Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP

 __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   Snow Keep. There is a clear consensus below that this is an acceptable use of userspace and all outstanding delete "votes" have indicated an acceptance of that consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden/RIP
User subpage appears to be celebrating the retirement and/or indef blocking of former editors that the creator of this page did not like. This is unnecessary, polemic, and encourages a battleground mentality. Snotty Wong  spout 22:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Context is everything. A list like this, in a more neutral context, would be fine.  It seems clear that this is just a posthumous "blacklist".  While I doubt many would mourn the retirement/blocking of the named editors, we do often delete this sort of list as inappropriate. Gigs (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep These are all editors that seem to have retired and so I created this page as a way of remembering them, as their contributions will fade in time and it can be difficult to remember account names exactly. There is no particular slant to this list other than the fact of retirement.  For example, my relations with User:Firefly322 and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles were reasonably pleasant.  There's possibly a few more editors I should add to the list but I've just been adding names as they come back to me. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd probably change my vote if the list had more context to indicate that it wasn't just widely disliked editors. Gigs (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by context but it may be relevant to know that I spent some time working upon our article Requiescat in pace and it seemed appropriate to have a corresponding page to recall editors who have passed on. I suppose it tends to be the case that such editors are those whose experience here is not a happy one.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Gigs' point is that a lot of editors retire or are blocked every day, but it's unclear what made you choose these particular editors.   Snotty Wong   gossip 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They all seemed to be distinctive at the time - somewhat eccentric or otherwise notable. For example, what was the name of that chap who used to regularly oppose people at RfA?  Kurt something?  It's editors like that that I am interested in recalling - characters. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It came back to me - Kmweber. It's not entirely clear whether he's gone for good but I've noted it now I've remembered. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this page is celebrating the departures of these users. First, there's nothing on the page that suggests that is the case. Secondly, CW is on the record as having opposed the ban of ANobody (Le Grand Roi).--Mkativerata (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. SnottyWong, could you clarify exactly what it is about this page that you believe indicates that it is "celebrating the retirement and/or indef blocking of former editors that the creator of this page did not like"? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the subpage, "RIP", is often used synonymously with a "good riddance" type of sentiment. This is the attitude I sensed from the page.  Also, several of the users on the list were indef blocked for sockpuppetry, and so I thought it unlikely that they would be on this list for a positive reason (i.e. in remembrance of their good contributions).  Of the users I recognize on the list, I see several that are known for leaning towards the deletionist side of the spectrum.  So, it seemed logical that Colonel Warden, being known for leaning towards the inclusionist side, would celebrate the removal of these deletionists from the project.  Naturally, I don't have any hard evidence of Warden's intentions, so I'll leave it to the community to discuss and assess.    Snotty Wong   speak 00:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the interpretation of RIP varies quite a bit from person to person and region to region, I can't say that I would characterize the usage in the same way as you are, but I can see that that interpretation is possible. But absent any defining context to the contrary, I would suggest we assume good faith on CW's part. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator says it only list names of people Colonel Warden didn't like, which is clearly not true. There is nothing derogatory about this.   D r e a m Focus  01:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No violation of userspace. Simply a list.  It is the nominator who is assuming a bad faith in his attributing and alleging a negative agenda, and ascribing a negative onus to this editor's wishing to remember these few who helped make him a better editor over time.  The nominator is taking his own personal point of view and applying it as OR in creating a false hypothesis and reaching an unfounded conclusion based upon nothing but a few names.  Does the nominator have nothing better to do then explore other's userspaces and create unfounded conspiracy theories???  Any passing admin... please consider closing this discussion as is seems to be a pointy witch-hunt based upon a flawed rationale.  Note the self-fulfilling prophacy of the nominator... in his stating that the list creates a battlefield mentality... and the only "battlefield" being created is the one created here at this MFD by the nominator himself through hostile and accusatory replies to the creator/user of this subpage.  There was no "problem"..... until Snotty dreamed one up.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Simply a list of usernames. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 04:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's comments. This is simply a page in memory of users who have left the project; there is no malice on Colonel Warden's part. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per . I am fairly sure that the Colonel is not a Leeds United fan. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The polemic/battleground rationale doesn't apply in this case. - Pointillist (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not an attack page, and nom "assumes facts not in evidence." As no other eason for deletion is given, default is Keep as always. Collect (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep --Nuujinn (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep . Per the Colonel, its a valid memorial for Wikpedians . It contains members like the inspirational Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though I voted delete, and I'm still skeptical of the intent behind this list, I think that no useful purpose is served by keeping this running any longer. I will not be offended by a snow-close. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with a snow close. I can AGF and take Colonel's explanation at face value.    Snotty Wong   comment 16:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well stated and very gracious. Always best to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And with your comment here, I have struck much of my own above.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep "as is" - as presented the page does not make any statement of the listed users, except "RIP". I've also checked pages linked to it, none of those make any claim about the listed names or the page either. I would provisionally take this page exactly at face value, namely a list of people whose departure is noted for whatever reasons. FT2 (Talk 08:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy delete snotty.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:49, 29 September 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.