Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JRSpriggs (2nd nomination)

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. Obvious SNOW keep. Consensus is that historically, active users have been given very wide latitude on how they use their userpages, and that this is hardly an egregious example. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:JRSpriggs[edit]

This userbox appears to be a "perfect storm" when it comes to breaching WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UPNOT and WP:POLEMIC. The user in question, obviously, grossly misunderstood what a userpage should be used for. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why not talk to the user in question first, seeing as they are still active? Curbon7 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am far more inclined towards letting the user in question to explain themselves here, where a wide number of editors can see that, and give their judgement. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but that is a terrible attitude. There is nothing offensive and this is a productive user, so a discussion on their talk page could have gone a long way. A case like WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pedant is fine because there was effort made to communicate with the user, which they repeatedly ignored. Save the drama of dragging someone to the village stocks as a last resort. Curbon7 (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but there is very little enthusiasm on my part to try reasoning with people, who turn their userpage into some kind of blog, regardless of their productivity here. That may be a wrong attitude, but that's how I see these things. I think it is a better approach to have a wider discussion and share of opinions on a subject like this, than trying to persuade someone 1-on-1 to change/remove stuff on their userpage. If they wanted to change something there, that would happen long ago. Instead, they choose to turn their userpage into a blog, which obviously can't be its proper use. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural weak keep as improper process, the user was not asked to remove it first. That said this is a clear ”my page is a blog” violation, but as I don’t see any 9/11 truther screeds it’s barely crossing that line. Dronebogus (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. I agree with @Dronebogus:, talking first is always better than going through the lengthy process of a WP:MfD. Best case: The user redoes their userpage, Worst case: The page is blanked. I see no reason for a full deletion here as nothing written is controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I kind of get the WP:WEBHOST-based objection, but seeing that the user is a productive editor in good standing, I don't think it's a big deal. There is nothing particularly divisive or advertorial on here, just a statement of beliefs and interests. I suppose you can consider this an IAR vote. Ovinus (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sensible editors tolerate the Pags cited by the nom mainly so we can easily prevent non productive randoms using us for free hosting. Highly skilled & productive editors like JRSpriggs are given leeway even for much bigger user space content if they so wish. I get that it's a little disconcerting to see such an obviously intelligent & good natured editor advocate for various things that would worsen Liquid modernity. And especially that they're against religion despite the overwhelming majority of studies finding it's pro-social. But dont worry Sundostund. Religion survived and thrived despite Grand Master editor Diderot boosting the old saying that "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.". And it will certainly survive being dissed by editor JRSprigg. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said in the first attempt to delete my user page, "And is my user page not intended to represent me to those who want to learn about me? Anyone who is uninterested in my ideas is free to ignore it.". JRSpriggs (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides relevant background information, regarding JR's point of view, to editors who may interact with JR regarding edits to articles. --Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Most userpages with expressive material (userboxes, photographs that express the user's sympathies, interest, beliefs, etc.) are, strictly interpreted, in violation of these same policies, and we should not single one out. Indeed, I find the added background helpful in interactions with this user. —Quondum 12:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep JRSpriggs contributes meaningfully in Wikipedia, and as Trovatore pointed, the elaboration of his points of view are in line for other editors to understand his background as well as his intellectual and emotional perspectives. It's not overly done; it's a smooth expression of his viewpoints, and can even serve as an example of how to add said viewpoints. The content policy for Wikipedia's user pages might be slightly too stringent, in my opinion, and his page can serve as an example of how to add meaningful personal viewpoints without trying to advertise yourself. Radlrb (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could see a case for deletion if this user had no other edits to the project, but this is a productive editor and it can be a helpful guide to any biases they may show if they choose to edit in any of these topics in the mainspace. I also don't see any content that is an egregious violation of WP:POLEMIC.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pawnkingthree essentially. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: Doesn’t seem that webhosty to me. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:16, 11 November 2022 (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.