Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xizes/VandalismArea

 __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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Xizes/VandalismArea
Useless vandalism sandbox, unmonitored as user is indef blocked. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  14:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a user page of an abandoned, permanently blocked user. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Pages that encourage and condone vandalism should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and User pages (permanent link). Vandalism pages damage Wikipedia's reputation; from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!: "an IP, while removing vandalism [on User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!], wrote in an edit summary, "Removed NPOV spam, obsessively promoting TROLL as vandalism as opposed to spam, comedy, etc. Are you a wikipedia administrator?" The potential for BLP violations on such a page is great. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blood reaper/Vandalism page, the page had homophobic slurs and copyrighted content that had remained there for months if not years. There is no need to let pages that allow gratuitously offensive content to remain on Wikipedia. Because vandalism pages are rarely, if ever, maintained by their creators, they should be deleted to prevent libelous content buried beneath pages of vandalism from remaining there. Vandalboxes waste the time of vandal patrollers who must read the page's rules to see if the vandalism should be reverted. This time could be better spent reverting actual vandalism in Wikipedia articles. The page does not help prevent vandalism because vandals are going to vandalize the mainspace or the user's userpage regardless of pages such as this. Vandals/trolls derive more pleasure in vandalizing pages in the mainspace when such actions are forbidden. Permitting such pages to remain on Wikipedia fosters the attitude that vandalism is acceptable on Wikipedia. I believe that that is unacceptable. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pages like this could damage Wikipedia's reputation. A page with "fuck" repeated multiple times is a bad image for Wikipedia. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The user is gone and personal sandboxes are fine but this one encourages vandalism and has gotten totally out of hand. Alternatively, someone could have just blanked the offending parts as if they were participating in using the sandbox.  EdEColbert  Let me know 07:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, vandalism. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:32, 24 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.