Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for banning

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 wasThe result of the debate was Speedied as disruptive/trolling - creator is new account also impersonating an admin. --Doc ^ask? 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for banning

Wikipedia already has a dispute resolution procedure in place. This page, which was created by an account in its first day, is neither accepted by the community nor useful at all. Hexagonal 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NeoJustin 04:13, December 27, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what the policy on deleting Wikipedia namespace pages is, but I think that this should be deleted if there's no big objection. James James 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari 04:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Curps' revelation on the creator's user page- User:Thangilikon Trees- this is nothing more than trolling. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, trolling. feydey 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. As this is not an article I would say Speedy Keep, but I do think it should go, and have listed it at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Wikipedia:Requests_for_banning for deletion. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - this is already being debated here, it is not appropriate to have a second debate in another venue. What happens if there is a divergence of consensus? Endomion 05:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If there were a divergence of consensus, MfD would govern, as AfD has no purview over Wikispace. However, one should have enough faith that both forums can detect junk like this for what it is. Xoloz 05:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Xaosflux created a second discussion instead of simply renaming the existing one. I've fixed the mess. The only contributions lost were from Naconkantari (duplicating the above comment), CanadianCaesar (echoing xyr above comment), and Endomion (duplicating the above comment), and can be found in the edit history of this discussion. Uncle G 05:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and nominate the author for banning, LOL--152.163.100.131 05:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete At best, this confusion creep; at worst, trolling. Xoloz 05:34, 27 December 2005 (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.