Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
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 Speedy deleted per user request and precedent. I find the revert-warring over creation of a redirect from the user's former name to be counterproductive. Newyorkbrad 14:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat

edit

I do not wish to have a former userpage which should be more than an adequate reason. I have {{db-self}}'ed the page twice but User:Ned Scott recreated it twice and revert warred over my tagging of my own former userpage for deletion. -- Cat chi? 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to amend my position:
  • "I want to" is more than an adequate reason for people to get their userpage deleted unless the user in question qualifies as a "disruptive user".
  • If people feel that I qualify as a "disruptive user" they can take it to arbitration comitee or community sanction board which will most certainly result in an indefinite block if they are right. Userpage redirection however is not a part of dispute resolution.
  • Allegations of me trying to "hide" something is unfounded and ridiculous. I can just register a new account with no connection to this one if I really was trying to hide something. People have done this before and it is allowed.
  • I feel this issue is extremely lame.
-- Cat chi? 07:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note there are two ANI threads on it here and here. Might want to give those an eyeball before giving an opinion. —— Eagle101Need help? 02:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirect There is no "user page", but only a redirect to Cat's new userpage. Over 2,000 pages still link to User:Cool Cat in discussion. Removing this redirect causes needless confusion for anyone reviewing past discussions, or simply trying to find Cat who were unaware of his name change. Removing this redirect also makes it harder to connect Cat's old block log. While he does provide a link on his new page, that's still no reason to cut off the ways people normally look for this information.
    WP:CSD#U1 points to Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? for details on how to handle such situations. There it says (emphases mine): "...If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page...." "...As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason (see also Right to vanish)..."
    This is not a Right to vanish situation, and there is no issue with real names or anything like that. There is no good reason to delete this redirect, and only the potential for confusion. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Userpages can be deleted just because the owner feels like it. This may be the first time a userpage had been nominated for deletion like this. It is quite lame. The talk pages are there if anyone wonders. -- Cat chi? 02:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No one else has simultaneously tried to keep all their contribs, comments, etc. by changing their username, yet tried to several all relationship with the previous username. What are you trying to hide? —Centrx→talk • 02:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd assume good faith and assume he wants a fresh start under a new name but is still proud enough of his contributions to have everything still obvious on his new user pages. My question is, what happens to the block log if the user page gets deleted and then a new account is created with that name? Carcharoth 02:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe "what are you trying to hide" is a legitimate question. "Can you hide anything" is a better one. I am incapable of "hiding" anything. It is the deletion of a former userpage which does not affect my contribution history, block log, move log, user rename log or any other log. Since the talk page is there people can find my new username - just a bit inconveniently. -- Cat chi? 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But what is the point of you having it deleted? The effect is to inconvenience people. —Centrx→talk • 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I really wanted to "inconvenience people" I would not have put the links on my userpage. In addition if I truly wanted to "inconvenience people", I would just register a new account. -- Cat chi? 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    Since when does a user need to explain why he wants his user page deleted? Can you honestly say if the user requesting this wasn't Cool Cat you'd still have the same issues with the deletion as you do right now? Yonatan talk 08:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you read Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? —David Levy 08:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All have to say is that this is an incredibly lame thing to be warring over/caring about at all. -- John Reaves (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, two words to sum up my view is ABOSOLUTELY LAME, no matter what side of debate your on. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever wasted time or got confused because you hadn't realised that a particular name was another user under a different name? When you fail to realise that, it makes you realise how easy it is for confusion to reign unless linkage and transparancy is maintained. Carcharoth 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, maybe it could, but that does not justify why we need to even care about this. I would rather have more people making constructive edits to the encyclopedia, like working on articles, than wasting time on this insignificant issue. This issue is getting more attention than it needs and some articles out there which needs attention is not getting enough. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sure. Consider it taking a break. We will all do some constructive edits sooner rather than later. The exact mix differs for everyone. Carcharoth 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - delete User:White Cat. Hang on, is that the wrong one... :-) Seriously, if Cool/White/Chi/Out Cat wants the page history gone, delete and restore as a redirect to User:White Cat, with no page history. BUT, keep User talk:Cool Cat, and its archives, as this will contains material and discussions contributed by other people. Carcharoth 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk pages were never nominated for deletion. I made no such attempt and do not intend to do so regardless the outcome of this MfD. All page histories were moved to my new username. -- Cat chi? 02:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just been looking. Should have done that before commenting, sorry. I see that User talk:White Cat/Archive is indeed a complete record, and that the history of User:Cool Cat is already gone (wasn't it technically moved to your new name?). So what is the problem with having a "no history" redirect? If User:Cool Cat is deleted, then you leave open the possibility that someone else could start a new account with that name (unless the name change process prevents that). If there are still old references to your previous name in old Wikipedia pages, then that could get very confusing. Also, one thing that is still not clear is the timeline. Would you object to making clear when the transition between different names took place? Once the old sigs have been renamed to White Cat, it will no longer be clear when the transition took place. Finally, what is the difference between Special:Contributions/Cool Cat and Special:Contributions/White Cat? Carcharoth 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I think I see the problem. This shows that the talk page User talk:Zscout370 has been restored recently. I guess that happened after your user name change, hence the edits have been restored under the old name and not transferred to your new name. Interesting. Someone might want to raise this point with those who deal with username changes and/or developers - it seems that deleted edits are not transferred between contributions lists when usernames are changed. Carcharoth 02:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Username changes do not change the author associated with deleted revisions. So, Special:Contributions/Cool Cat contains revisions that were deleted revisions at the time of the username change, but were then restored after the username change and thus are still associated with the old username change. Also note that this means that every deleted revision authored by User:Cool Cat is still associated with that username. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another reason to keep the page. But I'm still not clear, deleting the user page wouldn't get rid of the account, since we know people can have talk pages and not user pages, and can indeed be nothing but a contribs list (and block list), so all that has to be done is ensure no usurption of User:Cool Cat occurs in the future. Keeping User:Cool Cat as a redirect to User:White Cat is a fail-safe method to achieve that. So I'm going to vote keep. But really, this should be dealt with clearly by a guideline. Shouldn't need an MfD. Carcharoth 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think an unsurpation of the account will occur either. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the accompanying mass signature changing, the deletion of this page serves no purpose but to be disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussions. Carcharoth 02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Changed my mind and striking out, per comments below. Carcharoth 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: if this page were deleted, what happens to Cool Cat's block log? I'm concerned that this desire to delete a former userpage and modify past signatures may have the effect of hiding this person's past transgressions. That may not be this editor's intent, but I do see it as a possible effect. I don't want to cast aspersions on his character, but I also think that things like prior contributions and blocks should remain transparent to all. --Kyoko 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, nothing happens. The account still exists, but you just get a red link in the edit history while the contribs link remains blue. And the block log and other similar pages would still exist as well. For example User:Coolcat is a redlink (and was deleted yesterday - see the log), but the block log still exists. And Cool Cat (sorry! White Cat) has links to the block logs of both his former accounts on his user page. Carcharoth 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep redirect, I've decided. I know that White Cat has been running a bot to update past signatures to his current account, but I remembered that he has run for admin in the past and also been involved with some RfCs. I don't believe the names of the RfAs and RfCs would be updated, and there is a need to maintain a clear connection between the old username and the new one, no matter what file is accessed. --Kyoko 03:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, and in the interest of full disclosure, I did participate in an RfC in which Cool Cat was involved, and I think I opposed him on one of his RfAs as well. I don't bear him a grudge, I just feel that there should be a clear link between old and new usernames, no matter who is involved. I used to be User:Tachikoma, but I changed my account to User:Kyoko, and I had been signing with my name for months before the official account change, just so you know. --Kyoko 03:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    RFCs, RFAs, RfArs, RfMs aren't affected. I am not under arbitration remedies (past case is logged on my userpage under history) and I have a very nice archive of my past RfAs linked on my userpage. -- Cat chi? 11:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement of "RFCs, RFAs, RfArs, RfMs aren't affected" illustrates my point: if someone were perusing the list of old RfAs and clicked on your former name, they would only end up with an empty page if the redirect is itself deleted. Furthermore, even if your bot does get every single old signature, I'm not sure that it would be able to change links like {{user2|Cool Cat}} --Kyoko 13:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am having difficulty comprehending the problem. Would you mind illustrating with an example? -- Cat chi? 13:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've done some searching, and some thinking, and perhaps you're right. Would only your userpage be deleted, or the talk page as well? I think that at least some Cool Cat-> White Cat connection needs to be kept, not just White Cat -> Cool Cat, if that makes any sense. People who click on any of your old Cool Cat links need to be able to find you. If at least the talk page is maintained as a redirect, I'm willing to change my decision. --Kyoko 14:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However, you do need to make it clear, permanently, on your current page that you had prior usernames. People should not have to dig through logs to find the connection between your old and new accounts. One more thing: if you haven't already, please update your listing in the List of non-admins by edit count to reflect your new name. I would include a link, but I can't seem to find it, sorry! --Kyoko 14:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a lot of bookmarks using my old talk page linkage. I have no intention of deleting the older talk pages. If I wanted to really hide my history I would just register a new account with no connection to this one. A lot of people had done this in the past... I do not have such an intention. I am making my username change as public as possible. Few people are unaware of it now after this past nonsnese. While I am not required to even mention past accounts, I have already done so on my userpage. -- Cat chi? 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, changed from "Keep redirect" as stated above. I'm convinced that transparency will be maintained because of the user's stated desire to maintain the old talk page and list his former usernames on his current page. Oh, and White Cat, if you are interested in updating the list of non-admins by edit count, the link is here. --Kyoko 14:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what happens to User:Coolcat - deleted yesterday? I'm beginning to change my mind on this. As long as the deletion logs for these two pages include a link to User:White Cat, there should be no problem. That would be like a "redirect" for those who know where to look. The current deletion log for User:Coolcat is a good example: [1]. That would mean that replacing all the sigs wasn't even needed, but it does help. Carcharoth 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, as for the restoration of my talk page, I was restoring edits because I had that HD DVD code pasted there several times. So that is why I nuked it on May 1st. But, if I had some idea that this name change was being done, I would have restored it before hand, since White Cat has posted at my talk page a lot. Anyways, I believe under these circumstances, the redirects should be kept. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to see more time pass before considering deletion this "old" user page. There's no compelling reasons to delete the page at this time. Keeping the page would help to avoid confusion. ChazBeckett 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the page has already been deleted. See the page logs. What we are discussing here is a "no history" user page that is really a redirect. Carcharoth 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, what's being discussed is whether or not the page should be completely deleted. Yonatan talk 08:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is weather or not I have any control over my userpage. I do not want to have "former" userpages. I want to get it deleted completely. -- Cat chi? 10:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm convinced that deletion doesn't hide anything. Usurption can't take place. All necessary links (talk pages, block logs, contribs lists, and so forth) are at User:White Cat or subpages thereof. Links are (or should be) in the deletion log, and this MfD is also a good record of what happened, so just delete and move on. Carcharoth 12:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that the logs and links in question were still accessible through "inconvenient" links even if I didn't put them on my userpage. -- Cat chi? 13:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to BJAODN Now that I think about it, this whole thing is pretty stupid. I've better shit to do. -Pilotguy hold short 13:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For goodness' sake, Cat is kind enough to volunteer his username history at his new page, and isn't asking that the talk records be deleted. All that will happen to the many places where he signed his old name is a "red-linking." WP allows this for discreet username changes all the time; despite past controversies, Cat does do good work here, and deserves the courtesy. Xoloz 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not finding User:Cool Cat from User:White Cat, but finding where User:Cool Cat, which is linked in numerous places and in all the page histories where he has commented, went off to. Who made that comment and how can he be contacted? Why are his contribs gone? What is the point? Why exactly does he want it deleted? "discreet" user name changes are where the person's real identity has been exposed or some such; is that the case here? If someone in the future gets linked to User:Cool Cat and goes through the trouble of finding out where the account moved to, why should he not then put a redirect there? Without some justification, deleting this is just inconveniencing people on a whim. —Centrx→talk • 17:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has a "right" to know where Cool Cat has gone. It is enough that, if they see White Cat, they become aware of his history. There is no good reason to go "hunting" for Cool Cat through links, if the person behind that name no longer wants it. Xoloz 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And he does not have a "right" to delete a page on Wikipedia on a whim. This is not even vanishing. If he is still here, and someone wants to communicate with him, most are still going to be able to figure out how, it is just going to be an inconvenience to do so. If he no longer wants to be contacted from that old name, he can vanish. If he does not vanish, anyone is still capable of finding him, but deleting this page just wastes their time while doing so. —Centrx→talk • 02:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately it is my userpage. Linking to my past logs is merely a courtesy on my part, I am neither expected nor required to put them. People can be inconvenienced (I do not see how) and it is not my problem. Nor is their inconvenience a reason to keep the page.
    Userpages are not a crucial aspect of a users contribution to wikipedia. People are not even expected or required to have userpages.
    -- Cat chi? 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    You also don't own these pages, and if other users see fit to use them to help them find and idenfity other users, then that's also allowed. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone does not have a user page, and gets a user rename, and I go through the trouble of trying to find the person to contact, then the polite thing for me to do is put a redirect from the old page to the new, so that others will not waste their time duplicating what I've already done. Why is this page any different? —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ease of tracking, history and usefullness. Remember WP:OWN, this space is not yours Mr. Cat. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Ownership of articles or WP:OWN for short as its very title explains applies to articles. My userpage is not an "article". The content in question is a "redirect" which als fails to be considered an article. -- Cat chi? 07:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Outside of "I want to", what purpose would deleting the page have? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does he need another one? --BigDT 05:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If his only reason is "I want to for no reason at all", then it would seem that he wants to inconvenience everyone, including this MfD and anyone who might try to contact Cool Cat, for no reason at all. That's stupid; Wikipedia is not hedonism. —Centrx→talk • 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, particularly when it is much easier to leave a redirect behind, which everyone will forget about in a few months. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If people are incapable of finding my talk page (user talk:Cool Cat), I honestly feel they ought to check their priorities. Centrix if you are so concerned about people "finding" me why are you reverting my past redirect fixes? You are generating more pages linking to this one by doing so. Please do not complain about an issue steming from your actions. -- Cat chi? 07:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a compromise suggestion. Use Protected titles. We can make User:White Cat/New identity, put a short message directing users to your new user page, transclude the old page, and protect it. That way, your old page will be protected as a redlink and anyone going there can find you. That should satisfy everyone. (Although personally, I think this is silly ... of course you should be able to have your page speedied.)--BigDT 05:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User wants his user page deleted. Delete it, put note of username change in deletion log, and it's already on his new user page. More than sufficient in my eyes. -- Samir 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't his user page. It's a redirect to his user page from a username that no longer belongs to him. Please explain how the project would benefit from its deletion. —David Levy 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would make this whole issue go away, which would be the greatest benefit to the project that could ever arise from this debate. -- Samir 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deciding to keep the redirect would make the "whole issue go away" to the same extent, with the added benefit of not making it more difficult for users to find the editor that they seek. —David Levy 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless Cool/White Cat can cite a reason why the project would benefit from the redirect's deletion. Ample evidence that the project benefits from the redirect's continued existence has been provided. —David Levy 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe agitating me or any other user does not benefit the project. This insistence on keeping my former userpage harms the project by waisting valuable resources such as peoples time on issues such as this very MfD. -- Cat chi? 07:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    Deleting the redirect will agitate numerous users, and one could just as easily argue that you're wasting people's time by initiating this MfD debate instead of simply consenting to the retention of a redirect for which you've provided absolutely no deletion rationale beyond "I want so." (I'm not arguing this, however.) —David Levy 08:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't help but think he did this to spite those who reverted his sig changes, and make things harder for them. He had no such request to delete the redirect until he was told to stop updating his sig in archives. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Users asking for their userspace to be deleted should be uncontroversial. White Cat links to all the relevant info on his username so I think its reasonable for us to delete his userpage as Cool Cat. WjBscribe 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't about the ability of people familiar with the White Cat username to connect it to the Cool Cat username. It's about the ability of people familiar with the Cool Cat username (who follow such a link) to connect it to the White Cat username. Making this more difficult is the only major effect of the requested deletion that I can think of, and Cool/White cat has yet to cite another reason (or any reason) why he wants this to be carried out. —David Levy 06:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then take the matter to arbcom (about my disruption). People familiar with my former username are more than capable of figuring out my current name via talk page redirect. I do not believe I need any reason aside from "I want so". Dude its my suerpage, it isn't a document of any kind. -- Cat chi? 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • ArbCom?! When did I express any desire to file a report against you? I merely see clear harm (and no benefit) to the project in deleting this redirect.
          Again, this isn't your user page. It's a history-free redirect to your user page. If this were a matter of you departing the wiki or removing personal information that you no longer wished to divulge, I would understand your desire to delete the page. What, other than preventing people from following User:Cool Cat links and reaching your user page, do you hope to accomplish? And how do you expect someone who sees a red link to realize that the corresponding talk page exists? —David Levy 08:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was not accusing you spesificaly, just was making a general comment. If I am not arbcom/communitysacntionboard/indefblock worthy the entire "disruptive user" argument mentioned above fails which is apperanly a keep rationale as well as the basis of Ned Scotts irrational behaviour. -- Cat chi? 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The wording in question refers to a potential reason why speedy deletion of a user page might not be carried out. It has nothing to do with a situation in which such a deletion is disputed (which calls for the page's immediate restoration and an MfD discussion).
              I would appreciate answers to my questions. They're entirely sincere (and not intended to be confrontational). —David Levy 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. The previous identity is openly admitted on the new userpage, and the talkpage redirects, so this just seems silly. A redirect is useful, with the downside kind of, err, unstated. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... I was going to vote "delete and redirect," because I assumed that the issue was the page history. Clearly, if there were things in the page history that the user wanted to have disappear, that would be permissible by our standards. However, (a) the page has already been moved, along with its history, and (b) the page now nominated is a redirect with trivial history. Thus, although I have no real knowledge of the situation, I have to incline toward the view of other "keep"-ers here that this is an attempt to obstruct transparency and dissociate the current version of this account from the older version. If the user really wants to start fresh, I would recommend just starting a new account. In order to maintain the sanity of Wikipedia discourse (such as it is) we must maintain a certain continuity. -- Visviva 06:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an attempt to obstruct anything. He's linking to his old usernames from his current user page. Yonatan talk 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How will that help someone who views an old discussion (perhaps one of many in which this user's misconduct is discussed) and follows a link to User:Cool Cat? —David Levy 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why will someone looking at old discussion *need* to know what Cool Cat's user name is? If they really do, why does everyone have an issue with him changing his old sig to link to his new user page? You can't hold both ends of the stick. Yonatan talk 08:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Someone reading an old discussion might have a reason to contact Cool/White Cat.
            The problem with the signature replacements is that they obscure the fact that other users' references to "Cool Cat" pertain to someone whose messages now bear a different username. (I'm not, however, suggesting that this was Cool/White Cat's intention.) —David Levy 08:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a user wants to delete his old user page. He's linking to his old block log, etc. from his current user page, what's the problem? Personally, I don't see the point, but if that's what he wants, I don't see the problem. Yonatan talk 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, I don't see the point, but if he wants his [edit] former userpage to be deleted, it should be. [edit] It's for a user that no longer exists. hmwithtalk 06:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this isn't his user page. It's a redirect to his user page from a username that no longer belongs to him. —David Levy 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the above edits, the user still exists. He simply no longer goes by the name "Cool Cat." —David Levy 08:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, User:Cool Cat still exists as a separate account from User:White Cat and he has the password for that account (and tagged it for speedy deletion from that account). The opposition to a user's requested deletion of his [former] user page reeks of being a dick. If this was any other user it would've been speedy deleted and no one would have had an issue with it. Yonatan talk 08:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're missing my point (which is that the revision history doesn't contain the former user page content).
          It's reasonable for you to express disagreement with users who wish to retain the page, but referring to us as "dicks" is quite unnecessary. —David Levy 08:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a bizarre line of thought. These pages and redirects are not just for him, they're for all of us. (Ironically, the redirect would benefit Cat as well). We need to be able to reasonably find information, especially when the name is being used in several past discussions, often being linked to. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which, by the way, is still well over 2,000 pages of incoming links. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the userpage is for my personal use only. I can get it deleted at my whim if I desire. If there are well over 2000 broken links, that is most certainly not my problem in any way. Userpages are in no way a critical aspect of wikipedias operation. Many have argued at their lack of necessity. A lot of users do not have userpages a notable example can be User:Tony Sidaway. In addition I posses the password for "User:Cool Cat" and it is my account. I tagged it with speedy deletion template from that account as well and yes Ned Scott did revert that too. -- Cat chi? 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Indeed, the 2,000+ pages containing broken links would not be your problem. They'd be the community's problem, and that's why some of us seek to prevent said problem from arising (despite the fact that you don't care about it and apparently wish to create it). —David Levy 08:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about the page simply saying "This is the previous, currently inactive userpage of User:White Cat, who changed usernames." or something of the like? It would serve the same purpose without just redirecting. hmwithtalk 08:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if an owner of userpage wants it deleted, so be it. If this ends up as keep, then to balance the issue, we should recreate Doc glasgow's userpage, or anyone else who had their userpage deleted. It would be only fair, I think.  Grue  08:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're conflating two separate issues. If Cool/White Cat wished to have his user page (User:White Cat) deleted, that would be fine. (Such links still would lead to his account.) This isn't about that. We're discussing the requested deletion of a history-free redirect to that user page (which enables people to find him). It could lead to his contribution history or his talk page, and that would be fine. It could simply contain a message explaining the user name change, and that would be fine. No one is required to have a user page, but Cool/White Cat has supplied no reason (other than "I want so") why we should deliberately break thousands of links, thereby making it harder for people to find him. —David Levy 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the precondition to delete the redirect is my userpage I cam gladly get that deleted too remvoing all links to my past logs. I sincerely hope that isn't preferable. -- Cat chi? 09:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, if the person wants his old userpage to be deleted, let it be. He still shows his former logs on his current userpage, so why keep it when the user wants it deleted? It's his choice, not ours, what can we say? Terence 09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or get a bot to fix all the old signatures so they point to his new account. Then it could be deleted. Why keep it when the user wants it deleted? Because he isn't the user any more. Neil (►) 10:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an attempt at running this bot, and its edits were reverted. Also, the Cool Cat account is registered and the deletion request came from that account. Yonatan talk 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, I think there are three concerns behind the keep votes, which it would perhaps be best to clarify:
1. Talk page conversations in which the user is addressed by the former name will be obscured (and even more so when the sig has been changed).
2. Links within historical revisions of pages will always point to this page.
3. Links to the user from page revisions undeleted after the name change still point to this page. (this last one is probably minor, and really something of a bug).
None of these are really serious issues, but arguably they combine to show a need to preserve the continuity of our shared discourse which overrides the user's right to have the page deleted. -- Visviva 10:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent

More precedent User:Doc glasgow

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cool_Cat&oldid=1143858813"