Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 6 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	28	28
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	2	2	4
FfD	1	17	18
RfD	10	25	35
AfD	0	0	0

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

December 22, 2024

Draft:Romane Dasse

Taking to WP:MfD as was declined WP:G11. This is your run-of-the-mill vanity page written by ChatGPT, or similar, in which every single sentence is pure promotion. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA and we shouldn't be allowing promotional autobiographies in draft or user space. It's also an unsourced BLP. Fundamentally, I don't see how this draft is any different from the several hundreds that are given the G11 treatment daily. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing except WP:SPS. Blatant non-neutral self-promotion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User EdwardsBot

Unused userbox. EdwardsBot hasn't edited for over ten years, and its operator has vanished. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 21, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sinking of the RMS Empress of Ireland

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: speedy redirect to Sinking of the RMS Empress of Ireland. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sinking of the RMS Empress of Ireland

New article on this created: Sinking of the RMS Empress of Ireland. Either delete or redirect. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Sinking of the RMS Empress of Ireland. It isn't necessary to delete drafts when an article has been created. Is there a reason why some editors think that these drafts should be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, I wanted to clarify that I don't think so. I simply wasn't entirely sure what to do here since it's not my draft and I didn't know it existed until after I made the article. Hence why I opened this Mfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2024 (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.

December 19, 2024

Draft:Vatican City at the Olympic Games

Obvious nonsense draft claiming, without sourcing, that Vatican City made its Olympic Games debut in 2028, posing an obvious conflict between an event that's still 3.5 years into the future with the use of the past tense. The creator has, further, tried to make the same assertion in mainspace articles, still obviously without sourcing, and even introducing a timing of December 2024 for its participation in what was still named and linked as the 2028 games. And since the Vatican verifiably didn't send a team of unusually athletic priests to the 2024 Olympics, we can't explain any of this away as just a typo, either.
Obviously in the (unlikely, though I won't say never) event that the Vatican does start competing in the Olympics in 2028, then the time for an article about that will be when we can actually reliably source the fact -- but even if that were to happen, starting new articles is not difficult enough that we would need this to exist 3.5 years early. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The article on Vatican Athletics states that they are not at this time eligible to compete in the Olympics. If the IP has been engaging in other subtle vandalism, they can be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:8942:15CC:ACFF:7F04 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. KOLANO12 3 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 18, 2024

Portal:Human–computer interaction

Another generic Portal based on Transcluded content. Linked only in 16 articles in main space. This MFD could be based on the many others already discussed about obsolete or abandoned portals, but I'd like to raise a specific question about the scope of portals, from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Portal scope. Does a portal that doesn't link to a Wikiproject or link to an inactive Wikiproject make sense? Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This portal was created in 2014, and was worked on in 2014 and 2015 by four editors, none of whom have edited since 2015. Its only substantive edits since then have been by one portal enthusiast between 2018 and 2020, and by another editor who likes to make drive-by improvements to portals, between 2020 and 2022. That is, it hasn't had a maintainer since 2015, and hasn't been maintained on an intermittent basis since 2022. In 2023, it had an average of 6 daily pageviews, as compared to 478 daily pages of the article. In 2022, it had an average of 11 daily pageviews, when the article had 563 daily pageviews. The article provides views of 22 articles by transclusion. It has a "modern" architecture using transclusion, as opposed to the obsolete (although still common) traditional architecture using partial copies of pages. This means that when a transcluded article is updated, the portal will view the updated article. If an editor reading this comment thinks that it is bizarre that some portals show old versions of articles, such as referring to dead professors as living persons, they are correct. Wikipedia has many such portals. This is not one of them. That is its one advantage. A reader who is interested in Human-computer interaction can get as good a view of the subject by following the links or perusing the categories as by using an unmaintained portal. At least this portal won't report any companies as being publicly traded when they have become subsidiaries of other companies. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unmaintained portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 17, 2024

Template:User opposes Taiwan independence

These userboxes are divisive, irredentist and inflammatory. Wikipedia is not a political soapbox, therefore these userboxes should be deleted. Nxcrypto Message 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Users are allowed to say a wide variety of things about themselves in their own userspace. BusterD (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These userboxes are not in "userspace" they are in template space and in any case, they are covered by Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions which states that Wikipedia is not a place for "Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics" and userboxes should not be "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive." which is the case here. Nxcrypto Message 13:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It would be inflamatory, perhaps, if it advocated war and pestilence, but merely stating an opinion needn't be inflammatory, merely unpopular with those holding a diametric view. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I don't like this much at all, but I guess it could be helpful for a user to have declared this (e.g. if they then participated in discussions about One China Policy / Taiwanese independence, other users would have a clearer idea of where they were coming from). Furius (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situation is similar to: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/FreeTibet, in terms of level of inflammatoriness: Furius (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some might view them as irredentist, though Taiwan also doesn't exactly claim to be independent at the moment (and the Pan-Blue Coalition has a sort of one-China principle with a different interpretation than the mainland). Users are permitted to have userboxes in order to express themselves, and I don't think that this violates WP:POLEMIC, so I think the WP:PAG guide towards keeping this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly disagree with its message, but it's relatively harmless. It's not advocating for violence against or degrading the people of Taiwan, it just expresses opposition for the country to exist as a country. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While i don't agree with this userbox i do not support the deletion either as this userbox simply says that a user opposes the independence of Taiwan it does not advocate any harm against the Taiwanese people or people who support the independence of Taiwan Is la🏳️‍⚧ 17:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User:UBX/User opposes Taiwan independence as described at WP:UBM. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 14, 2024

User:Leech44/List of player names on the Stanley Cup

A recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Cup winning players resulted in an article of similar scope being deleted. This list does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. I do not see a demonstration of why is it important to have standalone of every single person with their name on the Stanley Cup. The reasons for some to be included or not can go elsewhere such as Chronology of Stanley Cup engravings or List of Stanley Cup champions. Also, this userspace sandbox has not been edited by its user in more than ten years, and User:Leech44 has only made five edits total in the last 7+ years. Flibirigit (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reasons for deletion at the AfD are not reasons for deletion from userspace. If the deleted article looked like this Userpage, then it should not have been deleted, because all the entries are bluelinks, making it justified as a navigation aid, see WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Why keep blue links or red links when the sum total of the parts is not notable for a standalone list? We already have Category:Stanley Cup champions for this purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  User:Flibirigit, have you read WP:CLN? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The instructions for G4 state:
It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies.[4] It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted[5] to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy).
Those are a general reason and a specific reason to keep this page. In general, two pages are not substantially identical if they are in different namespaces. More specifically, the second sentence was included to address situations like this, because draft and user copies of deleted articles, like this, are nominated for deletion in mistaken good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how G4 applies here. This user page was not a recreation of any deleted material, rather it is actually much older than the page that was deleted. Further, these pages were never copies of each other, and were developed independently. This user page has been abandoned for more than 10 years, and even if it ever were completed, it still wouldn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Flibirigit (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Flibirigit - I agree that G4 does not apply here. I thought that you were nominating this page for deletion as a G4 or G4-like deletion, because you cited a previous deletion discussion. If you are saying that this is a useless draft in user space, then I am saying that user pages, like drafts, are not deleted for lack of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think having a list article is potentially fine anyway (it's slightly different inclusion criteria than the deleted one). And if there is a place for some of the content, having it sitting around could potentially be useful for editors (unlikely but it does happen). No reason I can see to delete. Skynxnex (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hamish Ross

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: keep. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hamish Ross

This page appears to be the exact opposite of WP:DENY as the target has edited it several times before, and AIV, SPI and Meta's SRG page appear to be the better routes available. The same case also applies to the LTA page about MidAtlanticBaby, which was deleted hours later (after its creation) by Daniel Quinlan to deny recognition. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 21:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was a useful learning experience for a newbie to Hamish Ross - I would never have known as a mere editor that such calculated manipulation existed without it -AIV, SPI totally useless of informing me the next time he drifted by to gain credulity for a sock on pages I monitor, which means page has useful purpose. Hide recognition means bigger mess to clean up and I was able to let another editor quickly into the knowledge that they had been sucked into interacting with a sockpuppet while the admins had other things more important to do to help the community ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence. Hamish Ross is more difficult to recognize and a bit less active. On the other hand, there is some risk of the page treading into beans territory, and it's already skirting that line. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry, but I have to vote to keep. Unlike MAB's socks and IPs, Hamish Ross edits multiple pages and whatnot, which makes him more difficult to spot. Also, a lot of the IPs that he uses to edit look extremely similar to others, which further conceals his identity. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is anyone in charge of Long-Term Abuse, or is this a free-for-all? I am aware. that Deny and RBI are considered usually preferable to creating an LTA file. However, ignoring the creation of an unnecessary LTA file may also be a better approach than bringing it to MFD, which may be a Streisand effect or maybe a second Streisand effect? Should the creation and management of these files be put under control of the SPI clerks? These requests to delete LTA files, with the stated objective of denying recognition, seem to provide extra recognition. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has not asserted any valid WP:DEL-REASON for deletion, so this should be kept. Moreover, as noted above by ChaseKiwi, this page does provide value to editors who are sockhunting—deleting it would not improve or better maintain Wikipedia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needed as Hamish Ross socks edit multiple articles and provides info for people to spotthis LTA who is know to manipulate users unlike MAB who is easy to spot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isla (talk • contribs)
Comment: I'm somewhat familiar with Hamish, having admin'd him for going on two decades. I feel confident in saying that neither this LTA page, nor this MfD, will have any effect whatsoever on his activities. My comment in this MfD is literally meh, Hamish is what he is with or without an LTA page. "AIV, SPI and Meta's SRG" are being offered in the nomination as 'better routes'. Those are indeed excellent routes for action, but the purpose of an LTA page is different. It's to provide information. It's something to link to when making requests for action or offering explanations to confused bystanders (which in this incarnation he often has). AIV, SPI and Meta's SRG don't serve that purpose. The questions that DENY raise are whether it's motivating for him, which I doubt, or motivating for others, which I haven't seen. Then, is it helpful for others, I'll let the other comments speak to that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NoobThreePointOh. This is an LTA I stumbled upon a sock of three months ago because I was patrolling recent changes and saw their reverts, thinking they were a genuinely constructive anti-vandalism editor. In fact, I was so convinced of their good faith that I reported an edit filter false positive here, not realizing they were an LTA due to how long they had been on the project, as well as the fact that the filter was meant to prevent their specific editing patterns. I'd say this alone, that -- as a user who was previously unfamiliar with this specific sockpuppeteer's MO -- I genuinely believed them to be a good faith editor, is more than enough of a reason to keep this report up. In fact, as WP:LTA directly states: "Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, especially ones whose contributions could be confused for good-faith edits by somebody unfamiliar with their modus operandi." JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2024 (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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 13:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC) ended today on 23 December 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

December 12, 2024

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DFLPApologist

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:DFLPApologist

Highly offensive userpage that is contrary to the purpose of the "User:" space. Content includes wikilinking "Hungarian" with Schizophrenia, vice-versa, wikilinking "Schizo Ramblings" as Hungarian language, United States for "Hamburger Hotdog" and "Freedom", "This user identifies as a Maoist.", "This user recognizes the US as a terrorist state" and "This user supports one democratic state in historic Palestine from the river to the sea." All of these are heavy misuses (and the non-userbox ones are highly offensive, at that) of a userpage. Surprised they haven't been blocked, either. E_F⁵ 18:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think supporting Palestine is “Highly offensive” then why are you on Wikipedia, a supposedly “unbiased” website? DFLPApologist (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said the non-userbox examples are highly offensive. WP:UPBAD states In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense, which is exactly what's happening here. I mean, c'mon. Wikilinking "Hamburger hotdog" to United States?? E_F⁵ 18:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

identifying as a maoist and supporting palestine are offensive.? 2407:7000:AB5A:9696:DB3:4EB2:9C09:609 (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: I've blanked the page as inappropriate humor, but left the MFD open so that the community can further discuss the issue, if they so desire. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Isabelle Belato that this was inappropriate and offensive. As long as we are here, this should be deleted rather than merely hidden. As per discussion at WP:ANI, deletion is a reasonable Alternative to Blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as overtly inappropriate and offensive. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The blanking was an application of Ignore All Rules, since the banner on a page that has been nominated for MFD says: You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. The blanking does not close this MFD, because the offensive content is still in the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheodoresTomfooleries. This kind of "humor" is clearly inappropriate and WP:POLEMIC. While I'm sure that some websites may find humor in calling Hungarians schizophrenic or calling for "unlimited genocide", Wikipedia is not that kind of website. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea where this genre of overly-edgy Wikipedia users has sprung out of so suddenly. Needless to say, I'm not against the weird trend of dedicating so much time on Wikipedia adding offensive content to your userpage and excusing it by proclaiming that you're supposedly on the opposite side of the political spectrum (as seen here) disappearing from the site, as this is bordering a WP:NOTHERE violation. Additionally, DFLPApologist cherry-picking the one of a few innocuous statements from their userpage seems like a bad-faith strawman to make it seem that nom finds that supporting Palestine is “Highly offensive”. I also do not see why these deletion discussions of this sort have at least one (which is one more than I typically expect) new or unregistered users giving their thoughts on the discussion, seemingly in favor of the keeping the userpage or defending its creator. I do not intend to accuse anybody when I say that this is what a result of canvassing or sockpuppetry would look like in any other case. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have a problem with editors deciding what the culture of Wikipedia is and what is offensive or annoying—I believe in free speech, and restrictions on speech arrogantly presume total comprehension of that which we may be misunderstanding. But I have an even greater problem with the prospect of Wikipedia becoming yet another online space where users compete for negative attention and notoriety, especially because the seriousness of Wikipedia’s mission (to be an encyclopedia) is really poorly served by such unseriousness. Pragmatism wins over my ideals here, because I am (arrogantly) pretty sure I know what I’m looking at, and it’s not anything special or worth making sacrifices for. So, yes, kill it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While several individuals have argued deletion on the basis that the whole page was inappropriate or offensive, I don't think the earliest version is completely unsalvageable. One could blank the text and keep the infoboxes in that version without having to delete the whole page history (though I do agree that some revisions were... beyond subpar). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:09, 18 December 2024 (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.

December 5, 2024

User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

The page now located at User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT was formerly a talk page for my previous account Vicipaedianus x, so –when I created this account back in 2021– I moved it into my user space an turned it into an archive. Later, on 19 June 2023, I copy-pasted all of its content to my archive located at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, so I requested to merge the page history as well (specifically edits between February 2014 and February 2021, when it was a talk page) and the deletion of the former, but my request got declined, so I got stuck with a blanked subpage, and I started using it as a sandbox. I now remembered that –on 14 December 2023– I got told it was "not eligible for WP:U1 because at one time it was a user talk page, it may still be deleted by being listed at WP:MFD", so please, merge its history as a talk page into User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, if needed, and delete this useless duplicate turned sandbox. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this is not eligible for U1 because of its history, it is enough like a U1 that it should be deleted at the originator's request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh.
Per WP:DELTALK, the edits between September 2013 and November 2020 must not be deleted no matter how many layers of obfuscation you try to use to hide that fact.

The request to history merge the talk page edits so the later edits can be deleted is valid and in my opinion should have been granted, but four other admins (including my past self) have improperly stonewalled it. Now that we're at a discussion venue rather than an individual-admin-request venue I guess we can override them and grant that request, so I support doing so.

Est. 2021's insistence in getting things done this way has grown beyond reason. They've made nine distinct requests for admin actions relating to this one sandbox, all of which were declined. My gut wants to say "Keep" out of spite. But I'm better than that.
Overall, weakly support history merge and delete, but if that's not done, strongly oppose deleting without history merging - that would set a hideous precedent that people can get their way by complaining enough. Although I guess WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#User talk pages exists, so the blatant double standard being demonstrated here will continue to exist either way. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having reviewed the history in detail once, there is a strange odor to the history, and we don't want to just incinerate it to get rid of any possible dead animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split history to put the talk page revisions back in User talk:Vicipaedianus x. Moving the talk page of your past account to a subpage of your current account is totally inappropriate. Let's say I want to read the talk page of User:Vicipaedianus x, an editor for multiple years with 278 edits. How do I do that? Obfuscating the previous account's talk page is falsifying history.—Alalch E. 10:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alalch E.: Interesting misunderstanding, but I actually I moved the talk to my archive to be transparent about the ownership of both accounts, not to obfuscate anything. Moreover, if I didn't, people could have written onto the old talk page –without me ever noticing– and hence never got an answer. You can still read any thread posted there tho. How do you do that? User talk:Vicipaedianus x should redirect to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, after the page history is merged –as I personally requested multiple times. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  User talk:Vicipaedianus x should be archived at that root name, and you can leave a message on your old account's talk page saying that it's your old account and that messages should be left on your current account's talk page. —Alalch E. 15:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see why the current setup is wrong? Why is is any different from User talk:Malleus Fatuorum having been page moved to User talk:Eric Corbett, or many other instances of users being renamed? If that's what we have to do to get a consensus I can accept it, but it seems like hostile hair-splitting to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split history and send it back to User talk:Vicipaedianus x (same !vote as Alalch; different reasoning). The problem with history-merging to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0 is that the history would then be intertwined confusingly with the history already there, which goes back to 2013 and the third account Marco Antonio Sorrentino. The most logical alternative would be to put the history back with the original talk page (under the redirect), which is where I at least would expect to find it. (The archive doesn't need to have the history under it.) It's not the only solution, but it checks all the boxes and makes this mess slightly less headache-inducing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the relevant edits to this page would fix nicely in the gap between 2012 and 2021 at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0. If there were actual parallel histories I would agree with you, but I don't see them here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though there are no parallel histories, and the result would not be confusing purely technically, it would still be less than the opposite of confusing for the practical purposes of looking at, reading, someone's talk tied to a particular account, and I am against joining talk histories from different accounts. —Alalch E. 11:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]