Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NRen2k5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Speedy Delete as Speedy Deletion G10: Pages created primarily to disparage the subject ~Kylu (u|t) 06:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:NRen2k5

This user's "watchlist" of editors. Someone asked the user to remove the harrassing information, and he/she blatantly refused. I think King Jimmy summed it up nicely here[1], so I won't bother taking you through step-by-step why this user page should be deleted on the grounds of WP:CIVIL, WP:HA, WP:PA, and most importantly for this discussion, WP:UP. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, I think G10 would apply here. This is questionable when applied to obvious vandals, it's just blatant personal attacking when applied to admins. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you tagged it as such.[2] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I've never seen the point in saying a thing should be speedied without tagging it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment - is it appropriate for an active user's userpage to be deleted into a redlink - as opposed to deleting all or some of the current content of the page which is a different question. In any event, I have seen admin/user-criticism pages allowed to be kept temporarily if they were being used to (e.g.) assemble information for an RfC or something. But on the user's primary userpage it's certainly too prominent, so this needs to go, though I'm not sure whether we have an exact policy in this area. Having said all that, urge the user to delete and spare us further argument. Newyorkbrad 05:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only content ever on this userpage is the attack material. This is the first edit to the page. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G10 and block user. – Ch acor 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per WP:COI I'll abstain from calling for deletion or not but honestly if this isn't a classic case of G10 I don't know what is. This user's statements about me are patently false. This editor was using Talk:Michael Richards for general discussions. Wikipedia guidelines specifically say such talk is subject to removal. After my removal this user reinstated the talk and personally attacked me by calling me a racist and then proceeded to repeatedly harass me on my talk page. Finally User:Blnguyen blocked him but now the harassment continues. An additional blocking might be in order here... but I'll let a neutal party decide upon that question. (→Netscott) 05:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm being called a "shameful Muslim" and "punk". If ever an editor needed blocking this guy'd be the perfect candidate. (→Netscott) 05:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this isn't "Users for Blocking". Discuss blocks somewhere else please. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, point well taken. (→Netscott) 05:53, 23 November 2006 (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.

For future reference, this is a perfect example of LIBEL. User Netscott took HIS INFERENCES from remarks I made and went on his own personal crusade against me. Contrary to his claims, it has been User Netscott who has been harassing me. — NRen2k5 03:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]