Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User's archive of deleted articles: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:37, 27 April 2012 editErpert (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers48,276 editsm comment← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:55, 28 April 2012 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,197 edits →User's archive of deleted articles: dNext edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	*'''Keep for now, until after the WP:PORNBIO discussion is resolved'''. Users Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Erpert are on opposite sides of a debate, and their interactions are tending antagonistic. They should minimise unnecessary interaction. If PORNBIO is tightened, Erpert may be required to give up on these. If PORNBIO is not much tightened, Erpert may get to have them undeleted. On the side of the debate is the possibility of amalgamatic many weakly-notable PORN BLPs, perhaps into lists of award winners. --] (]) 13:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)		*'''Keep for now, until after the WP:PORNBIO discussion is resolved'''. Users Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Erpert are on opposite sides of a debate, and their interactions are tending antagonistic. They should minimise unnecessary interaction. If PORNBIO is tightened, Erpert may be required to give up on these. If PORNBIO is not much tightened, Erpert may get to have them undeleted. On the side of the debate is the possibility of amalgamatic many weakly-notable PORN BLPs, perhaps into lists of award winners. --] (]) 13:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	**SmokeyJoe, I know we haven't been agreeing much, but I'm glad you're seeing what's going on. I'm not sure a resolution to the tweaking of ] will happen anytime soon (if at all), but you'll also notice that I haven't created any new pornography-related biographical articles during this time either. To be fair, I ''do'' plan to use ] in the future for this kind of situation, but not yet. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span> \| <span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 14:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)		**SmokeyJoe, I know we haven't been agreeing much, but I'm glad you're seeing what's going on. I'm not sure a resolution to the tweaking of ] will happen anytime soon (if at all), but you'll also notice that I haven't created any new pornography-related biographical articles during this time either. To be fair, I ''do'' plan to use ] in the future for this kind of situation, but not yet. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span> \| <span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 14:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''', textbook case of ] ("should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content"). SmokeyJoe's argument about the ongoing pornbio debate is unconvincing: these were deleted while the present wording of pornbio was still present in the guideline, so even if the outcome of the debate was to uphold that wording, it is unlikely that that would change the basis for these deletions. And even if it did, the articles could be returned through undeletion; there is no need for these userspace backups. ] ] 08:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:55, 28 April 2012

User's archive of deleted articles

Erpert has created an archive of deleted content in his userspace, linking them from his userpage (via a subpage ). He has made no effort whatever to to improve the articles with an eye towards reinstatement, and has, so far as I can tell, not made a single edit to any of them since userfication. Lately he's begun to add groundless/phony accusations of misconduct be editors he disagrees with to his userspace listing . This is clearly misuse os userspace, particularly for deleted BLPs that wholly lacked reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What, exactly, is your problem? If this nomination was from someone I didn't have a dispute with in the past, I could understand, but from you, it's obviously bad-faith (as in, "Hmmm, now, how can I get Erpert next?"). Eventually I might be able to move all this to WP:ABANDON or something, but I don't have time to update everything at once (I do have a life outside of Misplaced Pages, you know). Erpert 16:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep. Looks like normal userfication. The userfied articles are only four months old, so they're not exactly very stale yet. (If they were four years old I'd reconsider.) The pages in question are encyclopedia articles, not original research or personal promotion. They are not in any categories and don't have incoming links from the main namespace. Personally I don't see a problem here, at least not for now. JIP | Talk 19:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - 4 months with no edits is well past what I would consider an acceptable amount of time for userfication; if they haven't been worked on in all that time then it moves away from "I want to work on it" and towards "I want to keep a copy of deleted stuff". Addendum: I note that these were created, not directly userfied from what was deleted. This seems to be going against the requirement that the attribution history be preserved. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Read the history of them, and you'll see that I userfied most of them myself. WP:USERFY doesn't say I can't do that. Erpert 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep for now, until after the WP:PORNBIO discussion is resolved. Users Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Erpert are on opposite sides of a debate, and their interactions are tending antagonistic. They should minimise unnecessary interaction. If PORNBIO is tightened, Erpert may be required to give up on these. If PORNBIO is not much tightened, Erpert may get to have them undeleted. On the side of the debate is the possibility of amalgamatic many weakly-notable PORN BLPs, perhaps into lists of award winners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, I know we haven't been agreeing much, but I'm glad you're seeing what's going on. I'm not sure a resolution to the tweaking of WP:PORNBIO will happen anytime soon (if at all), but you'll also notice that I haven't created any new pornography-related biographical articles during this time either. To be fair, I do plan to use WP:ABANDON in the future for this kind of situation, but not yet. Erpert 14:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete, textbook case of WP:STALEDRAFT ("should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content"). SmokeyJoe's argument about the ongoing pornbio debate is unconvincing: these were deleted while the present wording of pornbio was still present in the guideline, so even if the outcome of the debate was to uphold that wording, it is unlikely that that would change the basis for these deletions. And even if it did, the articles could be returned through undeletion; there is no need for these userspace backups. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)