Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Clockwork Soul

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 delete enough time-wasting. If "there's no useful reason" to restore a page (quoting the person who restored it), then it really shouldn't have been restored in the first place. Awyong J. M. Salleh 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Clockwork Soul

It's the userpage of a long blocked user, which has been deleted for a good while. User:1ne restored the page, and removed a prod I had added to it, so here it is. There appears to be no historical reason to keep the page, this should just be plain housekeeping/WP:DENY pruning. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• We 'prune' things per essays now? 1ne 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  No sniping. Is there a useful reason to have the page or not? Newyorkbrad 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Excuse me? Who am I "sniping"? DENY is an essay, not policy. No, there's no useful reason. Delete, but not per DENY. 1ne 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as page of banned user and per PROD. WP:DENY is getting out of hand, it's only an essay, one I dissagree with at that. What's more its intention is to deny notability and recognition to vandals who seek attention, not for banned users that happen to have userpages outstanding. Wintermut3 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It explains that this is an impersonator and a blocked user, and not a sock or doppelganger. This is important. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the DenyRecognition reasoning. This user is indefinitely blocked and has no need of user pages, and a notice that the user (which was registered and edited on one day nearly two years ago) is blocked is not useful for other editors. I think it is telling that the template on that page, {{imposter}}, was deleted nearly six months ago.

  Note that, before 1ne objects, DenyRecognition explains my position and reasoning more thoroughly and clearly than I could easily write out here, and that linking to it does not suggest that it is policy (especially when it says "It is not a policy or guideline" right at the top in a box). I suspect 1ne restored this page more to make a point against any action that is not explicitly suggested by policy than out of a good-faith belief that keeping the user page is beneficial. Consider his statement above, for example: "No, there's no useful reason. Delete, but not per DENY." —{admin} Pathoschild 23:02:31, 01 March 2007 (UTC)

  If it's not policy, then why are you deleting pages per it without discussion? 1ne 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  The deletion policy does not prohibit deletion not explicitly endorsed, nor should it— common sense and the interests of the encyclopedia prevail over prescriptive policymaking. There is no requirement that all things be done with the explicit permission of policy. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:41:04, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

  Don't use that 'common sense' response on me; it doesn't work. What you think is 'common sense' may not be thought of that way by another person. 1ne 06:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  So it is your opinion that nothing should be done unless it is explicitly permitted by policy? —{admin} Pathoschild 06:35:50, 02 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. Wikipedia is not an anarchy; neither IAR nor 'policy is not set in stone' are blank checks to go out and do anything to your liking. If there's dispute (like there is over DENY), then it's best not to IAR. 1ne 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  OK I saw someone doing a load of formatting updates to some pages earlier, some based on WP:MOS (only a guideline) and some not even on that. I'll let you have a link so you can revert them, they'll look like crap afterwards, but heaven forbid someone do something to improve the encyclopedia without a pretty "policy" tag permitting it. --pgk 21:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Do not put words in my mouth; if you've been paying attention to what I've been saying, I never said that IAR was broken or a bad idea. What I said is that if something's disputed (like DENY is), then it's best not to invoke "common sense" or ignore all rules. I doubt there's dispute over formatting updates, and in that case ignoring rules is okay. 1ne 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  There have been a number of rather strained formatting controversies; very nearly everything can be disputed by at least some people. When there is strong support for a practice and it is unlikely that the detractors can be convinced, I think it is up to the individual editors' judgment whether to proceed or not based on what they believe to be the best interests of the encyclopedia.

  Both of us act towards the best interests of the project as we see it, but we seem to have disagreed over what that is from the moment we first spoke. What about DenyRecognition do you disagree with? Is your only concern that it is not policy, or is there something else you disagree with? Some editors were initially concerned with deleting sockpuppet's pages, for example, and this problem has since been addressed (both on the page and by Pathosbot correcting templates). —{admin} Pathoschild 07:46:59, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

  No words in your mouth, you were asked a direct question "So it is your opinion that nothing should be done unless it is explicitly permitted by policy?" and gave the answer "Yes". I know that wasn't exactly what you meant, and that was the point in my response, it isn't a black and white situation. Guidelines by definition are not supported by everybody else they would be policy. There is a dispute there. I can't see the practicality of your suggestion, the vast majority of stuff done on wiki is not mandated by policy, nor does it have contradicting policy. If WP:DENY had never been written and the page had been deleted with a summary along the lines of "banned user, not point in cluttering up the place" we probably wouldn't be here. Your undeletion of your own accord following up with a delete vote here is at best bureaucratic ("I don't believe a process was followed properly, since I don't believe WP:DENY should be applied ever since some people have disagreed with it being applied in certain circumsances", rather than looking to the outcome, "does the outcome better the encyclopedia even in the smallest of ways?") or at worst was just merely making a WP:POINT wasting time here for your own personal crusade against essays. As WP:POINT says if you think essays have no place on wikipedia, discuss it with the community and get them removed, going around and undoing everything based on what you perceive as a dispute is simply ridiculous --pgk 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to User:ClockworkSoul. Don't delete. I'd hardly call an arrow and a link a place in Wikipedian culture. Gracenotes^T § 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If it actually gave information on him, I would say to keep as a piece of Wikipedia history, but the page says next to nothing. -Amarkov moo! 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Indifferent, but I think we should get back to writing Wikipedia! :) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. BTW, using the same reasoning, the following users' user and/or talk pages should also go, along with this one:
  • John Red (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Jack Red (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • John Rid (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • John Reed (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Joao, voce gosta de foder animais (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Hereiamagainjohn (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Hey, John! (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Joao Ler (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Juan Rojo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • John, can't you REID? (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Jonathan Reed (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Jan Reid (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • John DakotaKhan Reid (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Aqui venho do novo, John (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Jonathan Reid (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Giovanni Rosso (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Johannes Rot (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Joao Rodrigues (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Juan Rodriguez (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • JohnReid (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Rohn Jeid (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • John Not Reid (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • John Reeves (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • John Reyd (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Jahn Reider (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Hijo de puta (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Dr Bobby (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Scobell302 21:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I deleted those; they predated Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:56:32, 03 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - If this user ever makes an unblock request, this page will explain to a third party why they should not be unblocked. If someone looks through article edit histories, this page will explain that it was NOT ClockworkSoul. —dgies^t_c 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  So you reckon an admin looking at the user contribs like [1] or [2] and seeing his block log may be confused without this page and unblock him? --pgk 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not worried about someone checking the contribs. I'm worried about someone wasting time having to check the contribs. —dgies^t_c 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Ok so he's been blocked for more than 18 months without posting an unblock request and there is a worry about if he does that someone will do their job and spend a few seconds looking into it. We seem to have wasted far more time on this discussion than it took to establish it was a troll not to be unblocked. --pgk 20:40, 4 March 2007 (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.