Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Guido den Broeder subpages

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
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 While I understand the need for people to want to excise our community's more unfortunate history, sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie, and finally die a proper death in the recesses of some banned editor's user pages. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guido den Broeder subpages

edit

I had speedy deleted a few subpages rom the user page of recently rebanned User:Guido den Broeder. The pages were a few times restored and redeleted, due to at first a misunderstanding and later a genuine objection to the reason I speedy deleted them. In the end, a DRV was started, because most people agreed that my interpretation of CSD U2 (userpages of non existent users) does not apply to banned users, with the additional remarks that I was too involved to be the deleter, and for some people also the argument that Guido den Broeder objected to the deletion.

In my opinion, these subpages (the main user page is not nominated) no longer serve any purpose for Wikipedia, and only serve Guido den Broeder. Since he is banned, it is not our job to provde links to his own Wiki, or to another userpage of his where he provides a copy of the wiki-experiment essay that was a deciding factor in his first ban. The rest of these pages only serve as navigational helps on pages that no longer exist in that form (e.g. his user talk page, which is now a redirect to his user page).

Included are also three user talk subpages. These are not his archives, but copies of two deleted articles (through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging) and of the talk page of an article. These three pages are in violation of WP:UP#Copies of other pages. -- Fram (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in this nomination:

  • Delete all per community and arbcom ban (also supported by Jimbo), and policies mentioned in other arguments. Preserving these is of no benefit to the project, which should be the main concern. Verbal chat 09:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guido asked on IRC for /Vereniging Basisinkomen, /ME/CVS Vereniging, and /Simon Wessely, to be deleted. They probably qualify under WP:CSD#U1 therefore, but I'm going to leave it for someone uninvolved to do it. Daniel (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete user subpages of unperson. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep den Broeder is not an "unperson" in other areas of Wikipedia, and I find such a claim that this is a WP practice to be quite distasteful. Afterthought reasons for some of the pages do not alter the primary reason given - that den Broeder no longer exists. All it will do, in point of fact, is make us look quite like the old Soviets if we excise them. And where den Broeder asks for a deletion of a page, it is reasonable for it to be done as a courtesy, and not as a punishmnet. Collect (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a banned user with no chance of coming back (see Decision by the Arbitration Committee — June 1, 2009, Discussion at the administrators' noticeboard — June 1, 2009 and Initial ban discussion — December 2008), they now serve no purpose and we are not a webhost. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all.I think the unbanning of Guido was the last chance to edit the project when he was back for a week then rebanned. These subpages do nothing to help the project. As others have said Wikipedia doesn't do webhosting. Not useful to the project at all.--CrohnieGalTalk 11:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some could be restored if there's another chance. R. Baley (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all I see no reason to delete these pages. We don't normally delete pages from banned users without a reason and no reason ahs been given here. Deleted pages take more, not less server space so arguments that they serve no purpose here aren't helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the User talk:Guido den Broeder/Simon Wessely page; it's essentially a bunch of now-banned agenda-driven editors and User:Jfdwolff. Since pretty much everyone on that talk page is banned except for Jfdwolff, I don't see it serving a further purpose. As to the other pages, whatever. The neat freak in me says clean them up, but I can see Joshua's point that they're not really doing any harm. MastCell Talk 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We do not practice damnatio memoriae here. --Carnildo (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we're not forgetting him, for his userpage and talk page still exist and their past histories available for all to inspect. The keeping of copies of past versions of pages, or pages otherwise deleted per AfD is not a permitted role for usersubpages and should be removed. A link though from userpage back to this discussion would a) keep available what would then be red links, which admins at a later date could undelete if he were to be allowed to return or a convincing case made for access to the material and b) indicate what was deleted and why refactored material was inappropriate in user space. David Ruben Talk 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Useless. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as they serve no purpose. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 11:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as deleting them serves no purpose. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those supporting a "keep all": why does WP:UP#Copies of other pages not apply to the three talk page subpages? Fram (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of deleting them? Looks like the front user page has already been blanked with {{banned}}, and I'm not sure why we have any interest in actively preventing someone from viewing historic page versions, banned user or not. As Fram points out, it may be worth deleting some of these pages individually, but in general I don't see a need to erase people from the wiki. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, why would we keep pages that are of absolutely no use to Wikipedia, but which are of use to a banned user? What is the benefit of keeping them? Fram (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Userpages of banned users are useful in much the same way that documents from the Nixon administration remain useful even after his resignation from office: they preserve the record. This provides a cautionary tale for current users, as they might find examples of what not to do; it also provides a highly useful body of text for use in WP:DUCK tests. Many users like to copy bits of formatting from one userpage to another, or may even just want to review the thoughts and essays of a banned user. If the user kept a record of projects they were working on, it'll be easier to pick up where they left off if we keep those pages. In more than a few cases, I think "damning the memory" of a departed user is harmful if it demoralizes people who would have called that user a friend. You mention these pages are of "absolutely no use" to Wikipedia, and are of use to a banned user, but I don't see how either of those is going to be universally true, not for all banned users nor in one banned user's userspace. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only the three article pages that were deleted elsewhere, leave the rest alone There is no justification for deleting everything. Why not nominate just those three article pages? A banned user can't possibly work on the articles, so he has no reason to keep them on his page. The rest should remain there. Banning someone doesn't mean erasing all signs of their existence. Never destroy without a reason. Dream Focus 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Those were the only contentious ones, but since Guido has asked for them to be deleted the rest just seems to be housekeeping. Verbal chat 14:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal is not to "erase all signs of their existence", the user page, talk page, and all article edits are left alone. The reason for deleting is that they are of no benefit to Wikipedia at all, one of them links to an essay that lead to the previous banning of this user, and others lead to his personal wiki-site. Why should we keep links around to the website of a banned user if they serve no other purpose at all? User:Guido den Broeder/Menu is the header of his earlier talk page. Why would we keep this? What's the benefit of having User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer around? From the policy Wp:NOT: "More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion." These pages do not make collaboration any easier, and are used for self-promotion. Fram (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought the rules said you could have whatever you wanted on your user page, as long as no rules were violated. Most user pages do not have content that exists to make collaboration easier. And how is it self promotion to link to other parts of your user page? That doesn't make any sense. Unless a page is specifically violating a rule, you need to leave it be. Dream Focus 14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The /visit page links to other websites. The /Articles page as well. And what you think the rules say is obviously not what they actually say, since my quote comes from WP:NOT. Fram (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • They link to wikisage and wikimedia pages. That's the same as linking to a wikipedia article. All funded by the same source, and hosted on the same servers. It isn't self promotion to link to articles you've worked on. Dream Focus 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I suppose, but ideally, we'd have just left the pages and not ever bothered about them again… AGK 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those he requested be deleted, keep all the rest. They might be useful to someone, they cause no harm, and they are in userspace where arguments like USEFUL and NOHARM are just fine. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it is unfortunate that he isn't able to work with the restrictions given to him, we should not equate him to a run-of-the-mill vandal. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Guido_den_Broeder_subpages&oldid=1150990943"