Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevenstone93

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 I'm taking a radical action and closing this early. It is radically obvious that the user Stevenstone93 is no longer here to contribute to the project. In the past three months he has not made a single edit to the article space, and this is surely a violation of every policy possible. I have blocked the user, and I will be deleting his user page and replacing it with {{indefblockeduser}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stevenstone93

• Also nominated: User talk:Stevenstone93 (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs)

Stevenstone93 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has 257 edits, almost all of which are to his own User and User talk pages. The former contains a lengthy autobiography and used to contain racist and anti-homosexual polemics until they were removed by other editors; the latter includes a lot of chatter to and from his schoolmates. He has made edits to only three articles, but in each case his edits were reverted as unhelpful and/or vandalism. He has been previously warned about using Wikipedia as a social networking site, and his user page was proposed for deletion by another editor, but Stevenstone93 removed the PROD tag without comment. I am therefore filing a formal WP:MFD as per the policies WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox", "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site") and WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? ("Excessive personal information", "Extensive personal opinions", "Polemical statements", "Communications with people uninvolved with the project"). —Psychonaut 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination due to the multiple policy violations cited. or at the very least blank user page due to the fact that user claims copyright over the contents of the page, which is in clear conflict with GFDL. In fact, I might go so far as to recommend speedy delete under criteria G12. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no conflict with the GFDL. We all retain copyright to our contributions. Note that this user's copyright notice was discussed before at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive185#From AIV. —Psychonaut 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Understood. My apologies for the misinterpretation. I'll retain my position but redefine my rationale. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Walking WP:NOT.--WaltCip 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

^{User response below copied from Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#REGARDING USER PAGE FOR "Stevenstone93" PROPOSED DELETION --Sherool (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)}
Please reconsider doing so, I will make significant changes to my user page. I will not argue any more than I will do so now. Think of it this way, if I were to become an Administrator and "Storm" into your user page with an official notice regarding deletion, what would you think, and how would you feel? Put yourself in someone else's shoes and think about others too, without becoming ridiculously egocentric about who's user page is going to be deleted or not. This is MY user page, and it will NOT be deleted. If it is deleted, I will create a back-up of the document that will support and resupply my user page in the future. -- Steven Suttles Stone

• It would probably be helpful if you read the policies linked by the nominator (who is not an administrator, by the way), in particular the policy concerning user pages. I would also advise you to assume good faith and not jump to the conclusion that a particular user is not thinking about other users or acting in a "ridiculously egocentric" manner. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• do not delete talk page the user talk page contains 4 threads, all relevant to current WP discussions or articles. Looking back to the end of 06, the only personal material was A/ the recommendation by someone else of several music recordings, and that in the context of discussion over editing of relevant articles and B/comments about not recognizing people or style or editing, all within the context of discussing articles or edits. I do not see the point of deleting a talk page if a person remains an editor--there will automatically be a new one.DGG 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I also do not see the point of deleting a user page if the inappropriate material has been removed, unless this is in connection with an attempt to ban the user from the community. DGG 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with the spirit of your comments, though I must disclose some information. I suggested music recordings to the user because I was upset about polemical, racist statements on his user page and wanted to familiarize him with african american culture. It had nothing to do with article editing. Also, as pointed out by the nominator, the user has not edited any articles in a long time, so none of the other threads are really article-related either. I am also the one who originally prod'ed his user page and talk page. However, since that time and in light of recent discussions, he has removed most of the violations on his user pages and I agree that if he's not going to be banned, what is the point of this? He just needs to read the user page guidelines and realize that he should edit articles. I will tell him as much, in the meantime my vote is keep. --Tractorkingsfan 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Bans or blocks are not the basis for a MfD, so I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. The user hasn't edited any page in the main namespace in over three months, but has made nearly 250 edits to his user page alone. The primary purpose of being a member of the Wikipedia community must be building the encyclopedia - any activities that detract from that, including an inordinate amount of time spent in the userspace and in particular one or two pages, are not in support of our mission here. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:04, 14 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.