Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Son of a Peach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 Keep. Xoloz 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate was originally closed by SoaP himself, a rather severe error, given his obvious bias in this matter. I have warned him against doing this, and have urged that he not close any XfD's prior to receiving adminship. Xoloz 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Son of a Peach
This account has been perminantly banned, and is little more than a sockpuppet account. Somnabot 04:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if the user is banned, why does the userpage need to be deleted? Also, how do you know that this is a sock? Please show some evidence if you think this is a reason for deletion. Also, why must we delete the user's talk page? Banned users don't get erased from the face of the Earth. Also, this user isn't even blocked. WTH? BigNate37(T) 04:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that banned users don't just get erased... I just figured the space could be used for a better purpose. Hence, I have also listed this user's talk page. To the best of my assumption, the evidence this user is a sock is based on his or her inclusion of the words "on wheels" in the username listed on this page. Please see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. From the looks of it, aside from childish vandalism, this user was banned for being a sock puppet. Because the log for this user is unreachable, I can't be sure however. Aside, this user may not be permanently blocked: looking at his history, it seems he put the ban on himself as early as 18 August 2006(?). I must admit, I didn't realize this until now. I was looking through his history and saw that he had one of those blocked templates on at once, and automatically assumed he or she must have removed it themselves, so I replaced it. That ultimately led me here. What do you think? Somnabot 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- This user has a habit of putting false messages on his/her talk page. Gwernol (talk • contribs) and another have been reverting them because they are misleading. I don't think that this user is a WoW sock and I'm pretty sure SoaP is not banned. Anyways, sorry about my harsh wording above. I would suggest conversing with Gwernol and taking a close look at SoaP's userpage history edit by edit before doing anything else with this user. From what I can see, this user may need to lose the right to a userpage, but outside of that has done nothing to warrant talk page deletion and has only been accused of being a WoW sock by their own misleading userpage. I'f your familiar with wheels' MO, you can take a look at SoaP's contribution history and compare them—I suspect they will be very different—but knowing nothing about WoW's methods, I cannot say for sure. BigNate37(T) 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- True enough. Although WoW takes many forms, this user seems to just be essentially frivolous. His edits seem random: they are dabbling in re-orientation edits, and random statements in the Miscellany for deletion discussion pages. If anyhing, this user is mildly annoying. I will drop Gwernol (talk • contribs) a line, see what he says. Somnabot 07:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- This user has a habit of putting false messages on his/her talk page. Gwernol (talk • contribs) and another have been reverting them because they are misleading. I don't think that this user is a WoW sock and I'm pretty sure SoaP is not banned. Anyways, sorry about my harsh wording above. I would suggest conversing with Gwernol and taking a close look at SoaP's userpage history edit by edit before doing anything else with this user. From what I can see, this user may need to lose the right to a userpage, but outside of that has done nothing to warrant talk page deletion and has only been accused of being a WoW sock by their own misleading userpage. I'f your familiar with wheels' MO, you can take a look at SoaP's contribution history and compare them—I suspect they will be very different—but knowing nothing about WoW's methods, I cannot say for sure. BigNate37(T) 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- "I just figured the space could be used for a better purpose." — deleted pages use the same amount of space (bytes) as "normal" pages. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that banned users don't just get erased... I just figured the space could be used for a better purpose. Hence, I have also listed this user's talk page. To the best of my assumption, the evidence this user is a sock is based on his or her inclusion of the words "on wheels" in the username listed on this page. Please see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. From the looks of it, aside from childish vandalism, this user was banned for being a sock puppet. Because the log for this user is unreachable, I can't be sure however. Aside, this user may not be permanently blocked: looking at his history, it seems he put the ban on himself as early as 18 August 2006(?). I must admit, I didn't realize this until now. I was looking through his history and saw that he had one of those blocked templates on at once, and automatically assumed he or she must have removed it themselves, so I replaced it. That ultimately led me here. What do you think? Somnabot 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This user is not blocked, although he has been in the past. This user is not a WoW sock. But, this incident does illustrate that his playing around on his userpage was disruptive. I am definitely not endorsing any of his behavior, but I believe the MFD nomination is mis-informed, and even if he was indefblocked for being a sock, that is no reason to delete the page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-19 08:50Z
- Keep per Quari. Joe 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep per Quarl. «ct» (tk|e) 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I reverted the page to a version more or less the way Son of a Peach (talk • contribs) A.K.A. SoaP left it, with the MfD template still there. Essentially, I removed the WoW warning and block messages. SoaP should have been free to remove them (or even obligated to) as he was the one who added them. The version of the page prior to my reversions can be seen here. In wading through the markup, I didn't bother saving the commented out "bad username" template that I believe was deleted through a TfD discussion, though I can't find evidence of that now. BigNate37(T) 22:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Actually it was Somnabot who added the WoW warning template and block tag. Gwernol 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep While Son of a Peach may not always be a model Wikipedian, I see no reason to suspect he/she is a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels. There is currently no need to block this user. Even if evidence shows this is a WoW sockpuppet, the appropriate measure would be to indefinitely block them from editing. Userpages should almost never be removed. Gwernol 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Response To Gwernol - If you read the previous discussion, you would have seen that I only added the WoW warning template and block tag as a re-listing of what I believed had been erased by the user themselves. My bad, I didn't check out. I do apologise. While I'm at it, please look into my other proposed deletion here. Any input you may have would be helpful. Somnabot 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Quarl. --Zoz (t) 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Gwernol. As per my own argument: I'm not a f*cking sock! It seems like Somnabot not only can't take a joke, but is disregarding Wikipedia procedures in order to frivolously delete my userpage. I, for one, am shocked and apalled. No, seriously. SoaP 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by the way Somnabot has changed his stance on this issue and apologised after learning about why your userpage really said what it said, it should be clear he was acting in good faith. Your misleading userpages and hostile comments in edit summaries are not the way to resolve this issue. Please heed the many warnings you have received; the sooner you stop this nonsense the sooner we can let you get back to editing productively. Bear in mind there is not a single delete vote on this page—we've all voiced our opinions to keep it, and your userpage isn't exactly appropriate. BigNate37(T) 18:41, 23 August 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.
