Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Endlessdan/pizza


 * 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 debate was Speedy close. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Endlessdan/pizza
This is being used as a blog, as well as a venue for BLP violations. Orange Mike  |  Talk  18:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete  G10, attack page. But why was the user not notified nor was an MfD template placed on the nominated page? I guess it is moot, as it should be speedied. -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems to be part of a bigger episode and MfD does now appear to add fuel to the fire. Per JayHenry, suggest ANI first. -- 12 N oo n 2¢ 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think some sort of dispute resolution is needed for this. I don't think an MFD is likely to help pacify the situation.  Did John Reaves really block Endlessdan during the fallout from a content dispute between the two of them?  I looked at it again and this doesn't seem to be what happened, but...   I'm having trouble following this situation and making any sort of fair assessment of what's going on here.  I think it'd be best to save the MFD until there's more stability to the situation.  If Dan would  this that would be a more productive step toward de-escalation. --JayHenry (t) 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close and possibly refer to some other venue. User is blocked (twice in the past 24 hours) and the reasons and the cited history appears to be copied from an articletalk page or projecttalk page, but the links go to the userpage.  Very complex history and way beyond the scope of an MfD - Also MfD would be seen as intervening in the entire dispute and would be Very Bad Precedent.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * speedy close. This is gasoline and inappropriate.  There are much better ways to deal with a situation that has boiled over between two excellent editors.  Endlessdan is blocked right now and will not be able to add any of his reasoning to this MfD, it needs to be closed.   Keeper   |   76  21:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per Keeper, or alternatively unblock Endlessdan so he can comment on this MfD. All users (except banned users) have a right to comment where one of their userpages is up for deletion. WaltonOne 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close It is quite inappropriate and bad faith to nominate a user's page while they have been blocked. This just causes more tension and conflict which we do not need; please close this mfd. -- Hdt 83     Chat 04:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close As others have noted, there's stuff a transpirin' in the background of all this. This MfD should not go ahead while EndlessDan is blocked. Xdenizen (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Hdt83 I don't see anything here that suggests that User:Orangemike even knew that User:Endlessdan was blocked, let alone took that into consideration in timing the nomination, so the bad faith nomination charge is completely unwarranted (and irrelevant). He's probably unblocked by now, but the page was never tagged for MfD and the User was not notified (and even if he had been we'd need to consider the time delay because of the block). (waiting for someone to close this)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 January 2008 (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.