Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2ne


 * 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 speedily deleted. Looks like we're done here. --Core desat 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

user:2ne

 * User:2ne ( edits•[ history]•[ links]•[ logs]•localspace | [ watch]•[ delete] )
 * User talk:2ne ( [ history]•[ links]•[ logs]•localspace | [ watch]•[ delete] )

User:2ne was blocked by 1ne as an impostor account. The user pages were subsequently [ deleted by several administrators] as part of Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, but restored each time by 1ne with the reasons "no, it's fine" and "historical". I have difficulty seeing the user's historical significance, given that the user has no contributions, no incoming links, no discussion, and that the user pages consist entirely of the block templates.

Further, 1ne has a tendency to use processes to make statements against any action not explicitly prescribed by policy, especially Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. See, for example, a recent nomination for deletion of another user page 1ne restored, where 1ne stated that "No, there's no useful reason [to keep the page] . Delete, but not per DENY."

Such deletions were last discussed at deletion review (favourably) and the administrator's noticeboard (favourably). — {admin} Pathoschild 21:54:28, 01 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anyone spoken with 1ne about this matter and tried to resolve it quietly before listing the matter here for a 5-day community debate? If so, please let me have a link to the discussion. If not, I'd suggest doing so. After all, despite some quibbling about the rationale (quibbling with me, as it happens, though I'd completely forgotten it until I checked the link you provided), 1ne did vote "delete" on a similar page. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, our prior discussions on such cases in Wikimedia IRC channels, in various discussions such as this one, and on my talk page (for example, see "DenyRecognition") have failed to reach agreement. Rather than hold another fruitless discussion on the importance or danger of prescriptive policymaking, I brought this directly here for third-party input.


 * I've notified 1ne of the nomination, so he can drop by and provide his reasoning if he'd like. However, I suspect his reasoning is no different from that described in the afore-linked nomination. — {admin} Pathoschild 01:00:00, 02 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You guys are right...this is a waste of time. I've gone ahead and deleted the page. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Also, pathos, I'd suspect you stop diagnosing what other people think. 1ne 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.