Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Daddy Kindsoul


 * 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 keep--Aervanath (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Long term abuse/Daddy Kindsoul
Very outdated LTA subpage. Only edited twice since 11/07, so it's pretty obvious that the vandal isn't all that serious, and hasn't hit WP in quite a while now. Precedent has been to delete other LTA subpages once the vandal becomes inactive (after a certain period), and I know that several of these have been deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep interesting case of a vandal. Once long term, it is always long term, you would not change it to the short term category. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what makes this more than an ordinary vandalism case. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case the vandal created many sock puppets to argue with the admins, and to perpetrate vandalism. A very persistent vandal.  The article summarises hundreds of clean up actions, and is much easier to understand than the histories and logs that would be needed to interpret what happened. We may as well preserve history like this, then when the same kind of things happen again, we can see how it was addressed before.  We don't delete history articles because they are no longer relevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I've read through it and I can't see any vandalism listed there which almost anyone would know what to do with (revert), without needing to read that page, in fact I'd guess many have dealt with that particular vandal in blissful ignorance. I now kon he uses a range of IP addresses covering 65536 addresses, and other outside of that range, i.e. could be just about anything (it even notes that from a CU perspective this is pretty useless). You're right we don't delete history articles because history is old, but that's because we're an encyclopedia, we are however not a rogues gallery. On your history article we do however look at the article, remove irrelevancies and if the substantive information is already covered elsewhere remove that particular article. Can't see anything in this worth keeping at best a few lines on the main LTA page would suffice --81.104.39.44 (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: going off this report on WP:AN, the case was still active as of ten days ago (and I've seen several other related reports fairly regularly). It might yet be premature to remove this information. Knepflerle (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2009 (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.