Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal

 __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:  Delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal


Blocked user is continuing to edit this page in violation of their block. Previously, others would revert the edits, but now they're making edits, undoing their own edits, and messing around with copying things to the sandbox. I don't really know why, but there's no particular reason to keep this around, especially if it's just contributing to their block evading. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 03:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree -- behavior is very weird and wouldn't be problematic if it weren't block-avoidant. As far as I can tell, the only purpose the page has any more is to make it easy to check whether the blocked user continues to edit in mainspace, by following their latest IP address.  (The answer recently seems to be "no".)  --JBL (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Blank and semi-protect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the page to the user's last non-block-evading edit, and semiprotected indefinitely pending the outcome of this discussion. Please comment on whether or not this content may be useful to the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Possible usefulness? It looks specialised. I !vote “leave it available” whether reverted as you did or blanked, based on it not looking actually offensive to the purpose of Wikipedia.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's amateur number play, written in a haphazard and disjointed manner that would make the correctness of it amazingly tedious to check. The author admits below that it is "original research". It is not suitable for, or useful to, the encyclopedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research, WP:OR.--　Yu-Fan宇帆 (Talk) 14:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why delete? This is my own page, i.e. my blog, thus I can write anything, include my original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.33.73.199 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean Free speech? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Xayahrainie43, WP:FAKEARTICLE, Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles. --　Yu-Fan宇帆 (Talk) 10:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Xayahrainie43, and user page is NOT "your own page". --　Yu-Fan宇帆 (Talk) 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you may not use Wikipedia to write "anything". If you want to write a blog, please feel free to sign up for a blog hosting service. Wikipedia is not one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. The status quo has the advantage of making the block evasion easy to spot. Is that a good reason to avoid deleting it? Probably not. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is not quite U5 because the editor has made enough edits in article space to avoid the criterion of "few or no edits outside of user space", but it is original research. The originating editor has made a further case for deletion by stating that this is their blog, but Wikipedia is not a blog.  I respectfully disagree with the idea of blanking it.  I do not consider blanking to be a satisfactory substitute for things that need deleting.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The only benefit anyone has suggested to keeping this around is as a honeypot, which is a conjectural case at best. To me, it sounds just as plausible that deleting the page altogether would send a stronger message and they'd go away for longer. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2018 (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.