Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/interesting edits: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:36, 17 August 2007

User:UBeR/interesting edits

Not just an attack page, but a reincarnation of Uber's three previously deleted "hit list" attack pages - User:UBeR/Administrative watchdog, User:UBeR/WMC, User:UBeR/Raul654. Wik was previously banned for doing this. Raul654 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like a collection of edits made by others. ~ UBeR

While I still think that UBeR should in good taste blank the page and move on, seeing as it's Raul who's trying to delete it and by extension prolly has a vested interest, I'll abstain from this. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that- I cannot see how any of the diffs constitute a personal attack or an attack page. He's referring to names you called him, Raul. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, considering UBeR's first edit after I nominated this page for deletion was to tone down the commentary so it would come off less like an attack page. Raul654 21:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even then he said "youknowwho". That is hardly an attack. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is to people who can't understand criticism :o) Kamryn · Talk 21:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not remotely an attack page. Kamryn · Talk 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i see no harm in a user maintain links to WP discussions that involve him. DGG (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in accord with others. The only attacks are those against me as clearly shown in the diffs that, unfortunately, will go unpunished with accordance to Wikipedia policy because those clearly violating Wikipedia principles and policies are administrators. In that sense, yes, it's an attack page: one against me. ~ UBeR 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "interesting edits" might have been used as an attack page except the user seems to have no desire to make it one. UBeR could have shopped it around to sympathetic editors, but user has never linked to it from another talk page at all. Nor has user even sorted the diffs by editor. I will assume good faith here and guess that "interesting edits" are just some private diffs that the user wants to save. Content is not remotely like the previously deleted pages, especially since most of the diffs seem to have occurred since the last attack page was deleted. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *'''Keep''' i see no harm in a user maintain links to WP discussions that involve him. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' in accord with others. The only attacks are those against me as clearly shown in the diffs that, unfortunately, will go unpunished with accordance to Wikipedia policy because those clearly violating Wikipedia principles and policies are administrators. In that sense, yes, it's an attack page: one against me. ~ [[User:UBeR|UBeR]] 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. "interesting edits" might have been used as an attack page except the user seems to have no desire to make it one. UBeR could have shopped it around to sympathetic editors, but user has never linked to it from another talk page at all. Nor has user even sorted the diffs by editor. I will assume good faith here and guess that "interesting edits" are just some private diffs that the user wants to save. Content is not remotely like the previously deleted pages, especially since most of the diffs seem to have occurred since the last attack page was deleted. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 07:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)