Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Proofreader77/Rhetorical Interaction Orchestration and Analysis

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Keep..  MBisanz  talk 20:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Proofreader77/Rhetorical Interaction Orchestration and Analysis


Unused... whatever this is supposed to be in userspace of a long term blocked user. No indication this has or was intended to have any relevance to Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sounded facinating, but nothing more to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was used as trasnclusion on the userpage, which remains in the history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Keep all eight seven of User:Proofreader77's subpages currently nominated, for several reasons.
 * These pages are harmless, and deletion does not benefit the encyclopedia in any way.
 * No deletion rationale from WP:DEL is given; a user's subpage being "unused" or "weird" doesn't seem like a valid deletion reason. I assume it is a type of IAR nomination, but IAR only applies when the encyclopedia benefits.
 * Proofreader77 is blocked, but pages were made while he was an editor in good standing. Any similar page of an unblocked user would not have been nominated.
 * Proofreader77 does not want these subpages deleted, as he will use them if he is unblocked (via email discussion; if there is some reason to doubt this assertion, anyone can email him to verify, but I would assume you'd be willing to stipulate to this). Yes, they can be undeleted when that happens - and that would be a valid point if there was another overriding reason to delete them.  However, that isn't the case.
 * Deletion would reward the bad practice of rooting through the subpages of someone you find annoying on another project (Meta, in this case), looking for ways to irk them. We should discourage this practice of importing battles from other sites.
 * One other point:
 * FWIW, I like Proofreader77, and wish he could work out an unblock, so if you feel that was important to disclose, consider it disclosed. But the points above are valid for any deletion of harmless pages in any blocked user's subspace.
 * (Note: All eight of these subpages of User:Proofreader77 have the same basic rationale: unused subpage of blocked editor. It would have been nice if they'd been grouped together.) -Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you choose to believe this is part of some other dispute doesn't make it so. These are not IAR nominations. User subpages are expected to have some purpose realted to Wikipedia. This page, well, I don't know what it is but there is no indication it has any connection to wp at all, the only edits to it were 11 months before the block, so he obviously was not working on it. I didn't do a bundled nom because they often turn into a confused mess and I find it is a better idea to discuss each page separately. Please limit your remarks to discussion of what we should do with this page, this isn't about motivations that you imagine other people to have, it's simply about housekeeping, getting rid of pages with no relevance to the project, which this clearly is. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - and keep all the others - I am not seeing any project beneficial rationale for deletion - Proofreader might like/be accessing them. His artistic interpersonal interaction with the project imo has a value - and, as a financial donor to the project -I  think we can allow these few harmless, noindexed userpages to stand.  You  really  can  18:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * note: editor is currently "blocked" not "banned" (just a FWIW FYI) — Ched : ?  19:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say I find the idea that we should bend policy for someone who claims to have donated to thew WMF offensive and dangerously wrong-headed. That is not a precedent we want to set. What if I said I gave more than he did, does that strengthen the case for deletion? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want to assert precedents in regards to that, I agree thats a rocky road. It's hard to suggest a policy driven rationale to keep them, just we usually allow a little leeway with userpages. You  really  can  20:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While that is true, a little leeway was already granted. All the edits to this page were made on the same day, nearly a year before the user was blocked. User sub pages with no apparent connection to Wikipedia that have sat unedited for several years are deleted all the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't argue against that.  You  really  can  21:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These were all (except for the sandbox) subpages transcluded on his user page, until someone helpfully blanked the page to make it clear to him he was a bad boy. I would imagine almost anyone who builds their user page by transcluding subpages has some pages that haven't been edited in a long time.  I'd be surprised if the userboxes transcluded onto my userpage were edited in the last several years.  This isn't about time between edits - these aren't userspace article drafts - it's about currently unused pages of a blocked user. I don't think such pages should be deleted.  But I think the "unedited" part is a sidetrack. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to/am considering replacing his userpage as he left it. - Why blank it like that anyway - as per recent discussion - its excessive to blank and add a template like that. He's not even banned.  You  really  can  21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the last revision of the page as edited by PR may offer some insight as to why it was blanked, it contained stuff in violation of WP:POLEMIC, i.e. recording of supposed misdeeds by pother users, and restoring it to that state would probably not lead to anything good. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your probably right, I won't be making the edit - just thinking out loud. I haven't have a good look at the historic versions. -  You  really  can  22:08, 2 March 2012 (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.