Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

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: send the talk history back to User talk:Vicipaedianus x. and then delete the remainder. Clear consensus that these revisions need to be kept in the database somewhere; less clear consensus as to at which page in particular they should live at. As a WP:BARTENDER, I am going with User talk:Vicipaedianus x, which is where the revisions were originally. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

The page now located at User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT was formerly a talk page for my previous account Vicipaedianus x, so –when I created this account back in 2021– I moved it into my user space an turned it into an archive. Later, on 19 June 2023, I copy-pasted all of its content to my archive located at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, so I requested to merge the page history as well (specifically edits between February 2014 and February 2021, when it was a talk page) and the deletion of the former, but my request got declined, so I got stuck with a blanked subpage, and I started using it as a sandbox. I now remembered that –on 14 December 2023– I got told it was "not eligible for WP:U1 because at one time it was a user talk page, it may still be deleted by being listed at WP:MFD", so please, merge its history as a talk page into User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, if needed, and delete this useless duplicate turned sandbox. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - If this is not eligible for U1 because of its history, it is enough like a U1 that it should be deleted at the originator's request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Sigh.

  Per WP:DELTALK, the edits between September 2013 and November 2020 must not be deleted no matter how many layers of obfuscation you try to use to hide that fact.

  The request to history merge the talk page edits so the later edits can be deleted is valid and in my opinion should have been granted, but four other admins (including my past self) have improperly stonewalled it. Now that we're at a discussion venue rather than an individual-admin-request venue I guess we can override them and grant that request, so I support doing so.

  Est. 2021's insistence in getting things done this way has grown beyond reason. They've made nine distinct requests for admin actions relating to this one sandbox, all of which were declined. My gut wants to say "Keep" out of spite. But I'm better than that.

• Overall, weakly support history merge and delete, but if that's not done, strongly oppose deleting without history merging - that would set a hideous precedent that people can get their way by complaining enough. Although I guess WP:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions#User talk pages exists, so the blatant double standard being demonstrated here will continue to exist either way. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Having reviewed the history in detail once, there is a strange odor to the history, and we don't want to just incinerate it to get rid of any possible dead animals. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Split history to put the talk page revisions back in User talk:Vicipaedianus x. Moving the talk page of your past account to a subpage of your current account is totally inappropriate. Let's say I want to read the talk page of User:Vicipaedianus x, an editor for multiple years with 278 edits. How do I do that? Obfuscating the previous account's talk page is falsifying history.—Alalch E. 10:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Alalch E.: Interesting misunderstanding, but I actually I moved the talk to my archive to be transparent about the ownership of both accounts, not to obfuscate anything. Moreover, if I didn't, people could have written onto the old talk page –without me ever noticing– and hence never got an answer. You can still read any thread posted there tho. How do you do that? User talk:Vicipaedianus x should redirect to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0, after the page history is merged –as I personally requested multiple times. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    User talk:Vicipaedianus x should be archived at that root name, and you can leave a message on your old account's talk page saying that it's your old account and that messages should be left on your current account's talk page. —Alalch E. 15:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    I don't see why the current setup is wrong? Why is is any different from User talk:Malleus Fatuorum having been page moved to User talk:Eric Corbett, or many other instances of users being renamed? If that's what we have to do to get a consensus I can accept it, but it seems like hostile hair-splitting to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Split history and send it back to User talk:Vicipaedianus x (same !vote as Alalch; different reasoning). The problem with history-merging to User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0 is that the history would then be intertwined confusingly with the history already there, which goes back to 2013 and the third account Marco Antonio Sorrentino. The most logical alternative would be to put the history back with the original talk page (under the redirect), which is where I at least would expect to find it. (The archive doesn't need to have the history under it.) It's not the only solution, but it checks all the boxes and makes this mess slightly less headache-inducing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  All of the relevant edits to this page would fix nicely in the gap between 2012 and 2021 at User talk:Est. 2021/Archive/0. If there were actual parallel histories I would agree with you, but I don't see them here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Even though there are no parallel histories, and the result would not be confusing purely technically, it would still be less than the opposite of confusing for the practical purposes of looking at, reading, someone's talk tied to a particular account, and I am against joining talk histories from different accounts. —Alalch E. 11:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Is this going to be the Immovable Ladder of Wikipedia? Will this useless subpage outlive the encyclopedia itself? We literally delete hundreds or more pages a day, but woe betide who touches this ladder. Lmao. This is going to be very good and useful for the overall project, I guess! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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.