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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vlad fedorov/Internet troll squads[edit]

Soapboxing, POV, attack page. The article was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also, this user has also been banned until September 2008, and the article has not been touched since May 2007. It appears that a new version is actually at Internet brigades, see my reply to other editor --Enric Naval (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly inappropriate user space page. – Zedla (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Attack page, use of userspace for soapboxing and POV on something unrelated to Wikipedia. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article not being actively edited, main AfDed. My compliments to the banned editor for getting некультурный in as a descriptor of this supposed phenomenon. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article has been already deleted from the main space but restored by administrator User:Alex Bakharev in the user space on the request from Vlad fedorov. That was a legitimate action. I have no objections to delete this material whatsoever, but Vlad fedorov may be back soon, and may be he would like to recycle this? I have no idea.Biophys (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "It was not edited for a long time" is not an argument. How could he edit if he was banned for a year? What are WP policies with regard to user pages of users who have been temporarily banned?Biophys (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only know of WP:BAN. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not edited for a long time" is because of While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia in WP:USER. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Vlad is indefinitely banned, so you cannot say that his user page is indefinitely archived. Martintg (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work on the article stopped at 23 March 2007, except for one addition on 26 April 2007. Vlad Fedorov's only edit to the article was in 16 March 2007 and it was not any improvement[1]. Also, that means that he didn't edit the articles during 4 months and a half before he was banned. So, I don't expect him to make the huge amont of work necessary to make this a viable article after the ban ends. The only editor making significant improvements is User:Biophys and 3 days ago he stated that this is the same article as Internet brigades [2] so this is probably an old version anyways --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad wasn't banned in a vacuum, there was a long running ArbCom case from July to September, and before that there was a month or two of disputation, so obviously he was diverted by more significant and pressing concerns. You can't assume he won't make significant improvements upon his return, please extend him the courtesy of waiting and seeing. Martintg (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Relata refero points below, *if* he wants to improve the draft once the ban ends, he can just ask for undeletion of the page --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Are you able to edit things within your own userspace while blocked? I know you can edit your own talk page, but I don't know if that's it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you are not. From WP:BAN:"Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages." Martintg (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, Keep for now. It's not a permanent ban, he may want to work on it when he comes back. Kind of harsh to tell the guy he can't edit, and then delete his user pages because he's not editing them. If his ban lifts and it sits idle, that's a different story. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If he returns, and if he expresses a desire to work on this topic, preferably without calling anyone некультурный, it can always be restored for him by any adminstrator. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then what, may I ask, would be the point of deleting it? Think about this. If it is deleted and he asks for it back, either he will get it back to work on (in which case, deleting it was completely pointless), or he will fail to work on it and it can be safely deleted (with the user's input this time). Plus, if he comes back and sees it deleted, he may just decided to not work on it at all, potentially depriving the site of contributions. And what's more, even if he wants it back from deletion (and you've implied you have no objection to that), he'll probably have to fight against a bunch of people who know nothing about the situation but will simply point to this AFD and say "It's gone". In short, saving the discussion for later on is a much better option. Deleting it now has no benefit and several possible drawbacks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason is that it violates WP:USER. WP:USER is written as it is so we have some control in terms of applying out core content policies to all "articles" hosted on WP while simultaneously allowing people to draft stuff in their userspace. If this was not in userspace, it would be being edited by others; if it is in userspace, it should be temporary so it doesn't show up on Google or in wiki-scrapers. That is, of course, only one of several reasons. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a draft article, this doesn't violate WP:USER. And again, it's hard to argue that the user in question hasn't improved it when he is unable to. If he were a perma-banned user, it would be different. You haven't given me a good reason why we can't wait on this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If he can't edit it, by definition its an indefinite archive. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kind of mean to kick someone out for a while, then throw all their stuff out while their gone because they're not using it, don't you think? --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. No, not really, not when it can be given back if necessary for the good of the project and the useful bits of it are already incorporated elsewhere ... --Relata refero (disp.) 11:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, if we're going to just give it back, why take it away? --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not an indefinite archive by definition, because he is not indefinitely banned. Martintg (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, per UsaSatsui. I don't see how this page violates WP:USER. I have no view on the topic of the userpage, but attempting to delete a userpage of a temporarily banned user, particularly when they are not in a position to develope the article, let alone defend it here, doesn't make sense. Vlad's ban will be over soon enough, let's wait and see. Martintg (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• He doesn't need to defend any *article*. It's a draft that was undeleted to get improved, and no one has improved it on a long time. He can request it undeleted after the ban ends. No reason to keep a copy of a deleted article specially when the only guy making improvements to it stopped months ago and has asserted a few days ago on his talk page that the draft page is the same as an article already on mainspace[3]. For all we know, that draft is simply abandoned and it's not fulfilling at all its purpose of creating a better article for re-creation of the deleted on. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Suitable user page work that is not currently suitable as an article. There could well be an intention for this page to be bona fide work towards useful contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (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.