Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UserEnforcer

Article User:Enforcer listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion May 1 to May 7 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

False legal accusations against Wikipedia from a non-Wikipedian. User pages on Wikipedia are for Wikipedians to put information up on, and as User:Enforcer has not edited any Wikipedia pages other than his user pages and his talk page, I do not believe he can be reasonably said to be a Wikipedian. Instead, he is using Wikipedia as a place to publish a personal website, given that this personal page is his only contribution to date, which is expressly against our policy. He is free to bring up any concerns he has on any of the Wikipedia mailing lists, but we are under no obligation to publish his personal webpages on our servers. --Delirium 20:33, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Could possibly be needed as evidence in a libel suit. Guanaco 20:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be discussed on the Wikipedia legal mailing list. RickK 20:41, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Or rather, the Foundation mailing list which supercedes it. [1] - IMSoP 20:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
To play devil's advocate to some extent, outright deletion of this page would seem likely to invite claims of censorship of opinion. That the user page of a "non-existent" wikipedian is an inappropriate place for this is, I think, debatable; but even if so, the solution would surely be to move this to somewhere on meta: where it could be refactored into a page on the legal status of the Wikimedia Foundation, and its obligations and plans present and future. That the user has made no other edits proves only that it is a sockpuppet of some kind (given their knowledge of which users are likely to be amenable to their views); thus, the use of a userpage is probably more appropriate than some other placements, which would probably be labelled spam. I also note that even hard-banned users do not have their user pages deleted - for instance Michael's pre-ban page is still in the page history. in short, keep. - IMSoP 20:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It has seemed to me people are allowed to put just about anything on their own user pages. And this is about the encyclopedia, accurate or not. Other anti-Wikipedia rants sit unmolested, and arguably inaccurate attacks don't seem an issue. Also, Enforcer may well be a sock puppet of a contributor, given his knowledge of the system and certain users. Not a vote. -- V V 23:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with notice that user is banned. Keep in history for legal reasons. For anyone who has doubts that Enforcer is a troll, he placed his comments about these issues on the talk pages of User:Plato, User:JRR Trollkien and User:Pooya, all of whom are known trolls (he selected them for their "determination in opposing anarchy [sic] and vigilantism among Wikipedia leadership") Being familiar with these user names also indicates that Enforcer is a returning troll.--Eloquence* 23:50, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Banned or blocked? You need to learn the game, Eloquence. Either way, identifying methods of legal action on user talk pages is not a viable reason for either. If the group has no better way to discuss its future with critical users, bans, blocks, clobbering, whining and pouting are unlikely to prove any more effective. Get over it and learn to discuss things with people who disagree with you. If the same quality of information was entered in an article on any other subject, it would be corrected or revised in the typical Wiki method of editing perceived edits. Tonto 16:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Tonto has been blocked for good measure, though I'm sure [[User:Enforcer will be back with more sock puppets. - Fennec 15:48, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- FWIW, he also put said comments on User talk:172. -- VV 00:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is correct. Enforcer posted a note on my talk page. So, what's your point? 172 14:46, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Clobber the pages with some kind of notice. Having the text in the page history is a suitable way to keep it for further consideration. Indulging User:Enforcer sets a bad precedent. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:41, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Let the dustbin of history decide his fate; and don't give the User cause to cry "censorship". Funny how these types use the platforms of the very systems they are critical of. Gotta love wikipedia and the First Amendment! Alcarillo 15:33, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the merit of keeping this page, I don't think censorship or the 1st amendment has anything to do with it. As WP is not the government, WP has no obligation whatsoever to provide Enforcer, or anyone, with an open forum. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Clobber with a notice as suggested above. -Fennec 03:15, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, without notice. Notices are appropriate for banned users, not blocked users. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:12, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

End discussion