The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Delete. And replaced with a soft redirect as is common for project pages like these. --Ferien (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gravedancing (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Fr33kman has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Has no place on this project. We are not enwiki: Editor is just here for disruption fr33kman 21:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

•  Delete Per nominator as I have said before I think this editor is just here for disruption. I have previously issued a warning for this on their talk page. They have previously made bad pages on purpose to frame them getting deleted. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Only once. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It's a good idea to have this essay because this behavior (gravedancing) is harmful. Kk.urban (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In my option per WP:FOLLOW we can just soft redirect to the enwiki policy then. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But enwiki pages are complex. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. Rubbish. Rathfelder (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, explaining bad behaviour. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Are there other essays that are simplified versions of enwiki essays on Simple English Wikipedia? Or is this the only one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamaemelum (talk • contribs) 08:19, August 28, 2023 (UTC)

  There are probably a few but we don't do stuff here just because it's on enwiki:. Normally an editor here would keep such thngs in their userspace and not in the wikipedia namespace. Some essays are soft redirected to enwiki if they are considered useful but we rarely write such things here. Since the beginning of this project no one wrote this essay. That shows wedon't do such things.fr33kman 07:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the major issue here is that the user who transwikied this page is a confessed vandal at wikipedia and has done very, very little to expand the articles and just hung around in community space trying to get us to play jokes, have fun and not work on the project. It's highly disruptive and needs to end. fr33kman 08:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am no vandal anymore, I might soft redirect it to enwiki's page, per WP:FOLLOW. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Redirect to enwiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.38.249 (talk • contribs)
•  Delete Per nominator as evidenced immediately above. The editor is disruptive. This "content" is useless here. --Gotanda (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Note that the editor has also created Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in RfD discussions. It looks like it is not possible to run an "articles created" report for 88.110.38.249. Am I missing something? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems unneccesary to just redirect to enwiki, WP:ATA seems more needed, but people ruthlessly use interwikis. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

88.110.38.249 - Please read WP:BLUD and please stop bludgeoning. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How am I bludgeoning. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been accused of bludgeoning the process, then take a look at the discussion and try to be objective before you reply. If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realised someone was bludgeoning in an other discussion and told them to stop, thanks for telling me. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close on 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.