Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz


 * 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 debate was keep. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz
Obsolete page full of spurious allegations that were never acted upon by any admin. Total waste of space. Jtrainor (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It should NOT be deleted until it IS acted upon. Hooper (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was going to be acted upon, it would have been by now. User:Raggz hasn't even edited since February. Jtrainor (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He could very well be waiting to see what comes of this before editing. Hooper (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. We are generally not in the habit of deleting reports to AN/I - we archive them for future reference. Raggz, though he has not been around for awhile, was one of the more problematic users I have ever encountered. I don't think I even commented on this page but I watchlisted it quite intentionally. An uninvolved admin, User:Coren actually said "Alright. I very much dislike intervening in content disputes as a rule, but after reviewing the contributions from Raggz, I cannot help but agree that he has waded deep into tendentious editing and is currently a net liability to the project. I will give him a stern warning to stay away from the topic entirely." I'm not sure that warning ever happened, but clearly there was administrator involvement and if Raggz comes back and starts his tendentious editing again we would want a record of this past AN/I page. I would also note the fact that Coren made that comment suggests the allegations were not entirely "spurious." Had this not been moved off to its own subpage because of the size of the discussion (i.e. had it been archived as normal) obviously it would never have been put up for MfD. (To Hooper, the report is indeed closed and will not be acted upon, but that does not mean we delete it - quite the contrary).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was left with impression it was open and just stale. But even closed, yes we should keep. Hooper (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see a point in closing this if Raggz does not edit anymore, and as Bigtimepeace points out, it may be useful in case he does continue this behavior. Compiling such a massive amount of information again could take ages. I do find it interesting that the only person defending Raggz actions on the page happen to be the person putting it for MfD. Doesn't seem like a valid deletion reason has been given. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong KeepEven if this is a year old, we should keep it. Even if just for historical purposes of a study of this kind of behavior, which quite frankly, closely mirrors other editors tactics here. But, more importantly, Raggz said he would come back, and if and when he does--and continues along these lines--then this documentation would be very important. This delete smacks of wanting to get rid of the evidence. Thats a big no. Lastly, its severs as a basis to compare the linguistics with possible future Raggz socket-puppets.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, if this is blank then it can always be if it is unfounded. —  xaosflux  Talk  02:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not unfounded, given that an admin deemed the behavior unacceptable and was planning on warning the user away from certain articles. That's exactly the kind of thing we want to have a record of.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, treat it as a talk page archive if you must. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * keep You say that it is a waste of space. All things deleted are still kept some where. Listing it here might get some one to do some thing. The admin who closes this discussion should do something. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep we archive finished discussions, we don't delete them. Hut 8.5 06:46, 30 April 2008 (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.