Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hornetman16/Bar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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The result of the debate was Keep - Deletion nomination withdrawn and consensus is to keep. Adambro 12:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage of banned user I placed {{db|subpage of banned user}} but it was removed. Also delete all of these. SLSB talkcontrib 16:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Close please[reply]

Didn't mean to cause disruption. SLSB talkcontrib 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin involved in his block, I can state with no hesitation that Hornetman is not banned. ~ Riana 16:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I could've sworn -- hmmm
As the blocking admin, I'd like to state here that User:Hornetman16 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock-puppeteer. His sock accounts have both now been indefblocked too. Indef blocking does not mean a ban - see WP:BAN for a clear statement on this position. We do not ban people for socking, by default, unless policy has changed somewhere recently - Alison 17:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly know the difference between an indef. block and a ban, but I had thought abusive sockpuppetry normally resulted in banning. Blocking isn't my forte, so I'm probably mistaken, although I can't really grasp why WP wouldn't ban abusive sockpuppeteers as a general practice. Xoloz 17:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAN certainly does not cover this. Note that at least one admin is still active, having been a sock-puppeteer. I'm more than familiar with the sockery involved in this case and, as the blocking admin, can assure you that a community ban is neither appropriate not extant in this case. If you want to see a 'real' abusive sock-puppeteer, check out RMS or JB196 or Verdict; all of these guys I've had extensive dealings with and all three are banned (some twice!) via WP:CSN and ArbCom - Alison 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Somebody smarter than me should probably devise an easy semantic method for distinguishing between "real abusive" sockpuppeteers and other "routine abusive" sockpuppeteers. That's the source of my confusion, and I see (in reading the current drafts of WP:SOCK and WP:BAN) that the issue is not directly addressed. Xoloz 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's usual procedure to check in with the blocking admin, esp. before actions commence which assume certain things. Like *ahem* changing the tags on the userpage from 'blocked' to 'banned'. If I'm in doubt, I check with the blocking admin - Alison 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, neither I (nor SLSB, it appears) changed the blocking tags. I made the mistake of trusting them (without checking the history), before a few G5 speedies that I've now restored. Xoloz 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, yes. The tags should not have been changed by that editor without discussion - Alison 17:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I removed the speedy delete tags because I felt the reason for deletion didn't make it clear in reference to the criteria why the pages should be deleted. Once SLSB replaced the tag without clarifying the issue I raised I left a message on their talk page suggesting that if there wasn't a clear criteria under which these can be deleted then speedy deletion is not appropriate. I welcome this MfD as this permits a fuller discussion, but see no real justification to delete these. Deleting things unnecessarily is not good practice, these pages weren't created by a banned user whilst they were banned (the only possibly relevant CSD criteria) and they doesn't seem to be a problem with them. Adambro 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I apologize for the mix up. This user isn't banned, so G5 doesn't really apply here. That was my point. Miranda 18:26, 26 August 2007 (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.