Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Devil's Advocate

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: WP:SNOW keep . Process is important and everything but it's clear there will not be any other outcome. So Why 11:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Editor has been banned from editing Wikipedia by ArbCom, and Wikipedia is not a webhost. The "banned editor" tag should, of course, be left. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The info on the page is related to Wikipedia, so this page does not fall under any WP:MFD or WP:UPNOT criteria. While I am no fan of the user, this MFD seems unwarranted and a stark contrast to WP protocol. nihlus kryik (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: could someone explain how WP:NOTWEBHOST applies here? I don't see anything that is "irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I suppose I'd ask how come this a NOTWEBHOST violation now... but it wasn't in February 2015 or for the over two years since. — fortunavelut luna 16:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — fortunavelut luna 16:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, one could argue, and it wouldn't take much arguing, that this is self-aggrandisement. Banned editors frequently feel the need to argue that the place they are banned from is the poorer for it. Frequently this leads to clear contradictions--the article suggests that NorthbySouthetc. should be distrusted because they were topic-banned, while simultaneously arguing that they themselves were wrongfully banned. Thus, the same processes or processors (in this case ArbCom) produced the correct result in the one case but the wrong one in the other, which is a bit problematic. TDA is still intimately involved in Wikipedia, obviously--whether out of love or grief, I don't know and it's not for me to speculate. It could be both. Anyway, yeah, that this particular user talk page (which is a biography + resume) violates NOTWEBHOST is not a difficult argument, but it's not the only applicable argument here, obviously. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it has only become a violation since TDA was banned? I have no idea what Northbysouth has to do with it. I'm easily lost, Drmies, I know, but there's no need to take away the map as well. Also I know that TDA has been sniping at you from mediawiki; to little avail, I am glad to see. — fortunavelut luna 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.--Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I fully support WP:Banned means banned as part of the banning policy, it's not a retroactive damnatio memoriae, and, IMO, the page does not appear to violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone. The community has been wildly inconsistent in how we deal with banned users' userpages, but I continue to believe that we should err on the side on leaving them be unless they contain some sort of otherwise inappropriate content (personal attacks, threats, etc.) I don't see any of that here. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see nothing inappropriate on the page and follow the reasoning of 28bytes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A banned user is expelled from the community, not erased from memory. A user page created in obvious bad faith or posing a serious risk of disruption ought to be blanked or deleted, but such is not the case here. Rebb ing 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha Rebbing--this sounds remarkably timely. Remember, pulling down a Robert E. Lee statue doesn't mean removing the history of Robert E. Lee. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no content on this page that would be inappropriate if TDA were still with us, and there isn't a special clause at WP:UP that changes the rules for userspace pages of banned editors. Suggest that this nomination be withdrawn as it could be easily interpreted as an attempt to stir up drama or "punish" this individual for a recent opinion published elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This user, in my opinion, was a disruptive troll, seeking harm to other users for "fun", and should never be allowed back. None of these things, however, are reasons to delete a user page, and I don't see any policy based reason to do so here. I also endorse Lankiveil's suggestion of withdrawal, lest this be seen as a knee-jerk attempt to "punish" for an off-site opinion. What I do find somewhat confusing is the nominator's expressed opinion: "blanking of their user page should be an absolutely normal consequence of being banned. If the ban is ever lifted, the page can be restored, that's why we have page histories", followed by this MfD. Blanking is a separate issue. Fwiw I don't think we should do that either. -- Begoon 02:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unclear what compelling reason there is for deletion. Standard userpage fare. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per 28bytes and others. TDA may be currently indef banned, but appeal is available to him/her in future if they want to take that step. I have no idea on the background to the users ban, nor whether they would want to return, but that is a moot point. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Don't be a dick. fish&karate 10:32, 16 August 2017 (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.