Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DRUOX


 * 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 keep as this. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DRUOX
Terribly fails WP:USER: extensive autobiography/free-webhosting of an editor who has no contributions except building this page, and edits are not aimed at making this page (which was userfied or recreated after mainspace deletion) into one that even passes CSD-A7. Attempts to explain this problem have met responses of "I was told I could do this". Various third-party editors have contributed and not helped (and told me that the user would have wanted this) so this page is nothing but a magnet for this ongoing misuse (borderline meatpuppetry, if I weren't in a good mood). DMacks (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Del - per nom. // roux   17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, WP:WEBHOST applies. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Matt Deres (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit to cut back content in balance with the user's non-userspace contributions. There is no need for MfDs to address these sort of problems in the first instance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DMacks' blanking was overdone. I suggest this edit as appropriate.  Basic information, clearly non-promotional, is OK for an intending contributor.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but I also see no actual intentions regarding contributing to the encyclopedia. On the contrary, everything I see suggests that the user is only here for self-promotion (which could well be as a result of some earlier misinformation; I'm not making any assumptions about good or bad faith here). In any case, you're probably right that MFD isn't entirely appropriate, though I'm not sure what would be better. WP:ANI? Matt Deres (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If he reposts, then best forum in practice seems to be MfD. If the editor continues to act against an MfD consensus, then he can be blocked.  See User:My21cents for an example.  This MfD is appropriate, I hadn't initially noted that DMacks had already attempted editing the page.  WP:ANI should be reserved for issues requiring immediate attention, or relating to administrator actions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the content in SmokeyJoe's form, maybe with a to clarify to others (lots of third-party edits from new/anon editors) what this page actually is. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2009 (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.