Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:FLTV/sandbox

 __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. The arguments that the redirect isn't useful or necessary carry the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User talk:FLTV/sandbox

 * – (View MfD)

WP:FAKEARTICLE created by a long-term blocked IP. Modernponderer (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Abandoned draft duplicating the CBeebies article already in mainspace. Treat per #5 of WP:STALEDRAFT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Curb Safe Charmer: This is not a draft, but a simple copy in userspace. A draft is a new article, or one in development. There were absolutely no changes made to the page as far as I can tell, nor any indication that the user intended to make any.
 * But even if it is considered a draft, it should be deleted per criterion 6: if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion. (It is problematic because it promotes the blatant misuse of userspace.) Strong oppose a redirect. Modernponderer (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * surely a redirect would address the 'misuse as a webhost' accusation? A redirect is cheap and could be done without having to debate it at MfD? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Several things wrong here, User:Curb Safe Charmer. First, this is not a WP:WEBHOST accusation – the page is encyclopedic after all – but one of simple misuse. Second, a redirect could not be "done without MfD", as you are not supposed to make edits to others' user pages without their consent in the absence of clear violations as defined by policy. Third and most important: no it would not address it, but rather do the exact opposite – serve as a signal to future unscrupulous editors (IPs in particular) that such misuse, even if detected, will "just" be redirected and remain in the page history for all to see. Modernponderer (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think random future IPs are going to stumble on the page history of this userspace draft. It won't appear in search engine results. The IP editor is already blocked, so there's no punitive element to this. If dealing with stale drafts it is permissible to make changes in someone's userspace. Template:Userpage blanked would have been another option. But, lets see what other editors have to say on the issue and how this gets closed. I won't lose any sleep if it gets deleted! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Curb Safe Charmer: IPs are not supposed to be blocked indefinitely, and this block is already unusually lengthy by Wikipedia standards. Even if the IP remains blocked, a WP:SOCK could just come in and revert any change made by an ordinary editor – whether a redirect, a template, or simply blanking the page. Deletion by an administrator is the only way to stop a simple revert in the long term, when nobody (including myself) is likely to be monitoring the page. Modernponderer (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose redirect/Hold on a minute/History merge to CBeebies, so that User:FLTV can be given credit as page creator per WP:ATT, as this sandbox draft was created first. It's part of our licensing conditions. Pinging long-time experienced and knowledgeable editors for a second-opinion here. Doug Mehus  T · C  21:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Dmehus. Pinging selected others like this comes very very close to Canvassing. “Experienced and knowledgeable” can very easily by “have a history of !voting the way you like”. SMC and I know about these discussions, please !vote on your own merit and stop calling in your friends. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC) and asking for a “second opinion” is a careless insult to the users who gave options ahead of you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've pinged you before with regard to the necessity to history merge, so that's why I pinged you, not being I thought you'd !vote in a certain manner. Nonetheless, this is moot because I erred in my initial !vote; I hadn't clicked through to the "oldest" edits from the CBeebies. Doug Mehus T · C  22:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you ping me daily to random discussions. And I don't do anything with history merges (not an admin).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've raised this issue with Dmehus several times before myself, at user talk and via e-mail. I don't think it's an intent to canvass, but some kind of "abundance of enthusiasm" thing (tinged with socializing). I do not want to dampen the enthusiasm at all (it's refreshing), but just channel it a bit. (My own CYA isn't a major factor, though I'm starting to wonder if it looks suspicious that I comment so frequently [though not always in agreement!] at threads right after Dmehus has. I have a hard time, I guess, ignoring an XfD or RfC after I've already arrived at it. I'll bite my knuckles and skip this one.)
 * That's fair, SMcC...thanks for clarifying. I won't ping you anymore regarding history merges, and won't ping SmokeyJoe anymore regarding the same, to remove the appearance of impropriety. As you say, I think it's a combination of those two things which you identified along with legitimately thinking the two of you know everything with respect to our policies and guidelines. You both know your way to MfD and, in particular, SmokeyJoe is very active in this area, so there's no need for me to ping either of you. Consider myself -ed. Doug Mehus T · C  22:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete/Strongly oppose redirect Nevermind; this is a duplicate draft of, who has no contributions, oddly, and it was created well after the target article. Normally would oppose deleting here, but seeing as this editor has abandoned their account, seemingly never to return, I'm fine with deletion. Still, I strongly oppose redirect as there's no need. They may be cheap, but it's an unlikely cross-namespace cruddy redirect that is unlikely to be used. Doug Mehus T · C  21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - A redirect is only useful if it is a redirect that might be traversed at some time. This would be a redirect from nowhere.  Delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2020 (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.