Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Benon/sceptre

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 No consensus, Default Keep but Archive to history. Benon, please seriously consider acting on your comment to db-author this when you no longer see it useful. This is an approriate use of userspace, but to remove it from search engines I'm Archiving ito to history, making it still functional for the time being. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benon/sceptre[edit]

Flawed evidence page just to make me look bad during an RFA. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment this page was not created with the sole intention of making sceptre "look bad" it was created from nessasity and nothing else Benon 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but now that the RfA is over, do you have any problem with deleting it? Newyorkbrad 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the future i have no problem with this, right now so soon after the rfa there could well still be a need for it, espcially anyone discussing the rfa of which this played a major part, so in short no i dont mind tagging it with {{db-owner}}in the future when im 100% sure it no longer serves a purpose but right now i still feel that it could serve a purpose Benon 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes I agree with Sceptre, who can make heads or tails of this?? Stubbleboy 17:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbleboy: "accusations from the opposing cannot be verified." was your comment during the RfA, as part of your support. But the page you would like to have deleted, that you apparently can't make heads or tails of is precisely the thing that the opposition presented... it is quite simple to decipher. It is two emails. First, a note from Jimbo to Benon and [Nameless admin], in reply to Benon's attached note to Jimbo, and second, a note from [nameless admin] to Jimbo, with a chat log attached. Sceptre has said he acknowledges saying what the chat log indicates he said. So... I'm not sure that this information is "flawed". Nor do I think it's hard to "make heads or tails of" unless you don't want to think about what is meant. Finally, I find it quite interesting that of the delete comments so far, all but one were in support of the candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 05:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be true, but then again, the sample size is three, and my own comment on the RfA was primarily addressed to the same privacy issues as are relevant to this page.
Delete - incoherent. Badbilltucker 21:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep acceptable use of userspace, no? - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete stuff in userspace just if it is "flawed" or "incoherent". If it's a personal attack, then deal with it as such. If it's merely flawed, then deal with it when raised on the RFA, and the problem is unlikely to go away if this page is merely deleted. Martinp 01:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately - page created as evidence during a closed RfA, retention serves no useful purpose and could raise privacy issues, linked to an incident with serious off-wiki implications. Newyorkbrad 01:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information in it has essentiallyk been acknowledged by Sceptre as correct. If Sceptre has no intention of ever standing for RfA again, I don't think that the information needs to be retained on WP. But it can be brought back if need be. So take that as a keep for now. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Specify privacy issues please, as they can be removed without deleting the page. This is a wiki, after all, and we're dealing with userspace, not an article subpage or miscelaneous projectspace page. The bar for deletion of a userspace page is much higher, as people are invited to use userspace for all manner of things that aren't directly project-related. Likewise, "incoherent" and "who can make heads or tails" of it are immaterial. If Benon wanted to, say, make a page full of random gibberish (and you really should see some of the userpages out there...) he's within his rights, imho. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material seems to be just quoting emails, , nothing libelous, and seems sensibly censored for privacy too. I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed in user space.--Konstable 05:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the part about me that says I created vandal accounts and signed him up for gay porn is an attack, email or no email. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 09:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an allegation. If it were made maliciously, and it were untrue, it would be an attack. I'm not seeing the maliciousness, as I don't think Benon wanted to have to surface this, and as for it being untrue, are you sure you actually want to go down the "no way it could be true" road, Sceptre? This isn't the only info out there that deals with what transpired, and you might be better off letting this go and never standing for RfA again, instead of agitating to get evidence of your wrongdoing deleted, and causing more info to come out. I'll point out that the fact that you, and not someone else, nominated this does not really speak well of you. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's an issue that died five months ago at least, I put it behind me, and it really gets on my nerves that it resurfaced. I just want it gone, it's hurting people more than it's healing. Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I strongly concur with Will on this. He had the option of accepting an automatic re-sysopping, as he had given up his adminship voluntarily, but chose to stand for a new RfA (you will have seen my comments on that decision on the RfA page). The merits of the RfA are not an issue now. Obviously, information including the contents of this page came up and the RfA was withdrawn. The question now is not whether this page was appropriately posted during the RfA, but whether it should remain on Wikipedia now. Obviously, there are enough people with their hands on the information in question that it could be brought back up again if it ever became truly relevant to something. It must be borne in mind that events involving this user (which may or may not be related to the subject-matter of this page, I can't tell) have received grossly disproportionate and hurtful attention both on and off Wikipedia to the extreme detriment of Will and other vulnerable users. This is an encyclopedia project. Userspace content exists either to further the encyclopedia directly, or to assist in organizing the community that builds the encyclopedia, or to further the cameraderie helpful to building an encyclopedia (Jimbo reminds us that along with writing the encyclopedia one purpose of the project is for the contributors to have fun). I can't imagine that the continued presence of this material relating to a younger user's indiscretions several months ago, on a globally accessible website, serves a meaningful purpose that could possibly outweigh the emotional distress it has the potential to cause. Newyorkbrad 17:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martinp. Evidence, flawed or not, is correct usage of the userspace. No attacks were written on it, only allegations. — Moe Epsilon 19:57 September 20 '06
Delete cannot post logs of wikimedia channels. ILovePlankton 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is not a log of a wikimedia channel, it is an e-mail and the irc logs are of a private conversation 14:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Page appears to have served its purpose; unless further action (ArbCom, MedCom) is planned, it is now an unneeded page likely to stir conflict. Should it be needed again in the future, it can be restored/recreated. Xoloz 15:09, 25 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.