Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Franz weber

 __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. No blocked user, in deference to blocking administrator Drmies. --BDD (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I may, and begging 's indulgence, I see no reason to delete or to slap "blocked user" on the page. That they're blocked is evident in the two "other" user places--talk page and contribution history. A "blocked user" template has a finality to it that, in my opinion, is fundamentally at odds with the (intent of the) NLT block: we want users to retract and come back into the fold. No harm is done by this user's user page. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Franz weber


User has been blocked indefinitely. Convention in such cases is to replace the userpage with. This, however, was reverted by BlueMoonlet. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you suggesting that the page User:Franz weber be deleted? If so, I don't see any good reason for it.  If not, I don't see how this is a proper forum.
 * Blocked user#Usage specifically says that, "while everyone can add this tag, it should typically only be placed by the blocking administrator. If the blocker doesn't think it's needed, the odds are it isn't." The blocking admin did not do so in this case, so I am simply following the guideline.  It is further relevant that the blocking admin specifically set out a quite lenient condition under which the user might be restored.
 * For the sake of background, this is certainly a problem user. I have dealt with him for quite some time, and I believe he simply doesn't get it, rather than being at all malicious.  This time he went too far and got blocked, but that's not necessarily a reason for all the people he has annoyed to "pile on".  Please forgive me if that last is not an accurate description of what is happening, but it is how it seems to me and I was concerned enough to make a small push back. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with everything that Bluemoonlet wrote. Problematic user, perhaps not especially malicious. It's the second time that he gets into trouble over legal threats, though (see talk page history), so perhaps he'll get the message this time. Looks like he could be unblocked simply and soon, so no reason to delete his really innocent user page. --Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Either leave for a few days or simply blank it (which would make it easier for the blocked user to restore the content, which itself is not problematic, iff he ever gets unblocked). In the context of someone who has been blocked for legal threats and may be looking to disengage, having a weeklong MfD discussion about his userpage has a chance of being counterproductive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – Why not? It is a perfectly legitimate user page. Just put onto the page. Epicgenius (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection to that. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep Since no one has even tried to argue that the page should be deleted, can we close this discussion and get the template off the page? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (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.