Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo

 __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. Several particular objections were raised, which I summarize here: 1) the use of "banned user" template is common practice and conveys useful information to readers; 2) the page contains additional content (a "retired" banner), so even if the ban template were inappropriate, the better solution would be to remove that template, not delete the page; and 3) if Stevertigo is offended by the page staying up with the ban template, he can request deletion himself, but has not done so. --RL0919 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo
Forcing a prolific good-faith contributor for the last eight years to wear a "banned user" template is disrespectful. Unless there's evidence that he's tried to evade the ban, extensive public condemnation is unnecessary, since anyone who looks at his block log or tries to edit his talk page can see that he's banned. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - it is a simple statement of fact. Nobody is responsible for Steve's banning other than Steve himself. → ROUX   ₪  03:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The same might be said of ScienceApologist's three-month arbcom-imposed ban - yet the template was hidden by an arbitrator . I suggest extending the same courtesy to a user similarly situated. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, or at least the general principle behind it, applies here. And I would not have agreed with that hiding either. → ROUX   ₪  03:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In light of all of this, unless there's evidence of socking, I don't know how much more transparency can possibly be needed or expected, but it seems rather ridiculous, in my opinion, and it resembles dancing on people's graves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no reason to be coy about the situation. Stevertigo has caused a lot of dispute on many pages, and anyone wanting to investigate a discussion in which Stevertigo was prominent would benefit from seeing the current user page, and should not be left wondering why the user page was deleted. The comment in the nom about "good faith" applies more so to the arbitration process which was initiated by Stevertigo. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: This block has been in the works for some time now (a year perhaps?) and Stevertigo knew it was on the horizon. Based on my own interaction with the user, I tend to think that he wanted to be blocked on some level, whether he was aware of it or not.  I think we should leave the notice on the page for at least a month.  If after that time, Stevertigo wants the tag removed, we should reconsider this issue.  I think it is too early to remove it, but Peter Karlsen raises an interesting point that should be directly addressed by interested parties. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Roux. I have been blocked myself, in the past, and I do not consider it some kind of personal attack.  Blocks are not punitive, they are simply used to promote constructive editing, and we need to keep reminding people who have been blocked that it is not punishment but remedial.  Putting an appropriate warning or block or ban template on a page conveys information.  It does not violate any policy.  And it is necessary for this reason: given that anyone can edit Wikipedia, the only guarantee of our integrity is absolute transparency.  Deleting this page simply because there is a ban template on it smacks of a cover-up.  We cannot aford to compromise our transparency.  Besides, Stevertigo may come back after a year and resume editing (as long as he complies with the terms of the probation) and he can use this page again as his user-page.  So we shouldn't delete it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment First, a process question - how can we even discuss deleting a whole page, when some portion (the retired banner) was wholly appropriate? If anything, we should be discussing the banned banner, not a page for deletion. Second, Karlson raises and Viriditas second a good point—what is the community consensus regarding the display of this banner - required, prohibited or optional, and if optional, at whose discretion?-- SPhilbrick  T  14:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion: required, per Slrubenstein above. Transparency is everything. As to why the entire page was proposed for deletion... I think the most charitable interpretation is that an MfD provides a venue for a structured discussion, as opposed to the free-for-all and possible edit wars that would ensue with simply removal, or discussion somewhere like AN. → ROUX   ₪  14:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just noting that the user page has already been deleted. It was recreated by Stevertigo with a "retired" template on it. But all the earlier edits to the user page were deleted at his request. This is usually allowed. Talk pages no, but user pages yes, unless there's an issue like this one. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The editor is blocked
 * 2) The decision says he is banned
 * 3) A diff saying he is banned is available in the edit history
 * 4) He's on the list of banned users
 * 5) If anyone tries to edit his talk or user page, it shows that he's currently blocked and banned in the block summary
 * 6) Most importantly, a banned template saying the exact same thing is already at the top of his talk page
 * Accuracy is important. The template was added to his tpage long after it was placed on his upage. → ROUX   ₪  15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet...nothing has changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that the factual content of what you has stated is incorrect, or at the very least implies the wrong thing. Accuracy is important. → ROUX   ₪  15:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly saying that isn't going to make it true, Roux. I don't see anything inaccurate in my summation based on the time at which the comment was made (15:14 UTC); what I can possibly see is that you're reading too much into what is actually being said here, and that you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to believe what you like, but the implication--especially considering the timeline-like nature of how you presented your information--is that the template was placed on his tpage first ("already"). Eliding details or muddying the facts happens way, way too often around here; it behooves us all to be accurate in what we say to prevent the perpetuation of errors. → ROUX   ₪  15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reality is that I made 6 different points which I looked at; I said nothing about chronology. The problem here is that you assumed that I wrote out a timeline - and that too on the basis of what exactly? It's in no way complete and doesn't account for when/where this MFD fits into the picture. I don't think that assumption was reasonable or that I'm in any way responsible for it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If Stevertigo wants his userpage deleted, it should be deleted - speedily (U1). If he doesn't, then it may as well stay. WJBscribe (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a misunderstanding here. The page has already been deleted. Stevertigo recreated it (not undeleted, just recreated; the 1,023 edits remain deleted) by placing a "retired" notice on it. Then someone else placed the "banned" tag on it. So this discussion is about whether the banned tag should stay or go. But really that's a separate issue to whether the page itself should be deleted again. The tag can be removed without deleting the page.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some users might be of the view that "accuracy is important" and that deleting the tag so that it only says "retired" would be inaccurate when he is concurrently "banned". Personally, I don't see the merit in that argument for the 6 reasons (let alone the first 5 reasons) I gave above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My, you get nasty when someone has the temerity to disagree with you. → ROUX   ₪  16:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The better way to resolve misunderstandings is by commenting on content rather than the contributor, or so I thought. I believe you're trying to say that you don't hold the view I outlined, but it would be helpful if you clarified your position on that matter. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not a fan of seeing established users with "banned" on their user pages, unless there has been serious disruption. If the argument is that to call it "retired" is misleading, then perhaps as a compromise we could simply blank the page. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's really useful. I doubt there'll be too many objections for a blanked user page when all other 6 factors are still in play (plus the no socking bit). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So how do other people feel about that -- just blanking the page as a compromise? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not see the point. Nobody is to blame for Stevertigo's block but himself. Nobody. How does glossing things over serve any useful purpose? He put himself in this position, why the mad scramble to 'preserve' his 'dignity,' something that he could have done for himself? → ROUX   ₪  16:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I may be in the wrong here, policy-wise. My concern is that the bn is really a 1-year block and my default assumption ith any block is that when the block expires the blocked editor will come back.  Ncmvocalist fels there is a clear record of the ban.  Maybe.  But why have "banned" templates at all then?  I see a value in stating on someone's user-page that they are blocked and for how long.  But, whatver, if others disagree with me it is a good thing to take a coupl of days and lay out all the issues and then ... ollow policy and prudence. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's because users tend to place most tags and boxes on their user pages rather than their user talk; it's not an actual requirement as far as I'm aware. I'm not suggesting that the banned template should be abandoned. I'm saying that due to the fact that the same tag is being used on the user talk page (which is more useful anyway), there's no need to place it on the user page as well. I seem to remember that we've had situations where users who have been banned have had their userpages left in a certain way (eg; blanked) for the duration of the ban though all bets are off when socks are involved...but that's not the case here; we're AGFing . It's when they return that the original contents of their user page is restored. I wonder if anyone else remembers more specific details of this...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I put the banned tag on his userpage. That is just standard procedure; not everyone goes around checking block logs. People don't get banned for no reason, so if he doesn't like it, he has only himself to blame. There has been other discussion about this issue; I would prefer to see the tag stay there, but I'm not opposed to just blanking the page. I give Stevertigo credit for walking away peacefully, and the ban is obviously still in effect, so if it's on his user talk page, fine. But this isn't really such a huge thing worth arguing over. Also, why was this brought to MfD? Why was I not notified of this (or asked to reconsider my tagging of the user page)? And has anyone asked Stevertigo himself what he wants (he has already emailed an arb asking for subpage deletion). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and whoever tagged the talk page did so after I tagged the userpage. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment We know that Stevertigo wants his old user page (with a photo, some personal information, etc.) deleted, and the "retired" template in place, indicating his current lack of intention to return when permitted by the arbcom decision. Is there any sign that he cares one way or another about the block template?  --Amble (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He hasn't said anything, although he did archive his talk page since the time you commented (while leaving the ban notice on his user talk in tact). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree completely with WJBscribe. The page should be deleted if and only if Steve requests it himself; otherwise, I don't see why we should really have any business deleting it. (Not going to get into the dispute about whether the banned template should appear; I personally don't really think it matters either way.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've been around almost as long as Stevertigo (he started June 2002, I started October 2002). He got this far mostly due to skating around the edge of policy & occasionally lying low -- rather than making a steady stream of useful edits. In other words, he's always been controversial, unlike several long-term & established editors I could mention, & the banned notice is appropriate. (Now if he asks for his user page to be deleted, that's another issue.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't know this fellow, but he's a Senior Editor II; he must have contributed some useful material. In respect of his service, can we at least remove the big red X or something? It's kind of piling on.
 * Keep, with leave to delete if and when Steve requests it himself. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Roux Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Stevertigo has indicated that he doesn't ask for the template to be removed or his user page deleted . User:Beyond My Ken responded by removing Stevertigo's note and the other material SV had chosen to keep on his talk page.  Stevertigo has now replaced his note, editor award, etc .  I think this means that there's no need to delete (or remove the ban template from) Stevertigo's user page.  I also don't see anything in SV's talk page note or editor medal that necessitates blanking.  --Amble (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep userpage without ban template. Per nom: "Forcing a prolific good-faith contributor for the last eight years to wear a "banned user" template is disrespectful." Re SlimVirgin's comment above, I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but nowadays if a blocked user's userpage is deleted, you will get the notice that page doesn't exist topped by a banner with the text of the current block. This is true even if the viewer is logged out. So, unless and until this newish "feature" is disabled, there is no way to avoid this nasty gesture other than to create a userpage without the ban notice on it.24.18.132.13 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2010 (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.