Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arzachel

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 as is. If Arzachel starts spamming userboxes again, those edits will be reverted and his userpage will be protected for an appropriate amount of time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arzachel

User clearly cannot be all these things displayed in their userboxes. It's obvious they've just indiscriminately stuck on here every userbox they can find in an attempt to get their username in as many categories as possible. Users who do this really cheapen the value of userboxes and defeat the purpose of the Wikipedian categorization system. I see there has already been comments on their talk page regarding their absurd amount of userboxes but there was no reply. In fact, this was the attitude they took when another user attempted to comment out their userboxes to avoid spamming categories. -- œ^™ 13:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the edit cited by the nom shows that Arzachel is spamming his user page with userboxes as a means of disruptive editing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Indifferent- I've again commented out the many, many userboxes. Let's hope that is all that's necessary. Reyk _YO! 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What's the problem with having a shitload of userboxes? I'm asking seriously. Does it make any difference which user categories he's in? Are we worried about the size of the page? I really don't see what the problem is, and I hardly see how it defeats the purpose of our categorization system (not that I'm really clear on what that is in the first place). I'd appreciate clarification on the matter. Buddy431 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedians browse the USER categories to seek out other Wikipedians with similar interests. It defeats that purpose when this user places himself in every single category when he doesn't belong to them. It only misleads those Wikipedians who actually have an interest in fostering a sense of community. He's doing it for the sake of doing it, because "he can", because it's "his page", and that is indeed being disruptive, as TenPoundHammer has pointed out. As per WP:USERCAT, "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". This page serves no purpose, it makes no improvement to Wikipedia, it is clearly "Excessive unrelated content" per WP:UP, and therefore should be deleted. -- œ^™ 11:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of these templates were not even added by the user when they were logged in, but by an IP address (who may well have been the same person but logged out). Furthermore, having so many templates on the page actually caused the page to exceed the maximum template limit, so some of the userboxes are not even displayed. However, this deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation of a new userpage which does not go "over the top" in terms of userboxes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes of course. Or even without prejudice to the user simply removing them himself, which I would also be fine with. -- œ^™ 18:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the UBXes are now removed. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 11:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think they have just been commented out so they don't display, as User:Reyk mentioned that they did above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't mean he won't just redisplay them, like he's done once before. -- œ^™ 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional keep if the user agrees to remove them. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 05:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:USERCAT, WP:POINT, and Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content and per the cogent reasons advanced by OlEnglish, TenPoundHammer, and Metropolitan90. The excessive number of userboxes, nearly all of which are misleading, is disruptive and displays a lack of respect for those who use userboxes to find people who share the same interests or are of a particular background (people whom they could ask for insight on various topics). I would have supported keeping the page in its current state, with the userboxes commented out, had it not been for this edit, a sign that the user will redisplay the userboxes. Cunard (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh, by which I mean keep This isn't actually and actively harmful so we shouldn't care. Lots of people are annoying. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

  But it is actively harmful. Maybe not to you or others who don't use these categories but to those who do care about community rapport and fellowship it's disruptive. He can be annoying on his own userpage without disrupting the project by category-spamming. -- œ^™ 10:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with OlEnglish that category spamming has an adverse affect on other Wikipedians. Editors who use these categories to find others with similar interests or backgrounds will be disappointed to find that they have been mislead into loading a lengthy userpage of a user who neither shares those interests or backgrounds nor respects their time. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep cheapening userboxes is never a reason to delete someone's userpage. It could even be a reason to keep it depending on who you ask. I refuse to remove a category on my userpage about pooping, and this guy should be allowed to have a batshit insane amount of userboxes on their userpage if they wish. It might be different if the only thing they did was edit their userpage, but their contribution history shows a lot of work in the main article space. -- Ned Scott 09:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue isn't so much with the amount of userboxes as it is with the amount of user categories, which is misleading and distracting to those who use them. If he subst'd all the userboxes and manually edit out the categories he doesn't belong to I wouldn't care. -- œ^™ 10:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there is nothing wrong with having favourite articles. Why can't the UBXes be removed while keeping the rest? Kayau Voting IS evil 10:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be ideal. I was hoping to get a response here from the user himself, but it seems he's not active enough. The page as it looks now with the userboxes commented out is acceptable, and I'm guessing this MfD will be closed as moot because of that reason. However, the decision to delete is contingent upon what the user does in the future, if at some point he returns at restores the userboxes again, I don't see any other alternative BUT to delete the entire page, or take the necessary steps in dispute resolution. I'll be keeping the page on my watchlist. -- œ^™ 14:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is closed as moot, I ask the closing admin to provide guidance as to what procedures should be taken if the category spamming were to occur again—perhaps reverting the disruption and then page protection? I do not want a second round of MfD. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with restrictions. The main concern is Arzachel's page appearing in numerous user categories that are inapplicable or even contradictory. For the moment, the userboxes have been commented out and Arzachel has not reverted this, so the problem is not present. Although Arzachel has resisted efforts to remove them in the past, that was almost four years ago. If they return to visibility, then that's what WP:ANI is for. If any deletion is needed, it would be revision deletion of the versions of the page that include the userboxes. There simply isn't a good justification for deleting the entire page and all its history. --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - why do the UBXes need to be revision deleted? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say they need to be. Rev deletion is the greatest degree of deletion I could envision being appropriate if there were any need for deletion at all, but in the current circumstances, with the boxes commented out and no evidence that Arzachel is trying to uncomment them, I don't see a reason for anything to be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand why revision deletion would be needed at all for this kind of situation. If the userboxes were just plain removed from the page, I can't imagine any problem with them remaining in the edit history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, it does not fit in any of the revdel criteria. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:58, 12 January 2011 (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.