Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Technophant/sandbox2

 __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 closed. The content in question has been removed by the editor themselves, although there was no consensus that it had to be removed. I would also point out that 's assertion that 's AltMed topic ban includes discussion of editors who edit such articles is plainly wrong and I find that from an administrative viewpoint, the edits to the page being discussed do not constitute a topic ban violation. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC) ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Technophant/sandbox2


This page is an attack piece and should be speedily deleted. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: I thought preparation of SPIs and other Wikipedia business in one's own userspace, especially a subpage, was specifically allowed. It appears to me that Technophant is doing just that. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's correct. There's nothing wrong with compiling SPI information, etc on one's own userpage. In fact it was originally added to my talk page but then removed, but there was nothing improper about putting it on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a test page, not a attack page.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is no reason. Well from what I can see to delete that page, firstly its a user space sandbox and from what I can remember, SPI cases are not personal attacks. Therefore this page should be a keeper, unless the creator does not want it because it is in his userspace not in main or wikipedia space. --Acetotyce (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems the page was created as retribution because I provided evidence that User:Technophant is a possible sock. User:Technophant was recently banned from discussing anything related to alternative medicine articles. This includes editors who edit such articles. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep You would think that a user who has warned about taking too many editors to SPI here would know what is acceptable for SPI investigations. Of course I want to keep this page. I was unsure if I was going to take this case to the noticeboard or not, however User:QuackGuru intrusiveness will likely boomerang against themselves by getting more skeptical attention about what other accounts he may used during their 3 year absence (July, 2010 to Oct 2013) from WP . ~Technophant (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:Attack page applies to articles. The applicable guideline here is WP:POLEMIC which specifically makes exception for the collection of factual evidence, provided its use is imminent (such as compiling diffs for SPI). Such seems to be the case here. I'm a bit skeptical on the merits of the SPI itself, but deleting the page isn't the answer. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:POLEMIC: Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.
 * He is accusing me of being User:SkepticalRaptor and User:Yobol without factual evidence. There is no merit to a flawed SPI report because there is no evidence of anything. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation, it's a draft of an SPI report. The clerks will determine whether there is evidence or not, should the report make it that far. If it doesn't, I expect Technophant will blank the sandbox in accordance with WP:POLEMIC. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Permanent ban - Fucking bullshit. But please, drop a request for a check-user on the three of us. You'll be laughed off of Wikipedia. Oh wait, Wikipedia admins don't give a shit about drama. LMFFAO. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2014 (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.