Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Potters house

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Xoloz 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Potters house

WP:NOT#LINK, and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. This isn't a user page, it's somewhere he's using to provide a whole bunch of links to subject's he has a clear conflict of interest in. Thewinchester (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and block the user - corporate vanity/spam account. MER-C 09:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Page should certainly be strictly refactored if the result is not delete. Deiz talk 09:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete re WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Orderinchaos 14:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The problem with COI is in editing articles. If he just lists resources here, they are available to any Wikipedian, including those who disagree with him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Septentrionalis. This seems to be an ordinary editor who writes about a narrow range of people and things s/he is interested in. There may be a WP:COI or there may not be. Other editors certainly need to keep a watch on the articles to ensure NPOV. I see no reason to delete this page or block the user. --Bduke 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and possibly move to the user's userspace if he/she really wants to keep it. *Cremepuff222* 01:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete misuse of userspace, as well as spam. Acalamari 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Joe I 06:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It would not be unreasonable to expect a church to pay for advertising (i.e. web hosting) rather than use a free resource such as Wikipedia. If we allowed this we'd have to allow everybody. Zivko85 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per NOT, advert. Do not block the user, who contributes constructively. Should anyone feel the username is an issue, first discuss a username change with the user, and if the user is not interested, take it to WP:UAA. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but DO NOT block the user - a warning not to display advertising is enough. The user is new so we must assume good faith. JRG 00:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Too late, the Admins have already ruled on the username and blocked it for violation of the username policy. As for the user being new, they've been on here over 13mths and they were clearly a single issue editor (First edit 7 April 2006). Thewinchester (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am the user - I don't know where to write this so.... I think it is a bit harsh, I complained to admins about user "Darrenss" that he only produced his user page to put up slanderous links saying I am a homosexual and have left the Potter's House and other slanderous things. These were totally ignored by other admins so I thought I would put up links until he took them down - think about it, imaging if someone had sites about you or your children saying such things. The deletion was so quick that I am no longer able to use the name. I think it was too quick. When Wiki says all can be involved but in reality you have to be an admin to get anywhere on wiki. Anyway, The name Potter's House is in the bible, I would have easily deleted the links (see my history to see why I put them up) and could have solved the matter. Ahh well. 218.214.37.212 07:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - If that's truth then just remove links and read poicies --Andersmusician $ 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It's great that you're the user and you've finally woken up to this issue, only after your account got deleted as it was in violation of accepted WP user policies. As for speed, we don't get to decide how fast it's done, it's wholly dependant on the admins who control the process, and based on the facts and information they had access to, they felt there was no contestable case regarding the policy breach. As for the issues regarding Darrenss, these matters seem to be a closed chapter and are of no bearing on this MfD. And for the record, i'm not an Admin, I have 1,200+ mainspace edits to my name, and i've got quite far around here. To get anywhere on this place you need to assume good faith and edit within policy and guidelines - which you have consistently shown you were not able to do. And regardless of your assertion that Potters House is referenced in the bible, that has no bearing on this MfD or any of the actions taken thusfar relating to your editorial participation to date. Sorry, but i've had a long morning all ready and it's single issue editors like Potters house who give WP a bad name. Thewinchester (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It sounds like to me there's been a number of bones of contention over the time. Two things - "he did it so I can do it too" is not a justifiable excuse to do anything, either in real life or on Wiki. Secondly, I see no evidence on the mentioned user's pages that such defamatory material about you exists. If you know of any, feel free to contact me on my talk page with links to any pages mentioning your children or any other personal info about you, and they can be procedurally listed here for discussion, as those sorts of things really have no place on an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 20:26, 25 May 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.