Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:H.J./ban


 * 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 Delete. — xaosflux  Talk  05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:H.J./ban
Usually I would just speedy G6 something like this that had been sitting around literally undisturbed for almost three years, but there seems to be a bit more history involved in this, so I thought I'd ask for community consent before pressing delete. Thanks ^ demon [omg plz] 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Consensus is granted. The incident is not important anymore. Yechiel Man  22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and no objection to speedy forthwith. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep important historical archive. The ban may be well unjustified. WooyiTalk to me? 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's five years old. How is this different from any other talkpage of an indefblocked/banned user, which are routinely overwritten after a relatively short period of time? Newyorkbrad 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, but it's Jimbo Wales, a little bit different. It was a Wikipedia Royal Decree or executive order. WooyiTalk to me? 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In those days all blocks/bans beyond the simple vandalism level were by Jimbo. Wikipedia was a much smaller place then. I also don't follow your implication that because the ban was imposed by Jimbo personally it is more likely to be wrong and therefore the page needs to be kept in perpetuity on the off-chance, even though it doesn't link to any of the evidence that Jimbo relied upon and therefore there is no way for anyone to evaluate this issue, some four and 1/2 years after the fact. Newyorkbrad 02:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, YechieMan, NYBrad, and the way Wikipedia was in those days. It's ancient history, and doesn't need to be kept any more. Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It should be kept precisely because it's ancient history. When you start burning the archives you know you're in trouble. Stammer 05:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is most definitely not an "important historical archive", nor "ancient history", nor are we "burning" anything.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for historical interest, I see no harm in it remaining. -N 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as superfluous material surrounding a ban situation from long ago. Nothing on the page actually documents the problems nor documents evidence of resolution attempts (it merely mentions that there were some of both), and nothing on the page shows that anything took place against the processes which prevailed at the time, so it doesn't serve any historical purpose.  Does anyone claim that this page (or even the case in general) serves a purpose in a current RfC or RfA dispute?  Or that it will serve a purpose in an upcoming action critical of Jimbo now that less authoritarian processes for dispute resolution have been added to WP?  Wooyi, are you intending to pursue a claim of an "unjustified" ban on H.J. several years after the fact?  If not, the long time without further activity suggests that there probably won't be one. Barno 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's simply a record of emails sent about a ban years ago. It has no context, and serves no apparent purpose.  It's not even clear, from the material there, why it's even collected.  --Haemo 09:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no value to this.--James, La gloria è a dio 01:28, 4 June 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.