Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kie250

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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. Spebi 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kie250

Clear violation of WP:UP#NOT, particularly "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia" and "Extensive use of polemical statements". Caknuck (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't outright delete a userpage. I removed the content per WP:USERPAGE and WP:SOAP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:USERPAGE: "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion." Not to mention...if we can't delete it, wouldn't it kinda defeat the purpose of the MfD process? --Smashville^BONK! 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We can delete it outright, but we shouldn't, for the reasons I've given below. Walton^One 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Caknuck. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The content has been blanked but the page should still be deleted; the user could simply revert the blanking. Polemic statements are not allowed in userspace per WP:USER, and the page was nothing but conspiracy theory and some strange incoherent fiction. Wikipedia is neither a webhost nor a soapbox. --Coredesat 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments - It may also be worth nominating User:ThE TrUTh and User_talk:ThE TrUTh for MfD as they were both created (on a non-existent userpage i.e. no user under that name) by Kie250 and attempt to disparge the Iraq War. Rudget. 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. While I strongly disagree with this user's political views, I don't think they're much more divisive or inflammatory than what I have on my own userpage. The user is very new, and while I agree that polemical statements in userspace should be discouraged, I think that deleting their page outright is likely to drive them away - see my reasoning in Wikipedia:Editors matter. A review of the user's recent contributions confirms that most of his/her edits have been to the userpage, but there are a couple of mainspace contribs (e.g. [1]) and I think we should give this user a chance. Page blanking is fine, but deletion is not necessary here. Walton^One 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing to Delete per further evidence presented below. I would also endorse a short block (48 hours or so) for abusive sockpuppetry. Although we should give him a second chance, the balance of evidence indicates that this user is probably a political troll. Walton^One 11:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly block per this thread on ANI. I would normally echo Walton, but in light of this evidence, that nullifies any good faith he had coming to him. I know blocking the puppet master is a judgment call, so there is some leniency, but deleting his userpage will, IMO, effectively communicate the discouragement of further incidents.--12 Noon ^2¢ 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that the user should be blocked, as he has no intent to contribute constructively based on his sockpuppet abuse. --Coredesat 06:48, 8 January 2008 (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.