Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Abd user pages

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 all (with the exception of the stricken through pages). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd user pages

Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now indefinitely blocked due to sockpuppetry evading an ArbCom restriction. One of the main problems with Abd is his repeated reassertion of his point of view regardless of how often it is rejected or rebutted. Another issue was tendentious editing of content (i.e. POV-pushing). Both behaviours are characterised by wall-of-text argumentation which dismisses all other viewpoints than his own.

In Abd's user space are a number of pages which are lengthy expositions of opinion on content or other users, which lack objectivity. Attempts by those involved to change the tone, balance the content or whatever, have been reverted by Abd, despite WP:OWN. Some pages are POV forks of subjects where Abd has been topic banned for over a year, with the ban reset due to repeated issues. In the unlikely event of Abd being unblocked this area will still almost certainly remain closed to him.

Subjects include users, POV forks of content, BLP forks and so on.

By common consent, user space is not to be used to maintain laundry-lists of grudges. In most of these cases it appears that formal or informal dispute resolution has been undertaken. As such, and with the user indefinitely blocked, it seems to me that retaining this content causes harm for no balancing good. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree with you for most of them, there are a few like this, this, this, and this that don't seem to fall into the categories that you describe. See, this is one of those situations that shows me that I really need to get my Wikiproject idea off the ground, because it would be really useful for the first three links I gave. I suppose I could just move them to my userspace and add them to the Wikiproject once it's created. That's an idea. Silver seren^C 06:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved three of the articles I mentioned above, besides the Lyrikline poets one, to my userspace and have struck them from the list above. I think those three are only the only ones worth saving, so carry on. Silver seren^C 21:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, except those that somebody wants to save. As Abd is indefinitely blocked, he has no need of these subpages, and most of them are old business anyway. However, as Silver seren points out, there are a few that could plausibly make it into article-space; so, if anyone wants to save any of these to work on, they should move them into their own userspace and do so. Any subpages that nobody wants should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, though if there is article content-related material that someone wishes to salvage, it can be moved (to preserve authorship history) to their userspace. Even for non-banned editors, userspace isn't intended to be a permanent repository for article-like pages and drafts. Looking at the four pages that Silver seren points out as having possible usefulness to the project, User:Abd/MKR (programming language) and User:Abd/Bayesian regret have not been edited since 2008, and User:Abd/Lyrikline poets not since 2009. User:Abd/Bucklin is a short list of links created (in a single edit) a year ago; of the five links, two are to Abd's own mailing list postings and one link is dead. All of them were clearly abandoned long before Abd ejected himself from the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Most of the pages listed above have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Some of these pages were created for use during ArbCom cases. Standard practice now is to delete pages of that kind. Abd has voluntarily detached himself from the wikipedia project, so it is up to others to carry through the deletion procedure. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - a collection of pettifoggery and personal attacks. Nothing here worth saving. Raul654 (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep essays, documentation, and discussions – I find abd's essays and documentation of events useful and intriguing. I would hate to see this person's presence eliminated or his memory erased. abd has also hosted several discussions on these pages, and we risk losing them. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about eliminating presence, it's about removing a bunch of "pettifoggery and personal attacks" as Raul said. Even if Abd comes back, it would be much better for him not to have this stuff lying around - this material is in fact a symptom of the problems that led to his banning, so it would be very difficult for him to move on without cleaning it up. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. For reference and there is some useful content in there... Rcsprinter (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arbitration committee has been privately notified of this discussion and we're not aware of any reason why these pages need to be kept for arbitration purposes.
Speaking only for myself regarding these arbitration evidence pages in userspace, the 2010 committee wrote a principle on similar user subpages in cases Race and intelligence and Climate change, and the 2011 committee incorporated a similar remedy into Longevity. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's common to delete evidence user pages used in Arbcom cases? I didn't know that. Isn't that essentially the same as deleting the evidence itself? Silver seren^C 20:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You yourself have been around long enough on wikipedia, wikipediareview and in ArbCom cases to be aware of this. (Didn't something funny happen in WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander concerning some of your statements?) Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any user page evidence, I just put the evidence directly into my statement there, so no? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to imply. Silver seren^C 21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The /Evidence page is a presentation of the evidence (the evidence itself is diffs); user pages compiled for arbitration are still user pages. Sometimes these user pages are moved into /Evidence subpages. There have only been a few cases where the decision refers to user subpages; typically the FoF section includes the diffs, or links to a section of the Evidence page. Arbcom cases (i.e. Evidence and Workshop and Proposed decision) are sometimes courtesy blanked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy-blanking though is not deletion, there's quite a bit of difference between the two. Silver seren^C 23:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence pages should be moved to subpages of the related cases and blanked as was previously done with others such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Cabal. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Userboxes User:Abd/One God and User:Abd/Userbox/Esperanza returns moved to User:UBX/One God and User:UBX/Esperanza returns. User:Abd/hold can be speedy deleted as a duplicate of User:UBX/Delegable proxy (which Abd apparently copied to his userspace during this MFD). --Tothwolf (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a number of Abd's essays in my watchlist as I had previously read some of them. Abd wrote in User:Abd/AfD: formula for conflict: "I'm placing this in my personal user space for review; I invite any editor who becomes aware of it to edit it to improve it, particularly since my experience with Wikipedia is limited and I may have aspects of current process wrong, but also since I believe that many minds are inherently smarter and wiser, under the right conditions, than one." In keeping with this, I've moved the essays I think can be worked into something more readable to my userspace. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2011 (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.