Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia Wikinazi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding a page which has now been deleted. Please do not add to this archive. Requests for undeletion can be made at Wikipedia:votes for undeletion.
User:219.88.204.44, known under this and other IP addresses for replacing U.S.-led occupation of Iraq with a POV and possibly copyrighted text, created a page Wikinazi, now deleted but moved to Wikipedia:Wikinazi. I am not sure what to do with this? Delete? Edit? -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 04:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Graham :) | Talk 05:37, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Falcon 05:43, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. →Raul654 05:50, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - anonymous name-calling over a couple of reverts to another article -- Cyrius|✎ 06:49, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Tiles 08:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Sad. Andrewa 11:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't the first person to bring up the Nazis automatically lose the argument? I thought that was a rule. I wouldn't object to a page on poor admin conduct (having recently had a multi-page editing war waged against me, at least one antagonist being an admin) but I think "Wikinazi" is an inappropriate and unnecessary page. Mike Church 16:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- See Godwin's law :) DopefishJustin 01:22, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- That's the one I was looking for. :)
- By the way, I have made some changes to that site, in order to de-POV it, but I still hold the opinion that the page ought to be deleted. The page is hopelessly POV-biased, and just not very interesting at all. Mike Church 06:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- See Godwin's law :) DopefishJustin 01:22, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is just someone's sour grapes. Edit wars can usually be averted without resorting to name-calling. - Lucky 6.9 17:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Note: I have just reverted the last edit to this discussion by the above anon. They went through and changed every vote to keep. -- Graham :) | Talk 22:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Note: After the same anonymous user reverted Graham's edit to restore the "keep" votes, I rolled back their edit and banned them for 24 hours. The anon had been warned on their talk page after the first time they had switched everyone's votes. Jwrosenzweig 23:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- And they came back as a different anon to revert me....so I revert them and block. This could get ugly -- any suggestions? Jwrosenzweig 23:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Note: After the same anonymous user reverted Graham's edit to restore the "keep" votes, I rolled back their edit and banned them for 24 hours. The anon had been warned on their talk page after the first time they had switched everyone's votes. Jwrosenzweig 23:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete with extreme prejudice and ban the offending user. (I'm the one who moved it out of the main namespace; sorry I didn't get around to listing it earlier :) - Fennec 01:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I speedy deleted this. It was nothing other than a personal attack. I'm amazed it stayed around as long as it did. Angela. 06:59, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
