Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ndru01/Gnostic Infomysticism

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 No consensus/default keep. Xoloz 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ndru01/Gnostic Infomysticism

This page can also be found at User:Infoandru01/Gnostic Infomysticism (also nominated under this MfD). Was already deleted at least twice (see AfD links on talk page), and user is now adding links to the copy on its user space from the article Gnosticism in modern times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), using a large number of sockpuppets. User seems to be using the copy of the page in the userspace to work around the deletion. cesarb 16:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't advance the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Abstain. The sock puppets are listed in Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Ndru01. Identical edits have further been made anonymously from the IP addresses 64.187.60.61, 64.187.60.24, 64.187.60.53, 70.31.171.233, 209.135.108.204, 209.135.109.75, 209.135.115.110, 209.135.115.206, 209.135.116.10, and 209.135.116.174. Warnings, blocks and bans have had little effect. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 11:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, surprisingly. Before I userfied this article, the text was frequently recreated in article space after deletion (under various new titles). Having it in userspace may help contain (what to most of us is) vandalism. "Like most Wikipedia policies, WP:NOR applies to articles, not to talk pages", nor to pages in user space. I hope Ndru01 has finally given up on POV-pushing, but if not then deleting this copy isn't going to help. Delete everything under User:Infoandru01, a permanently blocked sock. --Cedders^tk 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my recommendation to "Abstain", since I see Cedders's point; in fact, I was quite hesitant for that reason before I decided to support deletion. Now, I'd prefer to defer to the wisdom and experience of more seasoned 'pedians on how to best handle this with the least damage and discomfort. (If there seems to be a lull on the gnostico-infomystic front, it's also because the newest sock User:Demiurge111 was promptly blocked.) --Lambiam ^Talk 16:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cedders. Deleting this is unlikely to improve the editor's behavior (for which there are other remedies) and deleting not-yet-articles in User space is a bad practice. Septentrionalis 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Pmanderson. "Weak" because it is abused, "keep" because it is in userspace. Kimchi.sg 08:50, 2 June 2006 (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.