Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Xcahv8


 * 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 Moot as it is now a protected redirect, but not a case for deletion anyways. Tikiwont (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Xcahv8
This page is being used by an indefinitely blocked editor to abuse the unblock process and continue to attack others. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose; MfD is not WP:RFPP. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply This has nothing to do with RFPP, the user is continuing to make personal attacks, read WP:NPA: An uncited(with evidence/diffs) claim is a personal attack. I have repeatedly asked him to back up his claims, but he just removes my requests without a word or any sort of response which backs up his claims.  If he is going to continue to attack others by making claims without citing evidence, then the page needs to be deleted.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. Standard procedure for blocked users abusing the privilege of their user talk page is to protect it not to delete it. While in some cases user talk pages of indeffed users are deleted, such as in those cases laid out in WP:UP and CAT:TEMP, this isn't one of them. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If the user continues to attack others, then they should be blocked or stopped from editing this page, but there is enough history and non attack text here for the page to be kept. If there is anything truly offensive then it could be blanked, perhaps it has already because I cannot see it there.  The purpose for leaving this is so that the blocked user can debate their case for unblock. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Users have a right to make bad arguments, but where the nom is the person directly (apparently?) involved with the dispute, I can not simply accede to the reasons given for deletion. Especially since the other posts in the dispute are still around. Collect (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion of user talk pages simply isn't done. If there are particularly bad attacks, delete the revisions containing them, and if the user carries on misbehaving, reblock with editing talk page disabled. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator's rationale supports blank and block.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 24 March 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.