Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WALTHAM2

 __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:  Keep, but remove spam from the user page. (non-admin closure) MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User:WALTHAM2


The content of the user page is purely of defamatory tone. Most of the articles created by have been deleted or under deletion process as there were no sources to verify the subject's notability. This has been taking for bullying. The content also targets user who have played a appreciable role in this deletion process and tried maintain the effectiveness of Wikipedia. For example, the sentence: Situshian view that these group are not notable has succeeded,. There is nothing such as Situshian or some XYZ view, the articles have just been deleted as they meet the guidelines and no user is responsible for it. I find it as no use and rather providing misleading the readers. KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  15:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but remove the word "Situshian" and the wordpress link. I'm not a fan of deleting a page purely because it's an attack, even an attack on Wikipedia, but I don't think attacking other editors is appropriate either. No opinion on the editor's actual viewpoint though. Glad the editor found an Alternative outlets. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, just remove the spam portion. The rest I don't care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sentence Situshian view that these group are not notable has succeeded, is not in any way defamatory. It merely states that User:Sitush has another point of view which trumped over Waltham's. Moreover, if this editor felt (s)he was bullied, (s)he is entitled to this opinion. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Within generous reason, Wikipedian parting statements should not be censored.  I am not sure what to make of this edit to the userpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Short answer: people keep copy/pasting the crap from that blog to WP articles, despite the fact that the stuff was originally copied from WP to the blog when WALTHAM2 finally realised that the consensus here did not accord with their own opinions. I have no idea if it still exists, but that blog did have an attack page on re: me (one of many such things, so not unduly fussed but people have been blocked for linking to such things relating to me.) I see no reason why we should give them an outlet for driving traffic to their site. As for the Situshian thing, well, people have also been blocked for less - it was consensus, not me. I really don't give a crap. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2016 (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.