Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goveganplease/sandbox
I don't send many pages to MFD but I stumbled upon this one and I think it should be deleted. I found, through investigation, that it is a copy of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed decision, an ARB case talk page that was intentionally blanked. This editor came along several years later, copied the contents which were hidden, and put it in their sandbox. They were later blocked for operating multiple accounts. I don't think CSD U5 would apply as they did many edits not in User space so I'm submitting this for a deletion discussion as I can't see a reason for preserving this. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - Sensible edge case that policy doesn't quite deal with. WP:POLEMIC may be most relevant. If it were a good faith user, and they kept it for a long time, blanking and a trout would probably be appropriate, but it doesn't seem like there's any constructive use here. So the spirit of WP:POLEMIC probably applies. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, based primarily on Use Common Sense. This leftover record of conflict preserved by a now-blocked user should not have been preserved and should be redacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. No reason to be here. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Delete, no valid reason or use case to restore the courtesy blanked content on another page. Even if it is still available in the page history, that doesn't mean we need to put it in a spotlight. WP:POLEMIC likely applies ApexParagon (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)