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: procedural close. WP:U1 was requested and was applied. The user page was subsequently recreated, which means that the revisions whose deletion was desired have been deleted, as requested, and this discussion cannot do anything about this. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have some 10-year old versions of my user profile page deleted? The reason I am asking is that when I first created my user profile page in October 2014 I had revealed more information about myself than I would now like. In effect, because of the existence of that old user profile page it means I can no longer edit anonymously (e.g. someone brought it up during a recent AN/I discussion about me). This is the old version that I would like to see deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EMsmile&direction=prev&oldid=629028548, and also all the versions in the 12 months after that. The first version from when on I edited anonymously is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EMsmile&direction=next&oldid=685391662 . Is it possible to have all my user profile versions from October 2014 until 12 October 2015 deleted? - I hope this is the right place to ask for this. EMsmile (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can no longer edit anonymously because you violated COI and got a restriction for it. And not just "Prompted by the AN/I in January/February 2025, I've realised that I have violated some of the COI guidelines (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure) during my editing activities in 2024 and the beginning of 2025." as you declare on your user page now, but also much earlier, when you added your own research to Wikipedia articles, e.g. here in 2014. Trying to make it harder to discover your COI editing doesn't seem like a beneficial move for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2014 I didn't have a good grasp of COI editing. I was new then. Also, as per here, it is in fact allowed to cite one's own work: You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page.. As far as I can see I followed that guide well.

Do those old versions of my user page really have to exist forever on? Am I not allowed to ask for their deletion? Where in the Wikipedia policies does it state that? Pinging User:S Marshall to get another opinion and because he knows the earlier AN/I discussion well. I didn't think it was overly controversial to ask for 11 year old versions of one's user page to be deleted. - Is it true that I can be forced to be non anonymous on Wikipedia forever on, as a kind of punishment for earlier COI editing violations? EMsmile (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But referencing your own work without disclosing that it is your own work is a dubious practice at the very least. The page you link to is about "how" to do this (attribution-wise), the relevant page about the COI involved is WP:SELFCITE which is a part of WP:COI, where you can't pick and choose the part about being allowed to cite yourself, but not the part about "How to disclose a COI". Furthermore, you have linked your real name and your wiki-handle onwiki at least as late as 2022, so deleting these user page versions won't stop anyone from claiming "emsmile = X, self-disclosed on Y" anyway. As for not using yourself as a source excessively, I think there are some 20 pages which use your publications as a reference, and so far all the ones I looked at were added by yourself. Already in 2015 I see complaints like "Also, 30 references are to the same article or a summary of that article. There's even more references involving the " von Muench, E" guy. It begins to seem POV. " You replied, but don't seem to have disclosed that you were "that guy" (not my sexist presumption, sorry). Making it even harder to find that connection, after you already had an acrimonious ANI debate which ended in an editing restriction for COI/Paid, seems like a very bad move and not something I would expect from someone who strives to be open and correct about their COI/POV/Paid issues. Fram (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, back in 2014/2015 I didn't disclose my COI properly. I am sorry about that and it's not something I can do anything about now. It was certainly not due to bad or malicious intentions. Later (I can't remember exactly when) I did improve my user profile page so that the COI was properly disclosed.

Anyway, I don't think this is the place to discuss my COI editing practices again, after I have just been through a long and gruelling AN/I process. All I wanted to know is if there was any Wikipedia policy that speaks against me deleting my user profile page versions from the first year of my editing. It's true, I did disclose my real name here not long ago, so I am not actually being overly secretive about my identity. I might even one day set up my user profile page in a non-anonymous way; I haven't decided yet if that might actually work better for me and reduce the risk of being suspected of wrong-doings on Wikipedia.

But either way, does it really go against policy to want to have one's old user profile page to be deleted? Please show me the relevant policy page? I am not so familiar with all the policy pages. - Can I use the {{db-userreq}} tag on my userpage as has been suggested on my talk page? EMsmile (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I choose to display my real name, date of birth and location on my userpage. I'm very lucky to be in a situation where I can afford to do that. I'm not vulnerable to bad actors doing some of the things that happen on Wikipedia: they can't do things like phone my employer, which has happened to others. And for example Asian News International are rather unlikely to sue me for my edits.

Other people are more vulnerable, and we need to be mindful of that. There's a balance to be struck between openness and transparency on the one hand, and safety and security on the other.

I do feel the force of Fram's arguments here, but in the particular circumstances of this case, I would place the balance in favour of deleting those old revisions of EMsmile's userpage, and I hope that this will be the consensus that the community reaches here.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this horse has bolted. As I understand it, what EMsmile seeks to have revision-deleted is their name. However, in examining their COI/for pay edits and whether they've adequately disclosed, and particularly after it became apparent that they had made several COI edits beyond those for which they were specifically paid, IMO the community laid bare enough info for their identity to be apparent. Fram's diff above serves as an example; rather a lot would need to be expunged to re-corral that horse. Moreover I agree with what I believe is the thrust of Fram's response: given the enactment of the topic ban after a community discussion (rather than via ArbCom, which provides for private evidence), the community has an overriding interest in being able to assess EMsmile's adherance to the topic ban and to COI best practices, and that keeping previously revealed information about their identity visible in page histories is necessary for this; otherwise only admins can monitor. In retrospect, IMO EMsmile would have been well advised to contact ArbCom in private for advice once they realised they'd not been following best practice. But we're here now. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Fram knows it, so this will be monitored by at least one very persistent and tenacious non-admin.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is now moot, since User:EMsmile was deleted on the user's request. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Antonio Riano Borges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Non notable entity....background information on editor

• related to disruptive and conflict of interest at Antonio Riaño and Draft:Wiki Meters .... More background information available HereMoxy🍁 21:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bit confused about what is going on here. The editor in question's behaviour does not look constructive (especially making an attack page directed at User:Meters). Are they trying to take down an article of someone related to them? Anyway delete the draft as an unsourced BLP. SK2242 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced BLP. MFD is a content forum, so I won't try to explain or comment on the user's conduct, but I won't be surprised to see their name at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Originator was indefinitely blocked, and an unblock request declined, without the drama of WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above reasons. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:27, 11 March 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Havimii/Elnaz golrokh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

• Delete unsourced BLP. SK2242 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced BLP. The history provided by the nominator is noted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think "unsourced BLP" is in itself a good enough reason for MfD deletion (blanking is adequate), but claims like the one in the fifth sentence do up the ante slightly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think drafting on a living person with zero sources whatsoever is incompatible with Wikipedia, and allowing it for newcomers is a failure to to make an important point.

  Nominating at MfD, and the regular SNOW deletions, is creating good evidence to support broadening WP:BLPPROD to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2025 (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.

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. ✗plicit 23:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:John K/Causes of World War I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:COPIES violation of Causes of World War I. Srf123 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Would it be too much trouble for User:Srf123 to ask or notify User:John K, the page author, who is still an active contributor? BusterD (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought Twinkle notifies automatically, probably the option got unchecked when I was creating. Anyway they got mentioned here, so will know now. Srf123 (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a COPIES violation, unless the author has a legitimate explanation and is planning on using this to make improvements to the mainspace article. SK2242 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a copy of a mainspace article, which is a content fork that is not updated when the article is updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a violation of WP:COPIES. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:46, 8 March 2025 (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.

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: no consensus. ✗plicit 14:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shine Private Basic School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Too soon. A quick search found me absolutely no sources, only listings on Itch.io and YouTube. Fails the general notability guideline and video game notability guideline. ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 21:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging @Armend XD. ✶Antrotherkus✶^✶talk✶ 21:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because we're here and this is completely hopeless with no chance of ever being accepted, but generally there is no point in nominating drafts at MfD for notability concerns. That's why we have G13. Also see WP:NMFD SK2242 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity, and it is not obvious that this draft is hopeless, or that it has no chance of improvement. If we delete this draft because we are here, we will send an unintended signal that we will review and delete useless drafts. See Leave useless drafts alone, because the review of drafts to delete them ahead of their expiration date will be an intensive use of volunteer time. Do we, the editors at MFD, really want to review 20 or 30 dead-end drafts every seven days? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its a brand new with no coverage. Now its on Mfd is should be gotten rid of. scope_creep^Talk 13:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: “WP:TOOSOON” is a reason to put it in draftspace, not to remove it from draftspace. Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Existing AfC processes serve, let them play out. This draft has not been REJECTED, and it has not been tendentiously resubmitted, and no deletion reason from WP:NOT is suggested, so it is unworthy for listing at MfD. MfD is not for the curation of all of the worst drafts. nominating this here defeats one of the mains purposes of draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a draft. If it's not abusive, created by a sock, tendentiously being resubmitted (more than twice as in this case), in violation of the BLP policy, or otherwise causing problems, then a draft is a draft regardless of notability. Rusalkii (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per SmokeyJoe, even though it seems unlikely this will turn into a mainspace article anytime soon. Martinp (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Initially wanted to vote full keep per above and because the whole situation was borderline WP:BITEy, as mentioned in WP:NDRAFT. I certainly wouldn't be happy if one of my drafts ended up at MfD when I didn't get a chance to demonstrate notability. That being said, ArmendXD has since moved the article to mainspace twice, which is starting to appear borderline tendatious. I'm giving them leeway since they're a young editor new to Wikipedia, which is why I'm not voting delete, but I certainly don't want to see this draft appear in MfD again after it's been potentially closed as keep. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 06:56, 12 March 2025 (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.