Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Herschelkrustofsky

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. A majority of the comments favor keeping; however, this would not prevent a deletion closure if there were an obvious personal attack present. Despite the efforts of those opposing this page, I see no clear personal attacks. Hyperbolic and baseless criticism of Wikipedia as an organization, to be sure, but no personal attacks. Strangely enough, maintaining baseless criticism on the page of a banned user benefits Wikipedia -- the encyclopedia gains by taking the high moral ground in these cases, remaining an open and transparent forum by so doing. For this reason, I believe the majority is (at the very least) not wrong on the merits, and that there are compelling commendable reasons to keep the page. Xoloz 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Herschelkrustofsky

User banned for one year ending May 2007. The page contains attacks on Wikipedia, its editors, its founder, and its funders. Will Beback 01:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Keep the page for free speech and association reasons - with the removal of any attacks on Wikipedia, it's founder, or sponsers. --Northmeister 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No need to delete the page entirely. It at least needs to have a {{blockeduser}} template on it. --TantalumTelluride 01:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as the guy who restored it. I don't like hosting these allegations on Wikipedia's servers, rather than HK's website or something, but we needn't be afraid of criticism. It's just a generic bunch of complaints about Wikimedia, Jimbo, etc. Ashibaka tock 01:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ashibaka. Kimchi.sg 01:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Do blank the page, however -- we're not here to be anyone's webhost. Jkelly 02:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The context for this MFD is that the page was blank for a long time, then HK asked to restore it. Ashibaka tock 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • So this is a just a content dispute? If the page history doesn't need to be entirely deleted or protected-deleted, then MfD isn't really the right place for this discussion. --TantalumTelluride 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Usually we don't call the content of user pages a "content dispute". Either it's there or it's not. 24.91.16.229 16:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Seems to fit in this case. Jkelly 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
          • What I mean is that the page doesn't need to be deleted at all, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. We're only talking about removing the controversial comments about Wikipedia and Jimbo, which happens to take up most of the page. I don't think MfD is the right place for this discussion, but it's not a big deal either way. --TantalumTelluride 05:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, personal essays are fine as long as they are marked as such (perhaps not necessary given it's the person's user page) and as long as they don't contravene any of the behavioural policies such as NPA. IMHO, this page does not. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a user page (intended to aid in the writing of an encyclopedia) for a banned user -- whose banning means he can't contribute and shows evidence that he is unable to do so. If he wants a soapbox, he can go to MySpace, instead of enlisting shills on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Removal of the attack section (the first paragraph) would be sufficient. Since he is not writing the encyclopedia, I'm not sure why he needs a page, but the rest of it isn't offensive. -Will Beback 07:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a proposal for a speedy keep with the provision of removing the alleged attack section (paragraph one) in the proper manner. He may very well write in the future and should not have his page deleted because he is banned a year, on grounds I find confusing and wrong - having knowledge of what lead up to that ban. --Northmeister 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Why keep it? It's an attack page, pure and simple. We can restore it once he returns. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. User page. Protect page against blanking or partial blanking. KleenupKrew 16:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you mind explaining your thinking here? Jkelly 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • User pages are not articles. The guidelines for user pages are they should avoid excessive content unrelated to Wikipedia. The content on this user page is related to Wikipedia. This user is not permanantly banned. Deleting user pages of temporarily blocked editors is a particularly obnoxious form of abuse by admins who enjoy exerting their power over others. Sort of an "add insult to injury" kind of thing. It reminds me of the ATF raising an ATF flag over the Branch Davidian's complex after they burned it down. The symbolism this conveys is despicable. Herschel was only banned because of a handful of admins piling up on him like some kind of gang of "in-group" kindergarten children bullying the kid who was different. Deleting his user page is just plain juvenile. This is the first time I have ever cast a keep vote on anything here, which should say something. If this were posted as a POV fork of criticism of Wikipedia I would have said delete, but it's a user page not an article. Let it stay. KleenupKrew 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • FYI, HK was banned because an arbitrator felt he was not contributing to the project, and a majority of ArbCom members agreed. Ordinary admins had nothing to do with his banning. User pages are still community property. -Will Beback 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Ordinary admins had nothing to do with it? Then what is this: "Arbcom rulings are meaningless unless admins enforce them. If Herschelkrustofsky is causing disruption on the administrators' noticeboard, the arbcom instructs admins to block him for up to one year for disregarding his probation. 172 | Talk 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)""Maybe we should propose an enforcement in this case, pursuant to the ArbCom's rulings. -Will Beback 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)" (from admins incident board) --NathanDW 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Pursuant to a previous ArbCom ruling placing him on indefinite probation, five admins, including myself, agreed that HK should have a two-week general ban as well as a permanent ban from editing certain articles.[1] Subsequently, with no outside input, the ArbCom decided on its own to ban HK for a full year.[2] That was the fourth ArbCom decision against HK. He is one of the most problematic editors on Wikipedia, whose every contribution has been to promote the theories of Lyndon LaRouche. As have yours. -Will Beback 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
            • cont. on talk page
• Keep in the strongest possible terms. Everyking 04:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Attack page. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton. --Coredesat 09:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the user page (userboxes etc.), but delete the essays on it - WP:NOT a soapbox or a free web host. Sandstein 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • That's pretty harsh. Would you delete Karmafist's essays as well? Ashibaka tock 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar (I think) with Karmafist's essays, but I presume they have a bearing on Wikipedia. This here is mostly Herschelkrustofsky's ideas on politics and so forth, which I do not think Wikipedia is for, although I suppose the Wikipedia-related stuff could stay. Sandstein 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep the whole thing. The user is banned until 2007, not forever, so needs a user page. The content is fine for a user page, it is to do with wikipedia, and is relevant, but just happens to be unpopular, I can't see evidence of actual content violations (e.g. of WP:NPA). I cannot see any possible justification for its removal, if you really object to the bits about wikipedia you could just delete them (it'd be rude and unjustified, but there you go). --Coroebus 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per Northmeister.QuizQuick 18:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains open criticism of Wikipedia. - Xed 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to me that deleting a page because it happens to be critical of the project sets a very unfortunate precedent and would tend to quash open dialog on how to improve wikipedia. Ehheh 02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not every valid criticism is an attack, personal or otherwise. This content is perfectly fine. Silensor 06:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is one of two things: either it's a discussion of policy, in which case it's in the wrong place, or it's a personal POV rant, in which case WP is not a webhost, particularly not for user we've banned for abusing wikipedia. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per KleenupKrew. It's a user page. Don't be vindictive. --NathanDW 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per KleenupKrew. Yanksox 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Attack page, and he doesn't need it anyway if he's banned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The soapbox thing does not apply to userpages. It doesn't seem to contain personal attacks. I think now you guys have had him banned, you could end your war. Grace Note 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ATTACK--MONGO 04:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that under American law there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia as it is a private website? Either way, attack page. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. HK's talk page is even more problematic than his main page. I suggest that it be archived pending his return. -Will Beback 11:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we gonna vote on that as well? Oppose archiving for the same reasons as above, but again, he's gone for a year so you could archive it if you feel you must --Coroebus 15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for banned users. -Will Beback 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Silensor. RN 13:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A ban is sufficient. WVhybrid 23:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't fall under the criteria of an attack page even loosely since it doesn't even come close to attacking any particular editors or groups, I/we may not agree with his criticisms on attacks on Wikipedia but he definitely shouldn't be stopped from criticizing Wikipedia even if he is currently blocked. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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.