Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fsf

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. (Radiant) 16:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fsf

Fsf uses his userpage to advertise free software. Also involved in spamming[1] and advertising[2]. May be part of the spammers targetting Spyware although he made a variety of good small edits. Username indicates conflict of interest. Delete the userpage. Should user be blocked? -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete page's only content is blatant advertising. Don't think that the user blocking issue should be raised here though. Badbilltucker 16:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:SPAM. and warn the user against usign the namespace as an external link advertisement. Banning is a different issue all together (and really isn't warrented at this time IMO).--Isotope23 18:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. See Free Software Foundation. This user is in all likelihood a fan of the FSF, not a representative. (A username change might be in order, but that's a separate issue.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think whether or not the person is a fan or a rep is really the issue. The link still constitutes spam and it should be removed along with the page history. The Username is a separate issue as well that should be decided in the appropriate forum if someone chooses to make an issue of it.--Isotope23 20:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm really not sure how the link is "spam". Wikipedia already supports the FSF pretty heavily - the GFDL was authored by them, for heavens' sake! - so I'm not seeing a bare link to them is inappropriate. Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Here I guess is where I disagree. We have an article about the Free Software Foundation with a link. That is perfectly acceptable. To me what is not acceptable is an external link on the userpage with what I consider to be promotional text. To me that is spam.--Isotope23 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and strongly consider a block. User has indeed been spamming Spyware of late, in a disruptive manner. When he created an article on the product, I listed it for deletion. You can judge his good-faith from his attitude there. Daniel Case 07:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A block sounds like a real stretch for a user that hasn't even received a single warning (or anything at all!) on their talk page. We generally give the courtesy of a warning or two to users who engage in advertising much more blatant than this - please don't WP:BITE the newbie. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedians are a fan of commercial software like Spyware Doctor and they consider fsf.org as spam. This is a good joke. Let Daniel Case or the other users do whatever they like. They and the Wikipedia is not worth anything.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsf (talk • contribs)

  See what I mean? As for the block, this user has used several anons to put in this link before creating the article, then may have used another user account (User:Wiki989) to continue. AFAICT he is here only to promote his program.

  Oh, BTW, we don't consider the Free Software Foundation spam. Daniel Case 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  I consider you as spam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsf (talk • contribs)

  Do not make personal attacks. Daniel Case 14:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Zetawoof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yao Ziyuan (talk • contribs)
• Delete and prevent recreation. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • For a user page?! Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Next question? --Calton | Talk 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or blank. WP? Not a free webhost or soapbox. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious spam. JChap2007 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT what this page is for. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Zetawoof. The user has productive edits. The user hasn't even been given a warning for his earlier spamming. JoshuaZ 05:34, 4 December 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.