Meta:Requests for deletion: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[User:Jason Gastrich]]: re: thus the discussion
RoyBoy (talk | contribs)
192 edits
Line 277: Line 277:
**'''Comment.''' The "there's no precedent" complaint is a bad argument, anyway, if only because a precedent has to start with that first decision, to ''set'' a precedent to begin with.
**'''Comment.''' The "there's no precedent" complaint is a bad argument, anyway, if only because a precedent has to start with that first decision, to ''set'' a precedent to begin with.
*:: Thus the discussion. // [<small>[[Sysop|admin]]</small>] [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] (<sup>[[User_Talk:Pathoschild/s|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[m:User:Pathoschild|map]]</sub>) 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
*:: Thus the discussion. // [<small>[[Sysop|admin]]</small>] [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] (<sup>[[User_Talk:Pathoschild/s|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[m:User:Pathoschild|map]]</sub>) 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete.''' And LO, in the month of September (maybe October) in the 2006th year the Admins did add to all relevant policies that Metawiki will not permit currently banned users (or even users on probation '''from ANY Wiki''') to edit Meta, let alone have user pages. As a coordinator among projects it is useful and logical to create and enforce such measures to ensure the integrity of Meta. The assumption of good faith for Meta is beyond me; as Meta should be about users from other projects coming here to help out. Banned users cannot (assuming they don't have multiple active accounts on different projects) meet that criteria. - [[User:RoyBoy|RoyBoy]] 15:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:32, 27 September 2006

Shortcut:
WM:RFD
This page hosts proposals for page deletion. Before using this page, see the Deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion. Place {{ RFD }} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in the appropriate section below; any language may be used on this page. After at least two weeks, an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) To request undeletion, see Meta:Requests for undeletion. See Delete: this page does not belong on meta for general discussion about what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit


Articles

Add new listings at the end of this section.

Sample Research

Is this original research or something? It's not Meta-related and does not seem to fit Wikipedia's purpose too. MaxSem 10:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace proposal

This is an excerpt from a user talk page concerning a proposal that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. I propose it be archived back into the user talk page, or moved to the community discussion archives. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive back --Swift 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussion related to Meta:Historical/Events/International logo contest. I propose the content be merged and redirected into that page's discussion page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ترجمه

Farsi version of Translation or its attempt ... no substantial content, and could be a deletion candidate.--Aphaia 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Удмурт диалектъёс

Copy of udm:Удмурт диалектъёс, probably could be speedied under G4, but it is tagged as archive, so better discuss it. MaxSem 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? --Swift 08:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know this language, but probably it's something like "dialects of udmurt language". MaxSem 08:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta:Translation and its subpages

Supposedly aimed to be a center place of meta page translations, but seldom used and maintained.

How to MediaWiki on IIS / PHP / MySQL

Anon has put {{rfd}} on this page, but never listed it here. Completing his nomination, so no opinion. MaxSem 17:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShoeBox demo

Seems to have no relation to Wikimedia projects. --Swift 08:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Category:Lists of Wikipedians

These lists don't add anything to the Wikimedia and are mostly silly. Sorry for what may seem as a lack of sense of humor, but even the funny bits have become cliche. I haven't added {{rfd}} on any of these since I didn't want to waste my time in case even those here would oppose. I'll add them if no-one objects (if you don't want to vote Delete before the tag, just vote Tag first or something). --Swift 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly keep Those pages are helpful to involve people to our community. --Aphaia 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How are they so helpful? Irish_Wikipedians has two wikipedians and hasn't been touched since September 2005. That page also shows a great weakness in the pages. These pages seem to have been transwiki-ed from Wikipedia as is evident from the number of red userpage links since no-one seems to have bothered with giving the links a "w:" prefix (in the example mentioned, w:User:Brendanconway doesn't have a userpage on Meta). Given that these seem so lacking, I suspect no-one would grieve these greatly.
    Possible exceptions are pages like BiDi_workgroup (untouched since January, this year, with only eight days of edits) since it is a workgroup community. But even these aren't justified here. Their members should rather create project pages on Wikipedia than place idle unmaintained pages on Meta.
    Finally, there are so many other sources of community involvement — Village pumps, project forums etc. ‐ which, in my opinion, do a far better job of involving people than letting them list themselves alongside other wikipedians who share their favorite colour (before promptly forgetting that page). Even if warranted, this would be a duplicate effort to the userbox effort. Meta is not a dustbin for the other WM projects! --Swift 03:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, anythig related to community is important for Wikimedia. MaxSem 07:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it's out-dated, unmaintained and many of the links don't work? If I set up the page Wikibookians who had a can of soda for breakfast in 1985 and populate it, you would defend it against deletion?
    Sorry for the extreme arguments. No, they don't help unblurring the line between a possible well warranted list of wikipedians. I think they do, however, illustrate what I maintain; that there are pages that "relate to community" that aren't important for Wikimedia.
    Finally, as I mention in a comment to the vote above, userboxes already do this job (all too well some might say). --Swift 08:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outdated? Probably yes, some of users mentioned there aren't wikimedians anymore for a long time, but they're definitely interesting to users from different projects, and all those lists are pretty alive and still growing[1]. Yes, anyone can create a really stupid list, but it should be cared on case-by-case basis, not like that[2]. So we delete lists that really shouldn't be there, but delete all of them? Too tough on my liking. MaxSem 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll go through them one by one. --Swift 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eu/Itzulpen eskaerak

Seemed to be created by an anon as Eu(Basque) version of TR, but there is only one line and no update since then.

Richiesta di traduzioni

Italian version of TR, the anon editor who created seemed to misunderstand what was/is TR though. The page seems not to have been used since then.

Wikimania 2008/Cippalusi

Fgv entnmmv aha pvnaab ha pnmmb qn sn... --M/ 23:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.


Categories

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.


Images

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Unused images

These are not used anywhere. If they are needed because they are linked to, they should be tagged with {{not orphan|[[pages]], [[linking]], [[to it]]}}. If they are historical, they should be used and documented at Meta:Historical. These should only be listed a few at a time so that RFD isn't overwhelmed.

Keep for all files which are not images actually. The reason I stated on an EXCEL file. It could be appliable for other similar files. --Aphaia 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holopedia4-s.png
File:Holopedia4-s.png This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-minnan.png
File:Wiki-minnan.png This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GALILEOArchitecture.sxd

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source file for Image:GALILEOArchitecture.png. I've linked it. -- Nichtich 14:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is.warnfiles-2004-07-21.tar.gz

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki language data.xls

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imagenotag en fr.zip.ogg

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA-warnings-2004-07-31.tgz

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chamada publica MCT FINEP Acao transversal modernizacao instituto.pdf

This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nohat-logo-X-nn.png
File:Nohat-logo-X-nn.png This image is listed at Meta:Requests for deletion/Unused images 3; no page currently uses it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipedia.png

This image isn't used almost except Translation requests page ... and there the proper and official Wikipedia logo is supposed to use, not this version. It changed a look & feel of pages and causes a trouble on translation. --Aphaia 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I suppose it has little use, and can be confusing.Voice-of-All 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gator16red\x5b1\x5d.jpg

Unused image from the pre-historical times, seems to be copyrighted. MaxSem 10:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ow hell, deleted as per {{no source}}. MaxSem 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

User:Jason Gastrich

User page of someone who is not a contributor to meta - his sole contributions here are his userpages, userpages of his IP and attempting to find support at AIW for deletion discussions on en.wikipedia. The user page's only purpose is self-promotion and has nothing that helps to advance Meta or any other Wikimedia project. The user happens to be indefinitely banned from enWiki, but after discussion with User:Amgine I understand this isn't really relevant to Meta. I would still say that I'm fairly sure Meta isn't a free web host, so "it's a userpage" isn't sufficient reason for keeping if the userpage doesn't belong to a contributor and doesn't have anything to do with the project. Delete. --Samuel Blanning 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • a group of users, upset with this person's misbehaviour on en.wp, are stalking the user's pages on multiple WMF project. User's page does not differ in content from thousands of other WP users, or violate user page guidelines on Meta. Deletion request appears to be vindictive and personally motivated. - Amgine / m | n 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're acting as if their intentions are bad. I wasn't involved, but it seems Gastrich has rightfully earned a ban for going out of his way to disrupt the community. Part of that seems to be efforts to promote his own websites. It seems to me that if you go that far to cause trouble repeatedly you lose the right to be judged as if you've done nothing. This 'well it wasn't done here' seems a little odd in the sense that we're all one foundation working for the same greater good. - Taxman 21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Taxman. I'm very surprised that legitimate, long-standing contributors to Wikimedia projects are being accused of "stalking" and have been threatened with blocks to defend someone who has been banned from the only Wikimedia project on which he had a significant presence, and has never used Meta specifically for anything but creating a userpage and disrupting another Mediawiki project by attempting to swing a discussion by canvassing for "votes".
    Operating under the temporary presumption that I am not going to be blocked after all for commenting on this matter, the French page has a section which rules out webhosting and similar issues as does the English one. The userpage is not in compliance with either guideline. JoshuaZ 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [Re: Samuel Blanning 21:57 2006-09-19] There is no need to prove that the userpage complies with any guideline; it is quite enough that it does not violate any applicable guideline. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to all that this wiki currently has on userpages on this wiki, the English and French pages are specifically named as pages that should be looked to for guidance on the suitability of userpages. I don't see how it could be possibly be clearer - unless, of course, Meta had an explicit policy on userpages, which it shouldn't need. Meta is a relatively small wiki, with relatively few userpages, and common sense and the guidance of what happens on other Wikimedia projects should be enough. That is what user page itself implies. The English Wikipedia page says "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian". I can't quote a language I don't speak well enough, but the French page certainly has the same thrust. This page is not about Jason Gastrich as a Metian (or whatever the term is); he isn't one, so that would be very difficult. This page is about Jason Gastrich. --Samuel Blanning 23:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User page is a descriptive page, much like Administrator or MediaWiki, and not policy. Although decisions on small projects are often based on common sense, it doesn't seem to apply here; only one of three active Meta users in the discussion thus far have favoured deletion (Naconkantari favoured deletion, Amgine and myself have not spoken either way). I don't oppose deletion; I may yet argue either way. However, any discussion should be centered on Meta alone. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Although decisions on small projects are often based on common sense, it doesn't seem to apply here". No further questions, your honour. --Samuel Blanning 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sarcasm is misplaced and your misunderstanding apparently deliberate. Common sense must be common, which is not the case given that "only one of three active Meta users in the discussion thus far have favoured deletion". As of now, only one of four active Meta users have favoured deletion— any 'common sense' thus derived seems to be neutral or favour keeping. Perhaps you should put aside flippancy to discuss with the Meta community. // Pathoschild 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    This meta only, everyone else go play elsewhere your comments aren't welcome here is very strange. We're all working on the same projects, and every editor in good standing should be heard exactly the same way. Everyone who has made good contributions has earned the right to be heard and not dismissed. Meta is just that and is here to serve the projects, not be a separate fiefdom. - Taxman 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been pointed out to me that Meta's page on userpages says that en:Wikipedia:Userpage and fr:Aide:Page Utilisateur should be read "for more information about appropriate content". If Amgine is done casting aspersions on my good faith, perhaps he can explain which guideline User:Jason Gastrich complies with, because it definitely doesn't meet the English page. I admit however that my French isn't good enough to fully understand the French one. --Samuel Blanning 21:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbusto, that was not the real Uncle Davey. Someone stole my ID on here, and you are taking your ammo now from someone who is, I'm sorry to say, a bad faith fraud. Theox 20:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, crossed out based on Josh's findings. Arbusto 02:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The users who wish to keep this self-promotion should know what Gastrich has written about wikipedia on his website. This page (note the index page is linked on his user page) claims the

    unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense. This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year. I don't see myself returning to Wikipedia because I have shaken the dust from my shoes. In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Wikipedia. It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented.

    Is it acceptable for a wikipedia user page to link to a page and a user who claims Wikipedia is an "awful place for Christians"? Arbusto 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is serious. In this google post a few hours ago[4] Gastrich is attacking a user for removing Gastrich's spam.[5] Note in the google post he even revealed someone's real name, another breach of wikipedia policy. Arbusto 01:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually attempting to reveal the True Names of Wikimedians is a general foundational issue. It is unacceptable on any project and in so far as it has foundation implications should be treated roughly equally everywhere. In any event, this is yet more evidence that Jason has no interest in helping Meta or any other Wikimedia project. He simply cares about us as a vehichle for self-promotion. JoshuaZ 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attacks and off-wiki harassment is an extremely serious offence. I suggest community ban. MaxSem 06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gastrich has no reservations about personal attack and off-wiki harassment. - 72.207.57.81 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. His only "contribution" to a Foundation project is at en, where he is banned and has just had a request to return soundly rejected. He has no business here and we don't provide free web hosting. --Kingboyk 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just too much. I've not seen any evidence the user is here for anything but disruption. Promoting personal views is not what we are here for. - Taxman 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please point to any disruption this user has engaged in on Meta? - Amgine / m | n 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I liken this (pardon the exaggeration to make the point) to someone who has shot 12 people in Canada, but since they haven't shot anyone in the UN building we should let them inside with a gun because well, they haven't shot anyone here. Most of the response is above though. - Taxman 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal attack (follow the link that thisuser added). Arbusto 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Taxman, Samuel Blanning and JoshuaZ. --Richardshusr 17:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I request a check user for Richardshusr, 72.207.57.81, and Gastrich. Arbusto 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I missing something? I'm not sure about the IP, because I don't quite understand the point he was making with that link, but Richard seems to be taking the opposite position to Gastrich. --Samuel Blanning 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of the link provided, assuming you are referring to my comment, is that Gastrich, during the time that he was subject to comment and arbitration, decided that he needed to leave Wikipedia because cooperation with the community "unequally yoked" him with "unbelievers." That, of course, automatically disqualifies him from any attempt at concensus-building. Forgetting for the moment that he never left and, instead, inundated Wikipedia with what looks like a record number of sock-puppets, that kind of talk also makes it clear that Gastrich has no intention of cooperating with "unbelievers" when it comes to "Christian" encyclopedia entries--not ever. 72.207.57.81 03:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about listing Richard-- Sam, email me from my wikipedia account. But I would like some IPs checked.[6] Note the personal attack in that diff. Arbusto 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    216.217.248.84 is almost certainly Gastrich, maybe posting through a proxy. His reference in the "Ginsling" page to his stolen-domain-name group cinched it for me. 72.207.57.81 is yours truly, WarriorScribe, from Wikipedia. I don't have an account here, which is why I haven't rendered a "vote" on the deletion of Gastrich's page; and I think it would be quite unseemly for me to register an account just to do that, so I'll abstain. And Gastrich's comments about integrity aside, I don't think that the "Uncle Davey" here is the real Uncle Davey, as odd as that phrase may sound. - 72.207.57.81 03:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's no surprise that "Uncle Davey" seems to have made an appearance and, oddly enough, he seems to think that elements that apply to one part of the wiki should apply to all. His comments are with respect to the login, but if we extend that, logically, then he should be in support of banning Gastrich from Wikimedia, if he is to be consistent, at all. 72.207.57.81 18:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having posted what I have posted, and understanding that none of it counts because I'm not registered, I've put all of this into perspective (for me). There's been a personal tragedy with which I have to deal that occurred on Wednesday, and it's reminded me just how little all of this really matters in the great scheme of things. If I'm allowed a "vote," I'd "vote:"

*Keep, under provision. Gastrich's behavior has warranted scrutiny across the Wikipedia Universe, and if he's being scrutinized more closely than he likes, he has no one to blame but himself. That Gastrich never takes responsibility for his behavior is relevant, but not enough to warrant removal of the user page, in my view. I'm persuaded by the arguments of the participants in this part of the project that Gastrich has done very little here, if anything, to warrant removal. I am also persuaded by the arguments of the opposition that Gastrich is abusing the privilege of having a user page and has created yet another platform for his self-promotion, and it is clear that this is not the intended purpose of Wiki user pages. The provision that I would suggest, therefore, is that the user page be brought in line with what is normally understood to be a user page, that is, name, general location, hobbies, interests, and so on. Remove the obvious advertising or, at the very least, limit it to a single URL. (Believe me, there's enough inter-advertising on Gastrich's main page that he certainly wouldn't suffer much by the removal of what are really somewhat redundant links to pages all over his domains.) I would also suggest a sort of "probation." Gastrich has already created one sock-puppet and has posted anonymously under an IP address at least once. There may be more of which we are yet unaware, and given the behaviors exhibited in so many other places, but especially Wikipedia, I would suggest that some level of mentorship or supervision be implemented to ensure, as much as possible, no repeat of those behaviors and consequences (the latter of which Gastrich has admitted do not influence him). If Gastrich is willing to live under those kinds of conditions in an effort to demonstrate good will and honest intent, that will work very much in his favor, and will demonstrate that, indeed, all he wants to do is contribute, though we should always remember that he has repeatedly written that such participation is an unequal yoking of believers and non-believers. Then again, should Gastrich reject these kinds of suggestions, that would be evidence that those of us suspicious of his motives are correct, and that Gastrich's only desire with respect to Wikimedia is self-promotion and the promotion of his particular POV. Failure to abide by provisions means my vote is delete. That's my take on it, for whatever it's worth; and I will now leave it to be hashed out by the rest of the community. 72.207.57.81 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'd like the Deletion tag removed from my user page. I don't believe user pages can be treated like articles and therefore, while the community's input is important, I do not believe a Deletion tag or a discussion about its deletion is appropriate. I know of no precedent for this sort of action and as far as Meta Wikipedia goes, I'm an innocent man. --Jason Gastrich 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Jason repeating something more times doesn't somehow make it more true or more relevant. As Taxman and others observed above a) you aren't innocent since Meta is for coordinating wikimedia projects and the only interaction you have had with any Wikimedia project is to grossly disrupt .en and b) innocence isn't even an issue here because you are using the userpage in question for self-promotion as a personal webpage which is completely unacceptable. Wikimedia is not a free webhost and you cannot use your userpage as such. (Oh and for being innoccent here, is Ruth Ginsling your sock? Removing the question from your talk page doesn't make it go away) JoshuaZ 04:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meta is not a free web-hosting service.—Nat Krause 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Look at this edit, I asked him if he was using sock puppet and he told me not to post on his talk page. In these edit he wiped his talk page clean [7][8], another violation of rules. ((Note edit summary: "You haven't been redeemed. Please stop the harassment or I'll get an admin.") Arbusto 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ban him immediately he just revealed a user's name, address and phone number.(Contact me on the talk if you need proof.)Arbusto 20:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nothing new about that [9][10]
      • Comment The notion of having an editor on any Wiki project who is actively going out of their way to reveal the True Names of people on other projects is simply ridiculos. How much longer is this going to go on? JoshuaZ 21:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment What we can read here is probably exactly the sort of thing Gastrich expected when he publicized another editor's address and phone number.
  • Delete I definitely know that none of the projects of WMF have a goal which allows people to use any of the pages only for their personal needs. I believe this user page content is far beyond than expressing himself to the WMF community and his contribution history supports that he is not in any collaboration with Meta community so I strongly believe that he uses Meta as a free web-hosting service.--Dbl2010 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. For god's sake, this guy has NO INTENTION of ever contributing here. As far as I can tell, this is free webhosting. He absolutely should have been banned from Wikimedia projects from a long time ago, and you're worried about precedent? This is doing nothing here but potentially glorifying a very problem user I was (mildly) involved with months ago. C'mon. Grandmasterka 05:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The "there's no precedent" complaint is a bad argument, anyway, if only because a precedent has to start with that first decision, to set a precedent to begin with.
    Thus the discussion. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. And LO, in the month of September (maybe October) in the 2006th year the Admins did add to all relevant policies that Metawiki will not permit currently banned users (or even users on probation from ANY Wiki) to edit Meta, let alone have user pages. As a coordinator among projects it is useful and logical to create and enforce such measures to ensure the integrity of Meta. The assumption of good faith for Meta is beyond me; as Meta should be about users from other projects coming here to help out. Banned users cannot (assuming they don't have multiple active accounts on different projects) meet that criteria. - RoyBoy 15:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=441563"