Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/Administrative watchdog


 * 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 that it was speedy deleted as an attack page.— Ryūlóng  ( 竜 龍 ) 04:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:UBeR/Administrative watchdog
Attack page against User:Raul654 and User:William M. Connolley. --Aude (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. attack pages aren't cool. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, attack pages fall under criteria G10, a full MfD for this shouldn't be necessary. --tjstrf talk 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It serves as a notice board that "will serve as a notice board that will be updated when necessary. The evidence gathering process is ongoing and, along with other users, I have begun this process." I've been consumed with the vexation of particular administrators who consider themselves above Wikipedia's policies. This is the sort of desecration up with which I will not put. It serves as a watch list, as it is titled, to my abettors and other users who wish to be cautious and watchful of such activities that I have observed and begun to document. It serves to no other purpose. Banefully, it is without proper evidence/references at the current moment, for which I apologize (and quite frankly, may abet in the appearance of personal attacks). Real life activities detract my availability on Wikipedia, but my "watchdog" activities will continue, and, with further aid, the notice board shall be complete with references, etcetera. The goal is not to attack the editor, but rather the particular edits by that user that have been contrary to Wikipedia policies. My regards, ~ UBeR 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. An attack page; it does not have any substantive evidenced claim of wrongdoing. Sam Blacketer 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete this one; even if you did have evidence, lists of users to watch are not acceptable. -Amarkov moo! 00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If the user has concerns they should file an RfC. If they feel a need to compile difs, they are welcome to comile difs on a page without the personal attacks and civility-free remarks. If the user needs to make a list to remind himself what users to watch, he can do it off-wiki. JoshuaZ 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete speedily preferred - Definitely an attack page. Vsmith 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - complaints and evidence like this have their place, and it isn't in the user space. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  03:52, 1 March 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.