Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Boxes

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 supercession by events/redirect Xoloz 13:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boxes

Originally speedy deleted by User:Tony Sidaway for 'not aiming to contribute to the encyclopedia' (paraphrased). The page was under construction when deleted; the user account created as a role account by another wiki editor. The page consisted of a reproduction of Wikipedia:Userboxes content, with minor edits being made. Recreated for a proper MfD discussion. +sj + 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think we should be deleting userpages that aren't harmful to the project. I also don't know what this user intended to do with his/her account (which as of this posting is still under a day old). I am curious to see the user's response to this listing. +sj + 06:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• The speedy deletion by Mr. Sidaway is now part of an ArbCom case, titled Tony Sidaway, that appears to have been accepted by the committee. I suppose the page now serves as evidence in that dispute. Pending (direction from ArbCom, Keep for this reason. Xoloz 06:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Question: According to m:role account, role accounts are not sanctioned in Wikipedia and in the past have been blocked. Has that position changed? If not, doesn't that make the argument about deletion moot? Rossami (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• One guy's partial answer: I'd assume the existence of the account is also something ArbCom will consider. As for role accounts generally, note the recent RFA for User:Genisock2; though adminship was denied, the existence of the account was not seriously questioned. Consensus on the matter may have evolved (for the worse, I agree.) In any event, as the account is now important to an ArbCom case, and its existence is not blatantly offensive, I still believe it should be kept, pending resolution of the case. Xoloz 17:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Whaaaaa? I can't vote on this until I figure out what is going on... maybe others are in the same boat? Could somebody please explain?
  1. Is this up for MfD strictly because its a roll account? (If that's true, at least its a clever name, and seems to fit the purpose and not be secretive about it, and is being used to try to accomplish a particular task, in userspace, but with a mnemonic name to make it easy to remember -- so couldn't you cut the guy the some slack?)
  2. Or... is this being MfD'd because the nominator agrees that it is "not aiming to contribute to the encyclopedia"? Fine, if that's so... could you please explain? I honestly don't know what's going on here. Is a sneaky trick to subvert normal process, or is it just a place to work on a page to support the new proposed userbox de-templatization (which seems popular -- is it bad? I don't know), or is like the old Wikipedia:Userbox page, except everything is subst'd, so its being prepared to replace the contents of Wikipedia:Userboxes if and when subst'ing become policy? (The person wrote about why he was doing it here.)
  3. Or... does the nominator NOT agree with either of the above, and is just moving it from speedy to MfD rather directly to no delete status out of deference for the original speedying admin's action? If so, could someone please make the case for deleting it, so I can vote?Herostratus 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Rossami is precisely correct that role accounts are not disallowed on Wikipedia. However, the issue before us is a page deletion, not account status. The issue of the acceptability of a user page is distinct from the issue of the lawfulness of an account: if there is concern about the latter, the account may be blocked following sanction by Jimbo, the ArbComm, or administrators (as indeed this account was, unless I'm very much mistaken). What we're addressing here is the issue of the acceptability of the page User:Boxes on Wikipedia. Sidaway's argument is that the page ought to be deleted because it is essentially a recreation of material previously determined to be unacceptable on WP, in particular with reference to WP:CSD T1. Best, ENCEPHALON 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest that this MfD should be abandoned and the cloned page simply redirected to the page of which it is a copy. The original speedy reason was not as given by User:Sj; rather it was "See Wikipedia:User page and WP:NOT". The account had been created solely for the purpose of duplicating pages that already exist in project space, and the "user page" was in fact just such a clone. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For the second time in as many weeks, I agree with Mr. Sidaway, as this permits the continued existence of the evidence in the dispute. I'll implement before he does, with the caveat that anyone in disagreement may revert without my objection. Xoloz 13:33, 14 February 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.