Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gnetwerker


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 keep the main user and user talk pages; keep the categories; no consensus on user subpages.  Daniel Bryant  10:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gnetwerker
Including all subpages, talk pages, pages of variant accounts like User:Gnetwerker2, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gnetwerker and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gnetwerker.

Indefinitely blocked has e-mailed me to request his right to vanish and have all these pages deleted.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Because the user requested deletion and because they are indefinitely blocked. Telly addict  16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The user is indefblocked after a campaign of sockpuppetry, harassment, and stalking aimed primarily at two editors, myself included. The harassment included repeatedly posting what he thinks are editors' personal details. He has asked the ArbCom to review the indefblock and they have turned his appeal down. He requested a name change from WarofDreams and it was turned down. He has continued throughout to use sockpuppets to evade the block, and he continues to post threats on my talk page. One of the latest sockpuppets was ; one of the latest threats is here. This is not the behavior of someone who wants to "disappear." In fact, what he wants is to make it harder for admins to track his sockpuppetry. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This appears to be more part of a campaign of continued disruption than a true desire to disappear. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per SV. Unconvincing "vanishing act".  Guettarda 22:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete userspace pages. It's up to the bureaucrats to decide whether his name should be changed, but I see no reason not to allow a deletion of all the userspace pages. The logs are enough for any admin to track him, if that is really necessary. --- RockMFR 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He doesn't only want his user pages to be deleted. He wants the sockpuppet categories to be deleted too, and these are the pages that help us keep track of him, because they list the pages he edits, the distinctive writing that gives him away, and so on. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've changed my !vote to clarify this. --- RockMFR 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as explained by others above. If it were just a user who had been a little bit troublesome, editing with an agenda, failing to grasp NPOV, getting blocked for edit warring, etc., I'd be completely comfortable with deleting his pages out of sensitivity to his wishes. But when it involves an abusive sockpuppeteer, who has harassed other editors and posted (what he believes to be) their personal details, we need to be able to keep track of him easily. And I know that deleting user space of sockpuppets makes it harder for admins to recognize the next reincarnation. Musical Linguist 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We need to be able to easily track our serious repeat offenders and sockpuppets, and this deletion could significantly hamper that effort, and thereby harm the project. Crum375 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' as per Crum375, given the sockpuppet situation. There is a right to vanish, but there is no specific timeline for that vanishing act. There is no harm in waiting a month or two before deleting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Userpages and editing histories of abusive editors are important to keep as they aide in identifying suspiciously similar contributions should they return. Server space is cheap.--MONGO 04:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per SV - I think it is fair to keep a record for even longer than a month or two, when sock-puppetry is an issue. Perhaps we need a policy on how long to keep records of the activities of users who disappear - but in the absense of any such policy, I think we have o choice but to keep records of users who have been blocked or banned, especially when sock-puppetry was an issue, because we would need them if the user came back (as many problem users often do). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Such pages are necessary for tracking returning nogoodniks; no compelling reason to assist them in covering their tracks. FeloniousMonk 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages provides a provision against sockpuppetry. I would have no problem supporting the deletion of these pages in a couple of months (if the dust settles). Grace notes T  § 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no need to preserve a banned page against the original person's will. Let's not be entangled in old disputes and move on. Wooyi 04:36, 19 March 2007 (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.