Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/User:Forkbender

User:Forkbender
I believe this user(s) has come to the wrong place. The userpage appears to be a place for private conversations between two or more people. They seem to be blissfully unaware that the page is indeed public. In order to stop them from sending such private messages on wikibooks, this page should be deleted. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 04:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment The reason for the RfD isn't covered by our deletion policy (and the content also doesn't provide a reason for a deletion).
 * Users are not required to conform to the non-enforcible conventions we practices on their user-space (IIRC all guidelines deal with actions in the community namespace).
 * In any case I don't see any value in opposing this request, it is up for the user to contest the RfD. To me the RfD permits a discussion, even if in a more general forum that would be required if Kayau was an admin (as it would take place in the user's talkpage). My position is that the practice, would within a discussion, be changed as to conform with the conventional use of that page. But any argument by the user would suffice to for validate the present situation, since the edits can't be said to be abusing the system, in any case I would see a need for any admin acting on the deletion if not opposed, to go a step further as to move the content and merge the edit history to the user's talkpage. --Panic (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added comments to the user page suggesting that they agree to the deletion, as that would be in their best interests. Recent Runes (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * - looking through the edit history it is clear that either the account is being shared (both sides of the "conversation" being edited using the same account) or has been compromised given the information they have placed on the page. I think a compromised / shared account should be blocked anyway. QU TalkQu 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Compromised yes (but only if used for vandalism or the "owner" requests it). We don't block shared accounts. --Panic (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Says who? Blocking policy isn't policy. – Adrignola talk 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Says common practice and practicality. What reasons is there to block shared accounts ? How can that be clearly enforced ? What about anonymous accounts, aren't they mostly shared ? --Panic (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an anonymous account. As for revisions with personal information and passwords, I've revision deleted them. – Adrignola talk 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When I said anonymous accounts I had intended to say unregistered. --Panic (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor correction also on your statement. We all have anonymous accounts, except the ones that decided to use or indicate real world identities (or other virtual identities that be used traced to them), and of course the state of anonymity may also depend on other external factors... --Panic (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is why they're are more accurately called pseudonymous accounts and not anonymous accounts. – Adrignola talk 19:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't say I ever seen them referred as pseudonymous accounts and I did agreed with you, anonymous accounts doesn't apply. --Panic (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)