Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MilesM11


 * 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 issue has been resolved via removal of the disputed material; therefore Keep. Newyorkbrad 13:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MilesM11
Homophobic and potentially offensive material BURNyA 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or revert to this archive. Warn user. This is a blatant attack page towards User:Signalhead, an established user. User:MilesM11's mimics that of Signal's page but adds homosexual insults. Clear violation of User page policy. I've notified User:Signalhead of this discussion. - Mtmelendez (Talk 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Revert to revision 156549096 and request oversight for revisions 156549096, 156549096, and 156549359 (the three that contain the offensive material), provided of course Signalhead wishes it (which is a requirement). There's no editorial reason to keep any reversion of user pages, since they're not articles, but the content in this situation could certainly be considered libelous. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete/revert clear violation of userspace guidelines, blatant attack page. Hut 8.5 09:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as libellous attack page (implying someone to be homosexual, without providing proof, is considered libel in many jurisdictions). However, as a side point, I disagree with the nominator's wording; the reason to delete this page is not that it's "homophobic", as homophobia is a legitimate point of view (just as being pro-gay rights is a legitimate point of view). The reason for deleting this page is that it directly attacks an editor personally. If it had said "This user believes homosexuality is sinful and/or should be a crime", or something along those lines, I would have !voted Keep. WaltonOne 09:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I copypasted it from an old edit of signalheads page. It is not libellous. Now GTFO with your idiotic talk, or would it be more 'appropriate' for me to turn REAL articles into my sandbox? My userpage was being used as a sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesM11 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good faith users made these assumptions purely on the evidence at hand, since you had yet to comment and Signalhead was unavailable. If there are incorrect assumptions, then explain and correct them. There's no need for insults or threats. - Mtmelendez (Talk 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Question - The user appears to have voluntarily removed the offensive material; he also removed the MFD tag at the top of the page. I am unsure if this closes the MFD, or if the tag should be re-applied (and possibly restore the nominated version?).  If the MFD is still valid, the version with offensive material certainly contains no content worth keeping.  Exception is also taken to the users' attitude and comments noted directly above.  /Blaxthos 14:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think outright deletion of the revisions in question is probably best - we prefer not to keep personal attacks (real or implicit) around, even in the page history. Keep the MfD open for now. WaltonOne 16:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That could be a good compromise. See also my comment to Signalhead. - Mtmelendez (Talk 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do think it's plausible that this was not meant as a personal attack on me. Although it has been derived from my own userpage, all direct references to myself had been removed (apart from the links to my two sandboxes). Nevertheless, Delete. Signalhead 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It also had links to your edit count. The real question is how likely? But if you believe it's plausible it was not directed at you, then it's good enough for me. Maybe this MfD is sufficient to advise the user about the purpose of User page policies, and to be more careful next time he uses other userpages for his own. - Mtmelendez (Talk 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment First, if it had said "This user believes homosexuality is sinful and/or should be a crime" I would have never gone to this trouble. Second, as if to prove my point, this user is resorting to threats and insults. Such as putting "You recently posted useless garbage that I made person attacks on my page. I can put up with a warning about making articles about small bands but that idiotic claim is enough. I expect an apology, or I shall be reporting this to wikipedia sysops. MilesM11 10:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)" on my talk page. BURNyA 20:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That, I believe, is beyond the scope of this MfD. I suggest letting the matter cool down. This discussion is not a big deal, and by the looks of it consensus is soon to be reached. But if he/she persists beyond this discussion, maybe you'll be doing the reporting to the "wikipedia sysops". :) - Mtmelendez (Talk 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has already been voluntarily reverted and I already, a bit preemptively, posted a warning. I'm sure it can be dropped, and everyone can go their merry way. I'm willing to bet that the "sysops" would agree. BURNyA 22:23, 22 September 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.