Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hornetman16/Bar


 * 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The result of the debate was Keep - Deletion nomination withdrawn and consensus is to keep. Adambro 12:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Hornetman16/Bar
Subpage of banned user I placed but it was removed. Also delete all of these. ''' SLSB talk •  contrib  ''' 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Close please
 * Didn't mean to cause disruption.  SLSB  talk  •  contrib   19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As an admin involved in his block, I can state with no hesitation that Hornetman is not banned. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. I could've sworn -- hmmm


 * As an uninvolved admin, I'm confused... if he was indef. blocked as a sock-puppeteer, why wasn't he banned? Isn't that the usual practice? Xoloz 17:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the blocking admin, I'd like to state here that User:Hornetman16 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock-puppeteer. His sock accounts have both now been indefblocked too. Indef blocking does not mean a ban - see WP:BAN for a clear statement on this position. We do not ban people for socking, by default, unless policy has changed somewhere recently - A l is o n  ☺ 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly know the difference between an indef. block and a ban, but I had thought abusive sockpuppetry normally resulted in banning. Blocking isn't my forte, so I'm probably mistaken, although I can't really grasp why WP wouldn't ban abusive sockpuppeteers as a general practice. Xoloz 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BAN certainly does not cover this. Note that at least one admin is still active, having been a sock-puppeteer. I'm more than familiar with the sockery involved in this case and, as the blocking admin, can assure you that a community ban is neither appropriate not extant in this case. If you want to see a 'real' abusive sock-puppeteer, check out RMS or JB196 or Verdict; all of these guys I've had extensive dealings with and all three are banned (some twice!) via WP:CSN and ArbCom - A l is o n  ☺ 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Somebody smarter than me should probably devise an easy semantic method for distinguishing between "real abusive" sockpuppeteers and other "routine abusive" sockpuppeteers.  That's the source of my confusion, and I see (in reading the current drafts of WP:SOCK and WP:BAN) that the issue is not directly addressed. Xoloz 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's usual procedure to check in with the blocking admin, esp. before actions commence which assume certain things. Like *ahem* changing the tags on the userpage from 'blocked' to 'banned'. If I'm in doubt, I check with the blocking admin - A l is o n  ☺ 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, neither I (nor SLSB, it appears) changed the blocking tags. I made the mistake of trusting them (without checking the history), before a few G5 speedies that I've now restored. Xoloz 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, yes. The tags should not have been changed by that editor without discussion - A l is o n  ☺ 17:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - user has not been banned and I see no clear reason for deletion here - A l is o n  ☺ 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I removed the speedy delete tags because I felt the reason for deletion didn't make it clear in reference to the criteria why the pages should be deleted. Once SLSB replaced the tag without clarifying the issue I raised I left a message on their talk page suggesting that if there wasn't a clear criteria under which these can be deleted then speedy deletion is not appropriate. I welcome this MfD as this permits a fuller discussion, but see no real justification to delete these. Deleting things unnecessarily is not good practice, these pages weren't created by a banned user whilst they were banned (the only possibly relevant CSD criteria) and they doesn't seem to be a problem with them. Adambro 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * NoteActually that was a mistake on my part. I didn't realize I was reposting it. I typed it in the wrong window the second time and didn't realize it. Sorry for the mistake.  SLSB  talk  •  contrib   20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep since he is "merely" indef blocked. It remains possible HM16 will be unblocked, although I suspect it might be a bit of time. Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Why keep it? He's indefinatley blocked, it has no use for his userpage or anything, it's just an old relic of a former user. Cheers,  Je tL ov e r (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It seems to me that the subpages off his user page should be treated the same way as his user page was treated. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 07:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The only reason the userpage is on there is to show he's blocked. There really is no important reason to keep the subpages. Whats the point?  SLSB  talk  •  contrib   15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. They guy is indefblocked - he is not banned. There is the (remote) possibility he may be unblocked and we must respect that. Stop kicking the guy while he's down. The reason his userpage was deleted in the first place was because of repeated abuse of WP:USER, that's all. - A l is o n  ☺ 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep There is no justification under User page to delete these pages. Stick-it-to-'em-when-they-are-blocked is not a basis for deleting this user's subpages. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per most of the above, but especially per Alison. ElinorD (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, under G5 - subpages of banned users are deleted. This is an indef. blocked user. Banned != indef. blocked.  Mi r a n da   17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, to quote WP:CSD G5, "Pages created by banned users while they were banned." Adambro 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, I apologize for the mix up. This user isn't banned, so G5 doesn't really apply here. That was my point.  Mi r a n da   18:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alison. Ne ra n e i   (talk) 19:17, 26 August 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.