Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ellie Sxc Gal

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 Delete. User has been indef blocked for having a vandal-only account. User page deleted per CAT:TEMP, also could have been done per G3 or IAR. Tiptoety ^talk 23:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ellie Sxc Gal

I know that this might look WP:BITEy, but I think it is warranted. User:Ellie Sxc Gal seems to be on a mission to add this to WP in any way possible. They first created a portal which I tagged and was swiftly deleted. Then they put it in WP space, and it was deleted from there as well. They have now created a userpage with virtually the same nonsense and the assertion that 'u cant delete it now'. I think that we can! RichardΩ612 21:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ellie IS sexy, so keep. I created it in my userspace, so u have no way of deleting it. Ellie Sxc Gal (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You do not own your userspace. Nobody owns their userspace, and any administrator can delete your userpage if it runs afoul of userpage guidelines. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Technically it's bad form (though not absolutely forbidden) to edit pages in anyone's user space without their authorisation, and technically admins can only delete pages based on consensus to that effect. But otherwise you're right. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - the remarks implying ownership page should probably be removed but I don't really see the rest of the content as being beyond the bounds of what is generally accepted in userspace. Guest9999 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as Vanicrap. Vanicrap is like vanity, but worse. It's obvious this user just wants to promote her alleged sexiness. Oh, and we can delete it. We can prevent it from ever being created again. There's absolutely no point in keeping this Vanicrap. MalwareSmarts (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for the time being, per WP:BITE. Now that this editor has figured out what the distinction is between userspace and the other spaces, perhaps she will help collaborate on the actual encyclopedia. If the editor hadn't tried to create this as a portal or in Wikipedia space first, this user page would probably have gone unnoticed and not nominated for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BITE doesn't mean we have to deal with their crap. Encourage to contribute, familiarise with rules, etc. but I see no reason to keep this page. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep on principle, and per Metropolitan90. I do get the general impression that this user is not very interested in contributing productively; however, I won't jump to that conclusion about a very new user. This page does not, in itself, violate userspace guidelines, and we should not be tempted to delete the userpage just because the user shows signs of being disruptive. Deletion is not punitive. We should leave the page in place for the time being, and give the user a fair chance to contribute to the encyclopedia. If she continues adding nonsense pages in other namespaces, she can, of course, be blocked, as per standard policy. Walton^One 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (on principle) until the situation cools down. Why are we here? The page was clearly misplaced in Portal: and Wikipedia:, but not in User: — deleting them from there was probably justifiable. Not so in user space, though I'd encourage the user to keep the guidelines in mind. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hah, see, Richard, you cant delete my stuff now! U have been shamed by the wikipdeia comunity. Ellie Sxc Gal (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Quit making a fool of yourself. We can so delete your "stuff". Click here. MalwareSmarts (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ellie, no one has been "shamed by the Wikipedia community". My Keep !vote was not an endorsement of your behaviour, but a statement of principle. Your userpage is acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines and precedent, but you may well be blocked if you carry on vandalising pages (as noted by Bfigura and Hersfold below) and flaming anyone who disagrees with you. Walton^One 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • O RLY? If u block me, ill make more accounts and continue to add THE TRUTH to wikipedia. If u block my ip i can use tour and get round u, so u r powerless 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie Sxc Gal (talk • contribs)
      • This is getting retarded. We can find out if you are using different accounts. We can also block account creation. No matter what you try, we're going to win. So, are you going to revert me as an "Ellie h8r" like you did here and here? MalwareSmarts (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • DUH, if i use different ips u cant block account creation. that's what i mean. oh and u R an Ellie h8r. Ellie Sxc Gal (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
          • All of your IPs will be in a certain range, and we can block the entire range. Please stop. MalwareSmarts (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as spam / self-promotion. The fact that she's vandalizing other user's talk pages helps not at all. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POINT. User is close to being blocked for vandalism, which this page is a part of. It could almost be speedied under G3. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete the user hasn't done much to help the encyclopedia at all, actually vandalising other's talk page. He/she doesn't really deserve the userpage tolerance we normally give to other long standing contributers--Phoenix-wiki 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Ellie Sxc Gal attempted to remove all 'Delete' arguments from the discussion. ><RichardΩ612 21:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that's original. Why not an indef block too?

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.