and it doesn't seem problematic to me given that it deals with how Wikipedia covers a particular topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, he's been blocked for over two weeks - he only had his talk page taken away yesterday. And if you look back over the history of his talk page you'll see the commments about Cockburn in a very different light from the seemingly mild phrasing on the user page. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should probably have said that he was editing his user talk page until as recently as yesterday, before he was blocked from doing that (in addition to his block a couple of weeks ago from the rest of Wikipedia). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Blank and replace with Template:Indef (which exists for good reason) as a compromise. In the event that the user is unblocked (no matter how likely or unlikely that may be), they will then have the opportunity to turn this into a more constructive and less objectionable page.  Super Mario  Man  23:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Blank until the user has made up his/her mind as to whether s/he will appeal the current block. Generally, I see no reason to delete a user page/talk page unless the user (even if s/he is blocked) asks for it or it contains clearly offensive material. Neither is the case here. And please keep a civil tone. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 01:56, 15 November 2011 (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.