Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Janagewen

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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  Delete per courtesy vanishing request and OTRS ticket #. We don't usually grant courtesy vanishing requests for blocked editors, but we will delete user pages on request for any user. I also blanked the talk page as a courtesy. Renaming will not be granted unless he is unblocked. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 14:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is totally a "Discrimination" behavior towards me! Sorry for Wikipedia.org. Janagewen (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys, if you want to remove my use page, all right, but don't remove my words on this page. Everything is written into the history, don't involve trouble in reverting. Janagewen (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Janagewen


WP:POLEMIC Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - User pages are supposed to be about about yourself ... Not the people you hate! (I've reported him at AIV so hopefully that might do the trick!,) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  04:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm changing to keep as I to a certain extent now think this is pointless - Yes he shouldn't have a "hate-list" but In all fairness he had blanked it 5 minutes after the nomination and it's not as if he's saying anything uncivil nor is he giving any detailed reasons, Providing the "hate-list" doesn't get readded back I'm willing to let it slide. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  20:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am so sorry, so many strange people against me and want to remove my account from Wikipedia.org. I have no ideas if this account has been removed, will it affect other languages of Wikipedia.org with same account? I did nothing wrong, but obtained kind of treatment, I understand everything relating with Wikipedia.org. Discrimination has been confirmed without doubt. Janagewen (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We aren't trying to remove your account. We're trying to remove your user page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish that you are not sick too much! Sorry! Janagewen (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Jack. Janagewen, you are using your user page to list what editors you don't like - that is not what user pages are for.  You could try creating your own sandbox and put everything in there--5 albert square (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete OK, thank you all of you! I do agree with all of you! Janagewen (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You could remove my user page, my account and ban my IP address totoally. But I just wish that only means this is the purpose of several people in Wikipedia.org, not the whole. Frankly, terrible! All of you who damaged my user page and talk page are totoally shits to me. Thank your all for proving that. Janagewen (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete improper content. Janagewen needs to use their user page and user talk page properly. The talk page is for civil communication with other editors, and not all unpleasant communication is uncivil. Improper removal of others' comments can impede good communication and thus violate the intended purpose of the talk page. It belongs to the community, not exclusively to the user. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hold off. The conduct on his own user and user talk pages is not the root of the problem. Janagewen is a highly mercurial editor. He has shown disruptive behavior in a couple of other places, in particular Template:.NET_Framework_version_history and Talk:Physical_Address_Extension, and a couple of users' talk pages. On the other hand he has come up with some good edits, or at least suggestions for edits (see and, and subsequent discussion. But overall I think this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR case, and it should be either handled at that level or attempted to be corrected via e.g. mentorship, not by deleting the user pages. Jeh (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh.. I see an indef block has happened already. I must have missed where he was notified of any discussion, other than this one? Jeh (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - He reported everyone here and well it all backfired spectacularly, Tbh everyone tried talking to him but he decided holding everyone accountable for his ridiculous behaviour was better than communicating and finding a solution. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So I gathered. I've actually been expecting, for some time now, this one to eventually go to NOTHERE/CIR. Personally I kept hoping that one of his "I'm so sorry, I am a shitz, I'll do better" would actually be followed by "better". I was just surprised that the indef block happened that quickly without anyone even having to post diffs. Jeh (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that they are indeffed and their talk page access removed, how about just closing this and removing the template from their user page? I think it's actually good to leave their page history untouched because actual deletion would remove that evidence of bad behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:221.9.15.20514:38, November 25, 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is less black and white that others are saying. Having a list of "people I've asked to not talk on my page" by itself isn't polemic, and not necessarily a "hate list".  I find it a bit juvenile, but policy doesn't explicitly bar it.  If Jimmy Wales can ban Eric Corbett from his talk page and say so publicly, then it isn't unreasonable that others can do the same.  If this editor would have had a bunch of commentary, then I would agree it was polemic, but the mere existence of the list seem to fall short of a violation.  Being "not welcome" is a statement of fact and not an insult. It is not the same as saying "bad person" or "POV warrior" or even "I hate you", which would in fact be polemic.  This, like many other things we find here, is what we tolerate in the interest of allow the free expression of ideas as long as it is not making false or unsubstantiated claims.  As the author was the page maintainer, I would hold that the claim was substantiated, and the page was within guidelines. Dennis - 2&cent; 17:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jackmcbarn, can we resolve this by you removing the mfd template from his user page, and then withdrawing this request? Let's just leave a blank user page, but keep the history. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since other people have !voted delete, I can't withdraw the request. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is not a kindergarten. Even though as a passenger with no knowledge of rules in Wikipedia.org, but as the situation here is much seriously, I think the Deletion of his user page and user talk page could reserve the honors of Wikipedia.org and this user. Through the history trace of his user page and talk page, just as he said blanked without warning by someone else. That might be something would potentially put negative view of Wikipedia.org rather than several people only. In avoidance to enlarge this unnecessary trouble, deletion of his user and talk page is the best choice. This user has also been blocked indefinitely, I could trace from the history of his page, only dirty words without trend of personal attack of others. For his vent with those words I could understand his situation, but this should be the reason to be blocked. He is not merely a visitor, I've also found his contributions to WP, even though mixed with something unrelated. So in personal, I think the situation this user stand right now is a bit unfair. Blocking this user would put negative affection not only to himself but also someone else who might have agreed with his ideas partially. I've also found his suggestion on .net framework template has been partially supported in WPRU. WP should be a generous place which could embrace more and more, if he is just like a nothing, through his words, why not give him another chance back rather than defeat his passion and increase his confusion? I think I should stick to him. I am using a shared IP address.
 * Obvious block evasion and socking by User:Janagewen. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pardon me to insert some words, I just want to make clear what this user id done on WP, and what WP done to him clearly to my people. I am using a shared IP which he might used before, but we should understand what really happened. I am not interested in WP, but him! I am using a shared IP address.


 * Sorry, but this is a total case of meh. It's a list of three names, of people who aren't welcome--and who are probably not going to come by for tea and crumpets anyway. There are no violations that I see here; thank you Dennis. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, if this is only case of list of three names, why this user was blocked immediately after report what he might confused, and further stimulated himself venting? If this welcome list does not violate, his situation right now is unfair. So I stick to the deletion rather than keep, because I don't want him be a piece of shit, so to anyone anywhere.  I am using a shared IP address.
 * And what's more, I wish the treatment to the user id Janagewen would have no relation with his IP region, which I am also worried about. I am using a shared IP address.


 * I have undone the hatting; I'm not a block evader, and the now-blocked IP's rambling isn't all that disturbing. Let it roll. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. User is already indefinitely blocked, so let's clean up the clutter. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Janagewen are also doing disruptive edits on jawp as well as on enwp. --Claw of Slime (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually a lot more than that. See Special:CentralAuth/Janagewen for all of them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh... He/she should be blocked globally. --Claw of Slime (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're dealing with a disturbed person. Here they are talking about suicide and revenge. I think it would be best to blank (not delete) their user and talk page, and protect them both. Then simply WP:RBI. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * With sadness, I agree. I've tried a couple of times to tell him that being corrected on WP is no big deal, everybody makes mistakes, etc., etc. Each time he said "ok, thanks!" but soon cycled right back to anger. So, RBI, and also, what in certain communities is called ZCP: Zero Contact Protocol. I do think the page should be blanked rather than deleted, as I think the page history should remain as a public record, but that's probably a policy question that's beyond my pay grade. Jeh (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2014 (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.