Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ESanchez013


 * 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 debate was selectively deleted &mdash; Werdna talk 12:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:ESanchez013
This is the main userpage of ESanchez, which is written to appear as a biographical article in the mainspace for this user, Edward Sanchez. User identifies several of his fellow students by their full names along with a string of accusations which are totally incompatible with BLP. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So I've removed the "fellow students" and other names. We're not looking for trouble, and I'm not a vandal. I'd like it if you'd help me fix it rather than attack me. Can you, please? And give me the heads-up on my talk page, please! Thanks. -- Mr. E. Sánchez  Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 02:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly heads up. You have enough information about yourself on your page for practically anyone to find you, which is your choice of course, but it isn't always safe. You may find the help you need on this User page.—  Ѕandahl  03:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, well either way those edits still need to be oversighted so they can't be accessed in the history. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Quickly if possible. It  does look like a biographical article and has BLP problems.—  Ѕandahl   12:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oversight the list of RL names, and keep the user page, since it's a good faith productive editor. It's his problem if he wants such a complete article on himself. There are several intermediate edits, so the oversighter will have to do a bit of work. Since the only contributor appears to be the user himself, either logged in, or throught IPs, there should be no GFDL problems and the oversighter might just nuke most of the history. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep He seems to have removed all personal material. Mm40 (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still accessible in the history of the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, just have the real names oversighted out. I suggest that the nom try to work issues like this out with the user before going to MFD next time.   --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the user doesn't have oversight privileges I don't see how this would be possible. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a message on their talk page? They remove the info, then you both go to oversight. No muss, no fuss, no MFD.  And far more polite.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that the administrator who declined the CSD recommended an MFD. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm being somehow incivil or not following process when I've brought obvious BLP violations to MFD. Either the page is deleted and the revised text is repasted or the history is cleared by oversight, the method by which this is done is irrelevant. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have posted the CSD, either. In any issue involving a userpage, it's -always- polite to try and work it out with the user first.  You didn't.  Sometimes the user in question doesn't cooperate, and then you need to move further on to MFD or whatnot.  This time, that wasn't the case, they're working to fix the issue, and the MFD isn't needed.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are any prevailing BLP concerns in a page it is always best to err on the side of safety. I don't really care what your interpretation of proper etiquette is in this instance, the primary concern was to remove the BLP violations and either this MFD or a bureaucrat will remove those items. The user shouldn't have posted them in the first place and common sense would suggest Wikipedia isn't the place for your dirty laundry. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - there's no reason to delete the whole page history when we can just delete a handful of diffs. Heck, if the closing admin would rather not bother we could just keep the first and last diffs, deleting the rest. (It's essentially a one-man composition; no other substantial edits.) Or we could use WP:RFO; not a big difference since Googlebot doesn't have Special:Undelete privileges. — xDanielx  T/C\R 03:57, 3 June 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.