Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Endlessdan/CLAN IN THE FRONT (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No Consensus - The diatribes of Maggot and Keeper are of no value in determining consensus beyond the basic WP:NOTBLOG vs. but this is WP:UP. The uncivil comments that took many long paragraphs had no place here and both editors are cautioned to keep it civil. Many changes occurred post-nom: 1) the copyvio material was removed (although it remains in history we don't generally worry about that unless the copyright holder complains); 2) the page has moved to User_talk:Obligatoryhandle - which has no direct effect on the result but deserves mention; and most importantly 3) a prior MFD was discovered. Although consensus can change the policy and factual arguments in the prior discussion were far more enlightening and more clearly represent current practice with respect to userpages.  They further clarify the belief only a few months ago that this looks like a blog but is not intended as a blog.  The page is odd and probably borderline but the discussion was thin and limited almost entirely to two editors who adamantly opposed each others positions for policy reasons.  I am not familiar with the circumstances of Endlessdan's recent block, but since those were not discussed here I must assume they are not particularly relevant. I am unable to make a true consensus decision from this MfD, in the face of the recent keep result the no consensus should not be read as a move toward deletion so much as the failure of this particular MfD to advance the discussion to any degree. For future reference nominating a page in userspace while a user is serving out a short term block is generally not done. The copyvio material could have been addressed, as it eventually was, without resorting to deletion. (N.B. this discussion will move as soon as I get it sorted out.) Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Endlessdan/CLAN IN THE FRONT
WP:NOTBLOG. Content borders on patent nonsense, very weird edit history. Note: user currently blocked for 72 hours.  Sandstein  05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.  Sandstein  15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawal withdrawn; there appear to be reasons to re-do the MfD after all.  Sandstein  07:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment not sure what to make of this, but the lyrics section is a copyright vio. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, like I said on the user's talk page, I'm not big on this MfD happening just minutes after his block. I'm not saying the page should be kept, but having the two happen together just seems to make it harsher than it needs to be. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that was not my intention, but I'd probably have forgotten about it by the time the block is over. This MfD will still be running by then.  Sandstein   06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete On the topic of subpages in the userspace, which this is, our guideline on the userspace says subpages may be used for articles that are works in progress, archived talk pages, tests, and "Sections of your user page that are big enough to require their own page". This subpage is being used for none of those things.--SJP (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * QuestionAccording to EndlessDan on his talk page (the only place he can currently edit, sigh), he says that this page was nominated for deletion and was kept before. Anyone got a link?  I'll go digging now.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Curious.  In the page's history, it was nominated for deletion in March 2008 by Samuell. When I click on the link in the diff, I get here. Where'd the old one go Sandstein?  Anyone? Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Twinkle might've screwed something up here. The past nomination was overwritten (look at this very pages history.  The diff right before Sandstein's nomination was this MFD getting closed as keep.  Recommending a Speedy close.  Should not be replacing the old one, should not be opened mere minutes after blocking the page creator (by the same person no less!), and the page is harmless.  I'd be angry if I wasn't mystified.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was my mistake. I used Twinkle to create this MfD, and apparently it overwrote the previous MfD page, which I was not aware of. (There was no old MfD notice or anything on the user talk page.) Under these circumstances, endorse close.  Sandstein   15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be too wonky here, but would anyone mind if I closed it? Or if Sandstein closed it?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. :-) —Animum (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not with two users giving reasons to delete. Let this ride out if anything. &mdash; Maggot Syn 01:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can just wait for this MfD to close, then correctly format things. Basically, copy this discussion to a new page and restore this page back to the first one. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because its withdrawn, doesn't mean this MfD goes away.&mdash; Maggot Syn 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Un-withdraw as people here feel it's worthwile to consider this after all. Concur with WP:UP assessment by SynergeticMaggot below.  Sandstein   07:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment You can see the full old discussion at this link --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per UP. This cries out for deletion, clearly. Whether or not the user is blocked, or there was a prior MfD is besides the point. &mdash; Maggot Syn 03:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if this is Endlessdan having an interaction with another user, as the first MfD says, then I have no problem treating this like an archived discussion page. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't know what to think on this. I'm neutral for now. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've looked over various revisions of this userpage, and none of them appear constructive at all, and look nothing like a conversation although its called Doucheblog (the link from his userpage). In fact, it does look like a blog. And here are the reasons for deletion taken from Up according to their number there:
 * 1. A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities
 * 2. Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia
 * 4. Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.
 * 7. Other non-encyclopedic related material
 * The way this page looked in the first MfD is not the same as it is today. I'm changing to strong delete. &mdash; Maggot Syn 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Synmag, my very talkpage also fails 2, 4 and 7 of WP:UP. Are we gonna delete that too?  This is all striking me as very pointy and vindictive, rife with WP:BURO. There are no attacks on that page, (disclosure, ED did have a variant of an "attack" page once in his userspace, I speedy deleted it long ago). There was history on this page that I've seen where it was a "conversation" of sorts with a previous user.  Whether that's still the case, I dunno.  It's userspace folks.  It probably fails WP:UP, as do about 50% of userspace subpages that I've seen.  It ain't hurtin' no one. It was nominated for deletion by an editor that went all PrefixIndex on a user that he had just blocked for borderline incivility at best, and is still blocked last I checked, unable to even defend his space or explain it at MFD.  Strongly say Speedy close, as I would for any other user that was being maligned in this way, and strongly recommend that Sandstein, who I very much respect, consider not making MFDs on non-harmful userspace pages for editors that he has personally blocked.  Within guidelines?  Yes.  Within common sense?  No.  To say "I did the MFD now because I would've forgotten about it in three days when his block expired" means nothing to me.  If you Sandstein would've forgotten about this in 72 hours from blocking, don't you think that's a sign that it is a harmless page?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeper: I'm not sure how familiar you are with MfD, or why we delete blog like pages such as these. Whether or not there was a conversation on this page really makes no difference, its neither called nor resembles a talk subpage/archive at all and its not being used as such. If we allow subpages like this to exist, we set the precedent for all types of subpages to be created. How can you defend a subpage that clearly goes against our guideline, and are deleted by iteveryday?
 * Sandsteins actions are his/her own, and I won't comment on them other than to say I don't really care. The user (Endlessdan) is disruptive, his block time is going up, and is giving even more reasons for him to be blocked again. MfD'ing one of his subpages, that shouldn't be here and is definitely not needed for historical reasons is nothing for me to argue over (seeing as MfDs last for 7 days, and a 72 hour block still allows for contributing to this MfD, which Endlessdan hasn't done anyway). &mdash; Maggot Syn 00:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * if we allow subpages like this to exist, we set the precedent for all types of subpages to be created. EndlessDan's subpage is not the first, or last, subpage that is borderline useless, and it neither sets or establishes any sort of precedent.  I have several useless subpages, or at least, useless to anyone but me.  So do most editors.  Are we going to MFD my humor page?  All I've done there is keep a list of useless quotes that made me laugh.  I'm not planning on making an article out of it.  It's just stuff I wanna keep around.  I'm aware of several editors, admins, and bureaucrats that have similar pages.  Where should we start, now that we've somehow "set precedent" with EndlessDans?  That page already passed an MFD as keep.  Sorry for calling you out on this, and I apologize sincerely for using strong language as I mean no offense to you (or Sandstein), both of who I respect for your contributions.  But my stance is firm on this.  An admin blocked.  6 minutes later, an otherwise unnoticed and harmless subpage, similar to the thousands that exist, is nominated by same admin for MFD.  I'll gladly call myself a BURO on this one if that's what it takes stop a ill advised nomination based on procedurally closing it.  It really has nothing to do with EndlessDan to me.  It's the perception of strongarming that is upsetting.  Again, Sandstein, I don't believe that was your intention - you say it wasn't and I believe you.  But SynMag and Sandstein, you have to agree that the perception is there.  I have it, and so does EDan.  If I were blocked, and the next two orange message bars on my talkpage were a block template quickly followed by an MFD notice, I'd be rightfully pissed off, and so would anyone else - I presume including Sandstein and you SM.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * EndlessDan's subpage is not the first, or last to be deleted either (check the archives and this section of MfD for reasons why this MfD is both valid and a reason to delete; not to mention failing policy). I have to say, given the comments on your talk page in relation to this matter, there seems to be a bit of a COI here. The leave Dan alone bumper sticker is a nice idea. If I were to nominate all your subpages for MfD, it would just demonstrate a point. I don't want to do that. Whats done is done (the nomination remains), and consensus can change, so past decisions will have no influence on me (for this case specifically). I also cannot agree that there is any strongarming here. Sandstein acknowledged his mistake and took the corrective action he thought was best by withdrawing. Upon seeing other opinions, he undid his withdraw. I'd like to see a fruitful conversation transpire, instead of trading one accusation for another. And no. I would not be pissed if someone up and mfd'ed one of my userpages. All of my userpages conform to wikipedias policies and guidelines, so I have nothing to worry about. I once thought I could learn from you Keeper, but as this MfD continues, I'm seeing more and more disappointment. By the way, User:Keeper76/funnies is wikipedia related and not subject to deletion. In fact, under Special:PrefixIndex I found nothing that I would take to MfD. And to end my ramblings: Endlessdan has yet to offer an opinion here, his silence will be taken as consent. Also, why would you ask him to request its deletion, if this is closed as keep? &mdash; Maggot Syn 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endlessdan is silent because A., he was blocked for the first 3 days, and B, because I asked him not to comment here. I find him to be a reasonable editor that is getting a bad rap.  YMMV.  His subpage has no more or no less to do with Wikipedia than my funnies page.  It's a record of things he wants records of on Wikipedia, most of which, in some form or another, came from his experiences on Wikipedia.  I agree with you in the sense that the page is useless, and I've asked E-dan to allow me to speedy delete it because it isn't worth the grief over it.  If it is closed as keep, as it was already closed as 2 months ago,  I am not about to delete it if he wants to keep it.  I apologize to you if you feel I have a COI.  I tend to defend editors that I've worked with in the past and found to be insightful, with unique perspective, who act like human beings.  I include you in that mix SynMag, as I vividly recall you asking my advice and asking for my input on several occasions when an admin/process was taking over from common sense editing. (the WP:NAC stuff and some ANI gobbly-guck come to mind}.  I'm sorry you feel I'm not useful to you anymore.  I will reiterate, this has nothing to do with EndlessDan specifically, I would type the same defense at MFD or elsewhere for any editor, you included. (I didn't mean to imply that any of your subpages were MFD-able, just that if you were blocked, and a borderline page was nominated 6 minutes later by the blocking admin I would still ask for the MFD to be procedurally closed).  I would yesterday, I am today, and will be tomorrow if you ask me to, despite this disagreement, because its the right thing to do.  I don't want to drag either of us down this road any further.  I respect your opinion, I'm sorry you don't respect mine, but I'm going to disengage with you about this.  Unwatchlisting,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hes been unblocked now for days. If he wanted it, he should ignore you and explain its historic importance and imperative. For gods sake Keeper, the entirety of the userpage consists, not of a conversation with a user, but what appears to be Dans thoughts about:


 * Songs, yet not participating in any particular article; unproductive.
 * Getting an apartment so he can purchase a dog (or dogs).
 * A mindless comment about the Super Bowl.
 * And another thread about dogs.
 * If you can explain how this is appropriate given out policy and guidelines, then I'll simply strike out every comment I've made. But the argument its not hurting anyone never works. &mdash; Maggot Syn 08:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can, and have, easily explained how this page is not only appropriate but how this MFD is inappropriate.  Made simpler, if 100% of that information, in it's entirety, was cut and pasted onto his userpage, would we be here? Would we be nominating his userpage this one, for deletion, even though it pales in comparison (by size, irrelevance, and # of userboxes) to other established editor's userpages?  The fact that its got a "/" in the name means it's worthless?  He wants it.  It's user subspace.  Established Wikipedians get a lot of liberty in how they choose to use it.  E-Dan is a positive contributor (at least when he does article work :), as a community we should be a hell of a lot less wonky about a user subpage.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As an editor of wikipedia, you do not own your userpage, or its subpages. So it would indeed come to MfD. Like I said, please check the archives for many, many subpages/userpages that are deleted for these same reasons. I leave you with that, and that only. &mdash; Maggot Syn 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The page doesn't add anything to Wikipedia, but I don't see why it can't stay until deletion of all non-Wikipedia-related user pages becomes policy. The copyright violation in posting lyrics was the only real problem, but they have been removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have missed WP:NOTBLOG, which is the policy you refer to. Cheers. &mdash; Maggot Syn 08:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Synergetic Maggot, we've both dug our heels in pretty deep here. I pledge not to reply to anyone else's "delete" opinions.  Would you be willing to do the same for other "keep" opinions?  Our back and forth (both here and my talkpage) could be intimidating to others wishing to comment.  White flag? Peace dove? Let others comment without worry of getting badgered by me? (and you :-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to SynergeticMaggot - Sorry, I now realize that my comment was poorly phrased. I don't see why it can't stay until the policy becomes widely enforced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After looking through the archives I've found two examples of when this became enforced (mind you, it might go back even further, but I don't have time to check every archive):
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Clan rHrN/Psycho Bonus Stage
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Clan rHrN/Wikihood
 * These were both from the September 26th log of 2006. So its been enforced since then, for almost two years. &mdash; Maggot Syn 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was my error to say that MfD lasts for 7 days. Its 5. &mdash; Maggot Syn 11:03, 3 July 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.