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. without prejudice to restoration should these pages be actually needed for dispute resolution, once the ban has been lifted Salvio 19:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that ArbCom has declined SR's procedural appeal, and there's no consensus within the community to re-open the original CBAN discussion, I'm assuming that if SR appeals again, in 6 months, it cannot be on the basis that the there was a procedural error, ArbCom having settled that. If this is the case, shouldn't all the pages in SR's user space in the "AC2020" sub-directory be deleted per WP:POLEMIC, which states that user pages cannot contain:
Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason.
Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.
Delete all as likely to perpetuate an unhelpful personalisation of the issue. Guy (help!) 09:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why waste time with a Monday MfD instead of just asking Sashi to U1? We literally went through this exact scenario last year. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 13:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because (1) I wasn't aware of a "last year", (2) I don't wish to deal with SR, and (3) I want the community to decide this, not to rely on whether a site banned editor feels like doing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 31, when another well-meaning user (now indef'd) sought to undelete a page, which was resolved when Sashi agreed to U1 it. If you don't want to interact with a user, perhaps leave deleting their user pages to someone else. There's no need to waste the community's time with an MFD when this is a housekeeping matter... even if you want to. My money says Sashi sees this this weekend and again will say it could have just been U1'd, which he would have said had anyone had the decency to simply ask. I could be wrong, we'll see. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 14:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the proper venue for nominating miscellaneous pages for deletion, so your remarks as to how it should have been otherwise handled you should save for the next time you wish to have a miscellaneous page deleted. As for me, I'm following the standard protocol, so I am "wasting" no one's time. If you believe your time is being wasted, I suggest that you don't comment any further. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you didn't follow protocol. You haven't properly tagged all the pages, and at least one, User:SashiRolls/AC 2020:Content, doesn't even come close to your description of POLEMIC. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I didn't comb my hair this morning either, you want to make a federal case out of it? If you know how to do it (mark the other pages, I mean, not comb my hair) go ahead and do it, I couldn't figure it out. But, no, you've already wasted much too much time here as it is. I'm sure it'll be fine, just go about your business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Levivich pointed out above, this has been a perennial problem, and that in part contributed to the community ban. Best not to perpetuate the issue as Guy put it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the perennial problem Levivich is pointing out is a small group of users relentlessly hounding the shit out of Sashi over a period of years. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 14:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see, SR was community site banned, the site ban held up on appeal, a request to reopen it didn't find consensus, and the close of that discussion was endorsed by the community. Maybe ... just maybe ... SR was a disruptive editor, and the group that was "relentlessly hounding him" was actually reacting to his continuing disruptiveness, and wasn't nearly as small as you make them out to be, considering that he was CBAN'd etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BMK you've been here a long time, please learn and observe WP:LISTGAP. Anyway, not everyone voting to site ban Sashi has hounded Sashi, obviously. It's a much smaller group than that. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't relevant to this MfD, amounts to hounding by interjecting it at this MfD, and is casting WP:ASPERSIONS anyways in violation of WP:NPA. Those comments do not belong here (or anywhere really).
The reality and subject at hand is Sashirolls was deemed disruptive by the community leading to a ban, they've caused drama by keeping polemic pages like this before, and these pages have already been used for their ArbCom case (and the close review). There's nothing controversial about a deletion like this even if an editor was a saint putting together material for a case. Such pages get deleted after they have been used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:SashiRolls/AC 2020:Content if Sashi wants it, that one's just a list of articles they've edited. As for the rest, see my comments above, seems like a U1 matter. There should probably be a CSD for post-noticeboard evidence pages. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection on keeping that one, I'll strike it out above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the content one, now stricken from the list. And I want to thank BMK for making these nominations, so that I won't have to. If SashiRolls wants to use U1, that would be fine even now, but there is no requirement that the rest of us wait for him to do so. (And as an aside, if Levivich thinks that this is an NPA violation: [1], he sure has a double standard when it comes to what he himself has said about me, and about the stuff that SashiRolls has said about me, all of which Levivich so ardently defends here.) Even if I allow for the possibility that SashiRolls might want to use this stuff in six months, there would still be WP:REFUND available to him if there were a plausible case for such use. And WP:POLEMIC as well as ArbCom precedent: [2], have long been understood at MfD to require deletion of user pages that amass criticisms of other editors, once those pages are no longer intended for near-term use in dispute resolution. (I've taken part in several similar MfD discussions related to American politics, and the consensus here has generally been that use has to occur within a month.) And I have every right to point out that some of these pages make (spurious) claims of wrongdoing by me, even though SashiRolls remains IBANned from commenting about me. For now, site-banned by the community means site-banned by the community, and any user pages criticizing other editors should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(After some further looking around, I see that the perception of a PA arose out of talk elsewhere related to alleged other accounts. But that was never apparent here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]
SashiRolls has now indicated that he does not want to use U1 at this time: [3], so that leaves MfD as the appropriate venue for discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... I have no objection as long as they are not labeled "attack pages", and are treated as U1 (user-requested deletions) is what Sashi actually said, except for the ones referred to in the case request. Hope you're enjoying that retirement. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 02:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very much for those kind wishes, that's very nice of you! Yes, I'm having a good time, so thanks for asking. Since you are being so nice to me, please let me help you find what was actually said. Just click on the diff that I gave. There, you will see: "I am not requesting U1 deletion for: support / oppose / repeat !voters / overview until a solution has been found to integrate them into the ArbCom case record, but I can't fix that from here in my cell". Yes, before that, he did say that he has no objection to deleting the other pages, so I suppose he could actually post there a request for them to be tagged for U1, but since he has not actually done so, here we are. I hope you find that helpful. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reading comments by other editors, I want to reiterate that the policy-based reasons for deleting or keeping come out of WP:POLEMIC and ArbCom precedent, and not out of personal disagreement with the consensus of previous discussions. It would be out of the ordinary to keep these sorts of pages for 6–12 months in case of use in an appeal that may or may not happen at that time. And given WP:REFUND, there is no need to keep, or keep and blank, the pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that ArbCom has declined SR's procedural appeal? Can we have a link to that? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the ArbCom discussion as a referral back to the community.
I see some points worthy of review. For example: Was the ban discussion sufficient? Sufficient in time (almost 3 days), sufficient in participation? Was it closed correctly? There is plenty of room for a review, but I do not see the review headed towards an "unblock" consensus, not remotely.
I think MastCell's close should be readily subjected to a close review. I will do mine here:
Closing at 3 days, not 7, is usually only justified by WP:SNOW.
I think there were more than enough participants. Were the "oppose" !votes given proper consideration? I think so. I think MastCell's closing explanation is good.
Looking for any point of criticism, I can say that consensus for "indefinite", based on a 3 day discussion, is a procedural problem. Here, I read "indefinite" as "infinite" subject to an arbitrary unblock decision by MastCell, or a very courageous independent other admin. This is an unfortunate practice connected to the poorly defined "indefinite". The close refers appeal to ArbCom, but ArbCom has referred it back. Logically, this means the close has erred at its final clause ("any further litigation through ArbCom").
I think the answer is already written by Tony: SashiRolls can appeal to the community in 6-12 months like everyone else. There’s honestly nothing special about this other than the fact that the banned person insisted at the beginning of the ban they wanted to go to ArbCom rather than let the community handle it. User:TonyBallioni 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)SashiRolls can appeal to the community in 6-12 months is something I support on the basis of the two discussions. No less than 6 months, I would leave it to MastCell to pick a time period between 6 and 12 months. I would advise SashiRolls to take a break, and when making an unblock request, to focus on acknowledging past mistakes and committing to a better behaviour in futre, and to not focus on procedural issues. Wikilaywering will not help the case.
As for these pages: Keep all, but blank. They are an important part of the record, even of they are not on the path to a solution. Blank, because there is mild POLEMICs throughout, and because the user is blocked. Do not delete because Wikipedia should not be even remotely seen to be censoring dissent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think that's acceptable (and you're wrong about the ArbCom case as well: they said that the community could decide whether to re-open the case or not -- not that the community needed ArbCom's permission to do that -- but they did not refer it to the community as a judge would refer a faulty case back to a lower court. They definitively said that SR's appeal on procedural grounds was denied -- i.e. no case granted) . The data in blanked pages is just below the surface, for anyone to find. Better is the solution given above: delete, and then SR can go to REFUND, where it can be decided if he can have them back. Since there are no grounds for a procedural appeal, I wouldn't think he should be given them back, but that someone else's problem for another time. Here and now, these pages violate WP:POLEMIC, which is really the only question at hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think is is obviously "acceptable". Blanking is a suggested solution to POLEMICS, and these POLEMICS are mild. How can you say I am wrong about the ArbCom case when it was declined - there was no case. In the decline rationales, there are many pointers referring issues back to the community. Data in blanked pages is just below the surface, yes, but difficult to find for anyone not actively looking, and by being blanked its arguable polemical harm is very much reduced. Most of the harm of polemics comes from it spilling out into the faces of uninvolved people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not going to be re-litigated here. Would an admin look at this with an eye to possible deletion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
**Beyond My Ken is NOT welcome to hat my comments. The reviewability of the close speaks to the relevance of the user subpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As BMK alluded to, this is not the appropriate venue for a close review, and that has already essentially been done. There was no consensus to overturn the close. The routes for Sashirolls have been exhausted for the time being where any page like this would have staying power. Even during the case, these pages were mostly classic ignoring of WP:NOTTHEM anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kingofaces43. I was unaware of the AN review of the close (no consensus to overturn). I would call that a good review. I still see Sashirolls being able to appeal again after six months minimum. I agree that Sashirolls' subpages hurt him, hurt his case. I !vote for blanking them, so that if anyone were to complain, or if Sashirolls re-appeals, we can point to them to explain that should remain banned. I fear that deletion of appeals material can be counterproductive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course SashiRolls can appeal his CBAN to the community in 6 months, but if he bases that appeal on the claim that there were procedural errors in the original CBAN discussion, it's very likely to be a very short appeal, because (1) ArbCom has already ruled that there were not procedural errors in the original CBAN discussion when they declined SR's case request/appeal, and (2) It is almost never the case that ban appeals are granted when the appellant claims errors or bias or other people's misbehavior. CBAN appeals are generally only granted by the community when the appealing editor shows that they have been editing elsewhere -- such as on another WMF project -- productively and with no problems and/or they acknowledges their faults, express remorse, and promise to behave well if they're re-instated. This being the case -- and it is, that's an accurate assessment of how ban appeals work based on 15 years of experience here -- these files will be of no absolutely use to SR, and there's no real argument in favor blanking in stead of deleting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, I think we only have a nuanced difference in our views. I fear that he or someone might call the deletion of his subpages "censorship". I think they have one use for him, for him to tag ((db-u1)). If he were to appeal and link to these pages, or re-create them, then it will make rejection of an appeal easy. I would prefer to "blank" the pages (including the content one, because they are a set), but I respect other's preference to "delete", and point to our agreement that they are not OK to remain live. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all users are allowed to create a page in order to prepare for a case at one of the drama boards, however these appear WP:POLEMIC to me in that they are keeping track of editors who opposed them. It seems like enemies lists. Lightburst (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lightburst. Reads as an enemies list. Also noting that as he appears to have stored them off-site, so if he is ever unbanned and wants to use the material as evidence he still has access to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but blank. It's good to see everyone here again. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The ArbCom Sashirolls case is closed, the user is blocked, these aren't necessary, and this also applies for G5 speedy deletion: A banned user (Sashirolls) created it. 🐔 ChicdatChickenDatabase 10:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat:WP:G5 only applies if the pages were created in violation of ban. These weren't. --Pudeo (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remember that in the future. Thanks for telling me, 🐔 ChicdatChickenDatabase 12:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now). SashiRolls can still appeal, but if he doesn't in a timely manner, you can ask him to WP:U1 them per the instruction at WP:UP. I don't really see it is a pressing matter what is on a blocked user's user subpage (since they can't even link to it anywhere). Nominating them for deletion less than a week after the AN "no consensus" review close is just stoking further drama (which is evident from the rpa and hatting templates above). --Pudeo (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - This seems to be essentially swatting a hornet's nest with a baseball bat. Can't we just leave this well enough alone? Having the MFD seems like an additional waste of time and effort. --WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the pages that were compiled in preparation for an ArbCom case that Sashi has not yet been able to file. Let's wait and see what happens if Sashi files an appeal within 6-12 months. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, he filed for an ArbCOm case. His request was denied. Please don't re-write history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He filed an appeal of his cban. He did not file the case he had intended to file based on the evidence compiled in the subpages you have nominated for deletion. Thus, unlike the cban closure which cited a percentage of votes greater than had actually been reached, my post was accurate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the way he filed it, with named parties and so forth, it was sort of a combination of an appeal and a full-case request. In any event, I don't really see the logic behind arguing that what he filed was an appeal, but he should be able to file a full case, so we should give him time to file the appeal that he hasn't filed yet. He cannot file a full case request without first having a successful appeal, and a catalog of alleged wrongdoings by other editors would not be a valid basis for an appeal, unless one believes that two wrongs make a right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Sashi was accumulating evidence in preparation for filing an ArbCom case before he was banned. ArbCom declined to act on his appeal and the community never arrived at a consensus to overturn the ban that had been imposed without consensus. Sashi will naturally be unable to file his ArbCom case until his ban is reversed and meanwhile I see no rush to delete subpages in his userspace. He didn't abandon those pages; the community abandoned him. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. He filed a case request, which was denied. If the case request had been granted, he would have used this material. It wasn't granted, so he cannot file a case requst at ArmCom again, and, since the question of whether there was a procedural error has been decided in the negative by ArbCom, he cannot make that the core of any appeal he might file to the community in 6 months. Thus, these files are of no use to him now, and 6 months does not fulfill the requirement of "imminently used", so the files need to be deleted. He surely has them offline, in any case he'd be foolish not to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there's something I'm missing, this information will not be used imminently in a dispute resolution process and therefore should be removed unless or until it is needed per WP:POLEMIC. — Wug·a·po·des 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - The community decided that this editor was a net negative. We don't need his debris. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - these pages are of no use to the community. If SashiRolls successfully appeals their ban they can make a case for the pages to be restored, or they do plan to use these materials in their appeal they could ask an administrator for copies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blank. This isn't a gray area in policy. Per WP:POLEMIC, ... compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. (Emphasis mine). While "timely manner" is not defined in policy, it's silly to suggest that the material be retained for an appeal that SashiRolls may or may not file in 6-12 months. That said, blanking serves essentially the same purpose as deleting—it removes from view SashiRolls's attacks against other editors—and still provides SashiRolls (and anyone else) the opportunity to reference the material for any future appeal. So while deletion would be reasonable, blanking seems like a slightly better solution. MastCellTalk 19:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The concern that I have about blanking is that it does not remove from view the edit history, which would still contain criticisms of editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting instead of blanking creates an undesirable rush of drama. It is normal for bad words to be redacted, meaning left in the accessible edit history, but not present on any page or archive page. Unhappy people's dirty laundry lists similarly are normally edited over, or blanked. The notion that every offensive post should progress through an MfD discussion would mean that MfD becomes an index of everything offensive. The routine hard deletion of everything even mildly polemic would cause still-cooling unhappy people to overreact by the imposition of the MfD deadline. This is why WP:POLEMIC points to blanking, it is a process of calm de-escalation, no deadlines. When blanked, no crawler archives it, no search engine points to it, and if previously externally archived, blanking causes the external archive to replace the archive material with an archived blank page. This was a good MfD, I agree with community deciding that these subpages are not OK. Someone quietly blanking them would have been good, too. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we really do agree on the most important points, but here, I guess I could argue that, in a sense, what creates an undesirable rush of drama is editors who rush to drama. Overall, most editors who participated in this discussion have recognized that the pages are not doing anyone any good, but there are a few who insist on defending the indefensible. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, indifferent to blanking. The pages are part of the history of a messy dispute, and are informative for users seeking to understand the dispute by examining them. I'm troubled by the concept of erasing history regarding something like that. I'm not bothered by the pages containing criticism of users. Our 1000s of pages of archived AN and ANI discussions contain much worse criticisms but we usually don't delete such things unless they are far more vituparative than this stuff is. Tryptofish can respond to the criticisms on the talk pages of the contested pages if they want. That all said, I don't miss SashiRolls. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor has 17 edits beginning on July 15, 2020 Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish can respond here by pointing out that I'm far from the only editor criticized, so it affects a lot more people than me, and I couldn't care less what does or does not bother that IP, as opposed to what our policies are. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any policy against criticising editors. Wikipedia DR is full of criticism of editors, lots of the criticism is not very valid, and anyone who has been around for a while is used to that. We don't take criticism by terrible editors like SashiRolls seriously unless it is well supported. So I'm not sure what it is about this particular criticism that you don't want people to see, but if it's so important to you that it be hidden from view, that makes it almost sound worth reading. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read WP:POLEMIC for the basis on which this nomination for deletion was made. It specifically says that pages in userspace which collect complaints about other editors are not allowed unless they are going to be used "imminently" for some legitimate purpose. There is nothing imminent now, so these pages have no legitimate function. As for no policy again criticizing editors, you're mistaken there as well. The rule of thumb is "discuss edits not editors", except at AN and ANI, where the behavior of editors is dealt with. It is true that this proscription is very often broken, but it remains policy nonetheless. See WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although this sub-portion of the discussion has probably gone on past its use-by date, it occurs to me that I ought to clarify my earlier use of the word "criticism". I used that word with the intention of avoiding more emotionally charged words, rather than because it was the most precisely descriptive word that I could think of, which it isn't. But I agree that mere criticism, per se, is not something that requires deletion wherever it shows up, although POLEMIC does indeed reflect the practice that pages devoted to negative information about other editors should not be kept in user space when not imminently useful, in the same spirit as WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As has been noted above these pages are clearly in contravention of of WP:POLEMIC as they won't be used in a timely or imminent manner. Also as noted above only blanking the pages does not remove them from the edit history. If and when SashiRolls appeals the ban to the community they can request that the pages which will be used to appeal the ban are undeleted as they will then be used in a timely way, until then a banned user who is, therefore, no longer a member of the community (per WP:BAN) does not need to have this material in their userspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Callanecc's comment above, and some others like it, seem to hinge on the question of whether a banned user is somehow entitled to have user pages retained. But that seems like a red herring to me. Our long practice is that user pages aren't the user's property; but rather, at the end of the day, they belong to the project. So SashiRolls' entitlements aren't at issue here, as they didn't exist in the first place. SashiRolls's current standing is irrelevant, or even speaks in favor of retention since as a banned user, SashiRolls is not entitled to have the pages deleted under U1. Rather, IMHO the pages should be retained because they make Wikipedia's processes a little more transparent. Various posts (iirc) in the declined arb request refer to them, for example, so it is helpful to be able to click on the links and see what they say.
If someone is sent to jail after a lengthy legal process, the different court filings are normally kept available for people to see whenever they want, even though the case has ended. They're only sealed in unusual circumstances which this isn't. Thus we have 1000s of archived AN/ANI threads, arb cases, etc. They all reflect nuanced decisions by admins, arbs, and other editors, and people should be able to view those decisions and evaluate them for themselves. Deleting these pages seems aimed at obstructing that independent evaluation. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no need for analysis or analogies, because we have a policy, WP:POLEMIC, which deals with this precise situation. I would suggest you direct your future commentary here, if any, to that policy, and not to any possibly analogous real-world situations, which are irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page says "Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, *blanked,* [emph. added] or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Some users have supported blanking here and that seems fine to me. Also, at least some of the material was actually used, by reference in the arb request iirc.
Anyway, most of that stuff reflects more poorly on SashiRolls than it does on any of the people he or she mentions. As such, it mostly documents what an annoying editor SashiRolls was. So I don't understand your desire to cover up the tracks. The only place I see you mentioned is in the list of supporters of the CBAN and that is a neutral mention. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite true that POLEMIC gives options on how to deal with such pages, but this Mf*D* is a nomination for deletion, not for blanking, and the consensus -- at least so far -- appears to me to be for deletion. (12 !votes for deletion, 7 for other options) We'll see what happens when it's closed. Its 7 days will run out tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Sash is obviously banned so therefore none of this is of any use to anyone else on this project, He's more than welcome to store these off-wiki and if he wants to have them restored at a later date (for Arbcom etc) then I'd have no objections to that. –Davey2010Talk 17:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would object. If the community decision is to delete, that decision should be respected, with finality. You are effectively arguing WP:SOFTDELETE, by allowing SashiRolls, if unblocked, easy REFUND access. That is like blanking, except putting the power in the hands of administrators who can see the deleted content. It is inferior to blanking. A decision to delete should mean that the pages were a mistake from the start, and this is not consistent without allowing easy restoration. I think a decision to hard delete these pages means that these pages should never be on-wiki again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very Fair point, When you put it like that these may as well be blanked until he returns, My assumption was that 1 or 2 pages could be of use but sure your view point makes more sense so I've struck that suggestion, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to be more flexible about that, in that first, there would have to be a successful appeal, and then, if community membership has been restored, it should be possible to get the pages back in order to request a full ArbCom case. Not that it would be wise to do so, but that would satisfy the intention of "imminent use". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/blank (except the one that I !voted to keep above, which has since been struck from the list, and should be kept and not blanked). I am persuaded by the keep/blank !votes above that it's a better outcome for the community than deletion. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 14:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:UP#POLEMIC forbids exactly this kind of thing, unless it's being compiled for a dispute resolution process and "provided it will be used in a timely manner". The dispute resolution processes have now concluded with the author being banned, so this doesn't apply, and this stuff cannot be kept around indefinitely. Hut 8.5 16:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These pages serve no useful purpose and fail POLEMIC. Sashirolls has indicated that he has copies offline which he can use for any future appeal. P-K3 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not blank (except for the article list). SashiRolls can save the content on their own hard drive, if they really want to preserve it. ArbCom has already shut off any possible purpose for these polemics, User:Levivich's Wikilawyering notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as polemic. Even a list of users is a problem in these kinds of circumstances. REFUND is always available. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have a very strong opinion between blanking and deleting (probably the latter per WP:POLEMIC, but I'm not !voting). I did want to add a comment along the lines of what I said in the close review thread, though. If I were SR, I'd want all of these pages deleted/removed from view because any future appeal is going to have to make the case that he can edit productively without a persistent battleground behavior. These pages are ready evidence that when that sanction was reviewed the first time he directed all of his efforts at pointing fingers everywhere else, doing opposition research, outlining conspiracies, making lists, etc. without any apparent self-reflection. FWIW I'd just U1 the bunch and say "these aren't helpful anymore" (because they won't be ... IMO). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that he was given the chance to U1 them, and declined (see above). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. I just think that's a mistake on his part. $0.02. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:03, 29 July 2020 (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.