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. There's obvious consensus here and 15lsoucy is graciously on-board. Based on the precedent at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism space (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Thing That Should Not Be/vandalbox, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Access_Denied/vandalbox and this discussion, I will also be WP:BOLD and delete the other such pages so identified ( User:Wiknerd/User page design/Decor/Vandalbox, User:SupaStarGirl/Vandalbox, User:Sethdoe92/Vandalbox, User:Karrmann/Vandalbox; these pages are generally very stale with few edits as well.) — Scien tizzle 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

See the other vandalbox deletions:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NerdyScienceDude/Vandalism space (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Thing That Should Not Be/vandalbox
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Access_Denied/vandalbox Perseus 8235 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pages that encourage and condone vandalism should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and Wikipedia:User pages#Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit ( permanent link).

  Vandalism pages damage Wikipedia's reputation; from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!: "an IP, while removing vandalism [on User:King of Hearts/Notepad/Vandalism on Wheels!] , wrote in an edit summary, "Removed NPOV spam, obsessively promoting TROLL as vandalism as opposed to spam, comedy, etc. Are you a wikipedia administrator?"

  The potential for BLP violations on such a page is great. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blood reaper/Vandalism page, the page had homophobic slurs and copyrighted content that had remained there for months if not years. There is no need to let pages that allow gratuitously offensive content remain on Wikipedia.

  Because vandalism pages are rarely, if ever, maintained by their creators, they should be deleted to prevent libelous content buried beneath pages of vandalism from remaining there.

  Vandalboxes waste the time of vandal patrollers who must read the page's rules to see if the vandalism should be reverted. This time could be better spent reverting actual vandalism in Wikipedia articles. The page does not help prevent vandalism because vandals are going to vandalize the mainspace or the user's userpage regardless of pages such as this. Vandals/trolls derive more pleasure in vandalizing pages in the mainspace when such actions are forbidden. Permitting such pages to remain on Wikipedia fosters the attitude that vandalism is acceptable on Wikipedia. I believe that that is unacceptable. Cunard ( talk) 09:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete vandalism sandboxes as detrimental. If the page is something else, like an experimental sandbox of any kind, rename it. See Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_8#Userspace_Vandalism_Sandboxes for what I think was the last decent discussion on this. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Here are many more:

• User:Wiknerd/User page design/Decor/Vandalbox
• User:SupaStarGirl/Vandalbox
• User:Sethdoe92/Vandalbox
• User:Karrmann/Vandalbox
• User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me/User/Vandalbox

-- Perseus 8235 15:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment As one whose userpage has been vandalised a few times (which I take as a sign I'm getting to the right people sometimes...), I was wondering if vandals really enjoy vandalising a page that invites them to do it? It's a bit like the old joke "What's the best way of being cruel to a masochist? "Be kind to him." In fact, this page hasn't been vandalised at all. Nor have any of the others above, except that there is a peculiar situation regarding the one in User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me's space - this page was not created by that user. It appears to have been created by User:Lollipop-3 (a blocked suspected sockpuppet - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lollipop-3) and Can't sleep, clown will eat me hasn't edited since 1 April 2008. The creation of the page might have been an act of vandalism, although Lollipop-3 was more into social networking than actual serious vandalising from what I can see. Peridon ( talk) 18:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Don't support vandalism. —  Train2104 ( talk •
• Comment. Feel free to get rid of it if you like, as it was completely tongue-in-cheek, and at least the one person who edited the page thought it was amusing. No vandalism support was intended. -- 15lsoucy ^{salve. opus. nomen}

contribs • count) 16:21, 27 February 2011 (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.