Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HistoryBuffEr


 * 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 deleted as an attack page— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

User:HistoryBuffEr
Two years ago, this user was sanctioned by the ArbCom, and responded several months later by replacing his user page with an attack-filled rant. Last year, someone else blanked the statements, but last week, this user reverted it back (and it was his first edit in 23 months. I believe that these statements, however true or false they might be, contradict the Polemical statements clause of WP:USER, and thus do not belong. TML 14:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Violating WP:USERPAGE and is just views about something (which are biased). Telly addict  17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment On that note, I believe User:FuelWagon and User:Rangerdude should also be considered for deletion, using the same reasoning. TML 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the HistoryBuffEr page, but the other two shall remain, since they are merely opinions expressed politely instead of personal attacks. Wooyi 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a semi-related comment, I find it funny that people constantly complain that lots of people don't like it when you criticize admins. On most other sites I've seen, there is an explicit rule to the tune of "You may not criticize admins/mods/whatever. You may not question admins/mods/whatever. You may not disagree with admins/mods/whatever. Doing these things will cause an immediate ban." And it's funny they don't see the irony when all but the most blatantly inflammatory rants are allowed to stay, when next to no other site would tolerate people criticizing the entire structure. Including some other Wikimedia projects, too. -Amarkov moo! 04:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia should tolerate criticism of admins because there is a difference here, that the admins here do not own Wikipedia and they are just a group of wikipedians with more power entrusted by the community to help Wikipedia improve. In other sites, the admins own the website in a proprietary nature, that's different. Wooyi 16:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not saying that we should be more strict; I don't think that at all. I just think it's funny that people don't recognize that on no other website would they be allowed to complain about the entire thing. -Amarkov moo! 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Historybuffer as an attack page. If you want the other two deleted, then nominate them separately as they are unrelated to the nominated page as far as I can tell. Koweja 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Has attacks that are not true. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indef the user too, I think that is what he needs if he's posting only a polemic randt on the userpage. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I support deletion without reservation, but a block would be too harsh, considering that he's inactive and we should move on instead of entangling in old disputes. Blocking is for prevention, not retaliation, since the user isn't around anymore there isn't anyting to "prevent". Wooyi 19:30, 26 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.