Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 The result was Delete expedited to expedite WP:DENY.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames

This page was speedy deleted. A DRV consensus found the speedy improper as outside of the CSDs. Deletion supporters urge removal per WP:DENY; userfication is one other mentioned alternative. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and deny; there is already a category for such names. bd2412 T 14:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: What a waste of time restoring this and relisting. Given consensuses emerging elsewhere, the deletion should be per WP:SNOW. Further, I see no consensus on DRV anyway, just a lot of process wonking. --Doc 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I pointed out to Doc at his talk, one among many reasons for listing this was to determine opinion on userfication, assuming deletion succeeds. Now, maybe Doc won't mind if this is userfied, but I bet somebody would. The amazing solution to such possible disagreements is to discuss before acting. What an incredible concept! That should be a pillar of Wikipedia! ;) Xoloz 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record, strong objection to userfying - per WP:DENY --Doc 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this and all silly purely 'procedural listings'. For my reasoning see WP:DENY --Doc 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete. WP:DENY is not a legitimate reason to delete anything. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Deny recognition. --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Deny recognition. (Jeff, yes, DENY is a reason to delete things. The more times DENY is cited in actions that ultimately get sustained, the closer it moves to being generally accepted policy. That's how policy forms here. Unlike some of the specific pages I've argued for keeping, this one does not, as far as I can tell, help deal with the vandal problem it's glory only. Keeping it around because it didn't follow process is not really a good reason to keep it.) ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion on userfication, Lar? Xoloz 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userification to where? I'm not sure I see where it could be userified to, I'm afraid. The person who first created the page I guess? But why? Still seems like glorification to me. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zscout370 specifically suggested userfication to himself at DRV. Xoloz 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said it at [1]. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The more times we erroneously cite non-policy as a policy/guideline reason to delete, the worse off we are. Policy forms by discussion and consensus, not by forcing it down people's throats. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or, it forms by application of it, then discussion around what the application meant, and then consensus. Bold, Revert, Discuss. DENY is policy now, or if not, it's very close. Every one of these deletions that sustains pushes it farther into Policyland. That's the way this wiki works, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deny is not currently policy, and doesn't appear to be close. Your view is not how it works in reality, as I can attest to a number of situations ranging from album articles to sportspeople where it's not the case. Don't try to strongarm it, try to gain consensus outside of the same half dozen folks who think policy doesn't apply to them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and certainly don't userfy. Keeping this page will only encourage people to create more accounts with even stupider names. We have BJAODN if people want wikitainment. --bainer (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning outlined in WP:DENY which although not a policy is along the lines I agree with so rather than include that all here I'll just reference it. Additionally I suggest userfication would be outside the bounds of WP:USER. --pgk 17:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please. — Dan | talk 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is simply unnecessary and gives glorification to people who've abused Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 20:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete and crush with an elephant. -- Drini 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we close this again now? This is about as close to unanimity as makes no difference. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with WP:DENY and keep deleted. feydey 22:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Anyone who wants this can print out a copy, and go through the block log themselves. DS 23:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the selection used for "bizzare" is rather ambiguous. WP:DENY should not be applied retroactively, or get in the way of good humour. --tjstrf 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the sensible reasoning specified in Wikipedia:Deny recognition, i.e. "Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. This is particularly true for prolific vandals, who are immortalised by Wikipedia pages, meticulously catalogued by category pages, dedicated specific templates, and who thereby become a notable part of wiki culture." Obviously don't userfy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it please: no recognition for these time-wasting trolls. Antandrus (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without looking back Seriously, people are just going to create crazy usernames so they can post them on the "bizarre" list. This is trolling 101, don't feed them. — The Future 04:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bypassing the WP:DENY argument, it just isn't funny. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is silly, useless, encourages account creation vandalism, and not funny. A number of the names are direct attacks on named people and contributors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 5 September 2006 (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.