Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ryeinn

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 discussion was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ryeinn

Per the request of NWA.Rep I am nominating this for deletion. The major concerns one would have with the page is that it is within a stones throw of WP:FAKEARTICLE. Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I personally don't care too much in either direction --Guerillero | My Talk 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and this. Hans Adler 22:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry for the shounting, but several people seem to have !voted without looking at the user's contribution, so I guess it wasn't visible enough. Hans Adler 23:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Silly user pages are not inherently actionable; the broader context of User:NWA.Rep's longstanding pattern of inconsiderate, obnoxious, and controversy-courting behavior is what makes his particular userpages unacceptable. What he's failing to understand is how a lot of little things that would not be problematic individually add up into one big thing when they're consistently coming from the same person. Also, a rather WP:POINTy nomination. --erachima talk 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This user page does not violate any policy. The user has the right to put anything on their user page as long as the content is NOT: Malicious, Hurtful, Destructive, Offensive, or just plain Inappropriate.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a user, it's someone abusing Wikipedia as a webhost. A total of 10 edits. 3 1/2 years ago. 8 of them to the user page. And WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy. Hans Adler 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Supporters need to look at the history of the page before deciding it's OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Move - Kindly ask the editor to move it to an "About me" subpage because it looks like a fake article. This can confuse visitors, many of whom won't get it. Plus, it is now drawing keystrokes off the mainspace, and thus is disruptive. Did anyone actually ask the editor to do this before starting this procedure? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw heck, I'll do it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would that be good for? Do you expect the owner of this abandoned userspace-SPA to notice? Hans Adler 23:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. 2008. I saw the welcome at talk and didn't check. I want that five minutes of my life back. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Abuse of Wikipedia as a free webhost and/or social networking site by a user who is not here to build the encyclopedia. MER-C 00:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He hasn't edited in nearly 4 years. The more interesting question is whether he's still editing, but under a different ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what if he is? From my perspective, his article space edits were productive (yes, all two of them) and he has no recorded complaints prior to this incident. An absent editor is not a bad editor, they've merely returned to being a potential editor. Since it does some slight potential harm if he comes back and is turned off by the fact that we deleted his page, and it won't even save us space, I see no reason to delete his page just to placate someone's tantrum. --erachima talk 01:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about the personal attack he made on NWA in his very first edit, with no apparent indication they had ever interacted before... and which sat there for 3 years and 9 months? And how did NWA know about it? There's something fishy going on there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you spell out what that personal attack was? I can't see him mentioned. It does appear that this could be just two kids who know each other from school making fake 'articles' about each other, but without seeing the history of NWA.Rep's user page that's hard to tell. Hans Adler 08:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Read the history of the page, including this:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you believe that this user and User:NWA.Rep are the same person, as I do, than this could be a db-self. That amusing idea aside, I would definitely say that the second paragraph is pushing the boundaries of acceptable communication. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are three separate issues here:
On its own, is this an inappropriate use of userspace, and hence MfD material?

No: user pages are supposed to offer insight into an editor, and whimsical pages can certainly do that. This is not a hoax, nor an attack page, or any other clearcut violation of the userpage guidelines.

Can this be usefully contrasted with the now-deleted user:NWA.Rep on grounds of consistent treatment of editors?

Partially: it is the primary editing focus of an editor who has made no other significant edits to the project in such a significant period of time that it can be assumed that this will remain the case indefinitely. On the other hand, user:NWA.Rep had two significant problems that this page did not in that a) it could be construed as a vanity page and b) it contained significant deliberate inaccuracies which were not clearly intended to be taken unseriously.

Is keeping this around a good idea?

No: userspace is not intended to be a permanent Web presence for individuals not otherwise engaged in the project, and there has been at least one long-running case where another editor took the presence of this page to be an implicit endorsement of that state of affairs.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a webhost for abandoned content, and I'm not convinced that it's not an attack page. NWA.Rep certainly thinks it's aimed at him, it seems to be aimed at him, and he's asked for it to be deleted as an attack page. (And yes, it would be funny if this editor is also him, but it wouldn't be any more of a reason the keep the content). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC) (NB, didn't realise NWA had deleted this which was what made it an attack page, not the photy of Ulysses S Grant. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.