- 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 speedy keep. We obviously won't establish consensus to remove the content in question (at least in this context), so prolonging the discussion is a waste of time. — David Levy 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Certified.Gangsta
This is more of a proceedural nomination. Mercury started a user conduct RfC due to the contents of Certified.Gangsta's userpage - I don't believe that this is a user conduct issue per se, so after discussion with Mercury, he has agreed to close the RfC in favour of me filing an MfD. I copy Mercury's reasoning here; "The user page of CG located at User:Certified.Gangsta contains Extensive use of polemical statements, Other non-encyclopedic related material, and mediawiki User Interface spoofing. I have asked for him to remove the new messages bar, and others have asked him to remove the other pieces." I have no overall opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Enforce removal of inappropriate content. Enough is enough. Userpages exist not to serve as the MySpace-style property of their creators, but for the purpose of assisting in encyclopedic matters. Because a pleasant atmosphere is conducive to productive editing, the community extends some leeway (allowing the inclusion of personal content), but not to the point at which continual disruption occurs. This userpage includes content deliberately created with the intent of causing such disruption, and this should not be tolerated. How many times are people's complaints going to be dismissed as "drama" before we eliminate the sole source of said drama (which does absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia)? — David Levy 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- A user who comes here in lieu of a MySpace page or whatnot is operating contrary to the Wikipedia purpose and can rightly be asked to move on (and forced to, if they have no encyclopedic interest, eventually). A user who in addition to encyclopedic interests also wants to have a more verbose and descriptive user page is not breaking with the project's goals. Certified.Gangsta certainly has enough mainspace edits which are unambiguously encyclopedic to pass the test here. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 04:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Has anyone questioned Certified.Gangsta's encyclopedic contributions? I certainly haven't. No one, however, has earned the right to place whatever content he/she pleases on his/her userpage. I've plainly stated that non-encyclopedic content serving only to enrich community spirit is fine, but non-encyclopedic content that is disruptive is not. You're welcome to disagree with my stance that the content in question is disruptive, but please don't misconstrue my argument to mean that all non-encyclopedic content should be banned form userspace. — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A lack of evidence for disruption. I'm really confused as why anyone is seeing this as an issue. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Additional comment, I thought for sure that the new message bar was only a small part of the issue, but it seems to be the main focus. Wha? I guess some people have never been Rick Rolled. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that person after person is pulled away from editing the encyclopedia to deal with this nonsense is ample evidence of disruption. In the presence of even a small amount of disruption, the onus is on Certified.Gangsta to prove that the disputed content benefits the encyclopedia (the sole reason for the page's existence). Does it? — David Levy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is no disruption caused by this user page. The disruption is caused by people who find it objectionable yet seem to insist on staring at it just so that they can get pissed off at it. User pages are not obligated to be bland and bare, but informative on the user's participation on Wikipedia, among other info. — Kurykh 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, seriously, if you keep on falling for the trick, maybe you should learn to mouse over links before clicking on them. — Kurykh 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Or we could simply eliminate the userpage content deliberately created specifically to confuse and mislead users (id est to cause disputation). Blaming people for allowing messages designed to confuse and mislead them to do precisely that is far less productive. — David Levy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Or, even more simply, you can stop going on his user page. — Kurykh 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- That argument could be applied to any userpage content. Are you suggesting that nothing is off-limits (that someone could post whatever he/she pleased on a userpage, and you'd tell anyone who complained to simply stop going there)?
- As has been pointed out, Certified.Gangsta performs legitimate edits to the site. As a result, it's normal for people to visit his userpage. Someone doing so for the first time will have no means of knowing that this is a hoax. — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the above is related to the spoof new messages bar, not the "China = Shame" part. — Kurykh 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the false impression that userpages are the property of their owners to do with as they please. In fact, they exist solely for the benefit of the encyclopedia. — David Levy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am under no false impression. User pages are indeed for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Benefiting the encyclopedia does not mean being overly puritan. — Kurykh 04:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nor does prohibiting deliberate disruption constitute being overly puritan. — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, like Ned Scott, I fail to see the issue. While I recall there being a lot of complaints about the spoofing, I don't recall there ever being consensus to prohibit it. If there was, then just delete that specific part of the page. As for the rest, there seems to only be issue over the China=Shame part. Again, if it's already been decided that content is inappropriate, just remove the content. As the contentious parts are a small part of the userpage, and the user isn't banned for added those sections, I fail to see the benefit of removing the entire user page of a user that seems to be an active and legitimate contributor to the encyclopedia. - Koweja ( talk) 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that outright deletion is being proposed. The idea, as you suggest, is to remove the disputed content.
- Incidentally, the automatic assumption is that content not intended to assist in encyclopedic endeavors is not allowed. Only consensus for its inclusion can change that. (The onus is not on opponents of trickery to establish consensus for its exclusion.) — David Levy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't believe that there's a sufficient consensus for the guideline section regarding this, nor has Certified.Gangsta "gone out" to cause problems or disruption with it. When other editors have to seek out the problem to be affected by it, it's not disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who's seeking out the problem? We're talking about a banner created for no reason other than to confuse and mislead people. How is that not disruptive? — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Harmless silliness. Easy to ignore, if you are so inclined.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per all the other Keep opinions. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepInteresting to note that David Levy is the very admin who abused his admin power by protecting my userpage, blocked me for disruption, etc, etc last February. Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing. This is another episode of Levy's Wikipedia:LAME#User_pages. I consider this latest attempt to censor my userspace as continuous, persistent harassment. We learn from last year that there is no point of raising this frivolous issue again. Please focus on mainspace contribution and stop Viewing it as a disruption-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, I have never protected your userpage. Secondly, I obviously dispute your assertion that I committed abuse. Whether I was right or wrong, my honest belief was that you were committing deliberate disruption. You knew that your edits were controversial, and you attempted to sneak them in as minor edits. Then you removed my warning from your talk page.
- I'll kindly ask that you retract your allegation of "harassment." Again, right or wrong, the people who have attempted to remove the content in question regard it as disruptive. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean that you should assume bad faith on their part. — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (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.
- 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 speedy keep. We obviously won't establish consensus to remove the content in question (at least in this context), so prolonging the discussion is a waste of time. — David Levy 09:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Certified.Gangsta
This is more of a proceedural nomination. Mercury started a user conduct RfC due to the contents of Certified.Gangsta's userpage - I don't believe that this is a user conduct issue per se, so after discussion with Mercury, he has agreed to close the RfC in favour of me filing an MfD. I copy Mercury's reasoning here; "The user page of CG located at User:Certified.Gangsta contains Extensive use of polemical statements, Other non-encyclopedic related material, and mediawiki User Interface spoofing. I have asked for him to remove the new messages bar, and others have asked him to remove the other pieces." I have no overall opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Enforce removal of inappropriate content. Enough is enough. Userpages exist not to serve as the MySpace-style property of their creators, but for the purpose of assisting in encyclopedic matters. Because a pleasant atmosphere is conducive to productive editing, the community extends some leeway (allowing the inclusion of personal content), but not to the point at which continual disruption occurs. This userpage includes content deliberately created with the intent of causing such disruption, and this should not be tolerated. How many times are people's complaints going to be dismissed as "drama" before we eliminate the sole source of said drama (which does absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia)? — David Levy 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- A user who comes here in lieu of a MySpace page or whatnot is operating contrary to the Wikipedia purpose and can rightly be asked to move on (and forced to, if they have no encyclopedic interest, eventually). A user who in addition to encyclopedic interests also wants to have a more verbose and descriptive user page is not breaking with the project's goals. Certified.Gangsta certainly has enough mainspace edits which are unambiguously encyclopedic to pass the test here. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 04:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Has anyone questioned Certified.Gangsta's encyclopedic contributions? I certainly haven't. No one, however, has earned the right to place whatever content he/she pleases on his/her userpage. I've plainly stated that non-encyclopedic content serving only to enrich community spirit is fine, but non-encyclopedic content that is disruptive is not. You're welcome to disagree with my stance that the content in question is disruptive, but please don't misconstrue my argument to mean that all non-encyclopedic content should be banned form userspace. — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A lack of evidence for disruption. I'm really confused as why anyone is seeing this as an issue. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Additional comment, I thought for sure that the new message bar was only a small part of the issue, but it seems to be the main focus. Wha? I guess some people have never been Rick Rolled. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that person after person is pulled away from editing the encyclopedia to deal with this nonsense is ample evidence of disruption. In the presence of even a small amount of disruption, the onus is on Certified.Gangsta to prove that the disputed content benefits the encyclopedia (the sole reason for the page's existence). Does it? — David Levy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is no disruption caused by this user page. The disruption is caused by people who find it objectionable yet seem to insist on staring at it just so that they can get pissed off at it. User pages are not obligated to be bland and bare, but informative on the user's participation on Wikipedia, among other info. — Kurykh 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, seriously, if you keep on falling for the trick, maybe you should learn to mouse over links before clicking on them. — Kurykh 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Or we could simply eliminate the userpage content deliberately created specifically to confuse and mislead users (id est to cause disputation). Blaming people for allowing messages designed to confuse and mislead them to do precisely that is far less productive. — David Levy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Or, even more simply, you can stop going on his user page. — Kurykh 04:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- That argument could be applied to any userpage content. Are you suggesting that nothing is off-limits (that someone could post whatever he/she pleased on a userpage, and you'd tell anyone who complained to simply stop going there)?
- As has been pointed out, Certified.Gangsta performs legitimate edits to the site. As a result, it's normal for people to visit his userpage. Someone doing so for the first time will have no means of knowing that this is a hoax. — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the above is related to the spoof new messages bar, not the "China = Shame" part. — Kurykh 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be under the false impression that userpages are the property of their owners to do with as they please. In fact, they exist solely for the benefit of the encyclopedia. — David Levy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am under no false impression. User pages are indeed for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Benefiting the encyclopedia does not mean being overly puritan. — Kurykh 04:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nor does prohibiting deliberate disruption constitute being overly puritan. — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, like Ned Scott, I fail to see the issue. While I recall there being a lot of complaints about the spoofing, I don't recall there ever being consensus to prohibit it. If there was, then just delete that specific part of the page. As for the rest, there seems to only be issue over the China=Shame part. Again, if it's already been decided that content is inappropriate, just remove the content. As the contentious parts are a small part of the userpage, and the user isn't banned for added those sections, I fail to see the benefit of removing the entire user page of a user that seems to be an active and legitimate contributor to the encyclopedia. - Koweja ( talk) 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that outright deletion is being proposed. The idea, as you suggest, is to remove the disputed content.
- Incidentally, the automatic assumption is that content not intended to assist in encyclopedic endeavors is not allowed. Only consensus for its inclusion can change that. (The onus is not on opponents of trickery to establish consensus for its exclusion.) — David Levy 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't believe that there's a sufficient consensus for the guideline section regarding this, nor has Certified.Gangsta "gone out" to cause problems or disruption with it. When other editors have to seek out the problem to be affected by it, it's not disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who's seeking out the problem? We're talking about a banner created for no reason other than to confuse and mislead people. How is that not disruptive? — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Harmless silliness. Easy to ignore, if you are so inclined.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per all the other Keep opinions. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepInteresting to note that David Levy is the very admin who abused his admin power by protecting my userpage, blocked me for disruption, etc, etc last February. Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing. This is another episode of Levy's Wikipedia:LAME#User_pages. I consider this latest attempt to censor my userspace as continuous, persistent harassment. We learn from last year that there is no point of raising this frivolous issue again. Please focus on mainspace contribution and stop Viewing it as a disruption-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, I have never protected your userpage. Secondly, I obviously dispute your assertion that I committed abuse. Whether I was right or wrong, my honest belief was that you were committing deliberate disruption. You knew that your edits were controversial, and you attempted to sneak them in as minor edits. Then you removed my warning from your talk page.
- I'll kindly ask that you retract your allegation of "harassment." Again, right or wrong, the people who have attempted to remove the content in question regard it as disruptive. The fact that you disagree doesn't mean that you should assume bad faith on their part. — David Levy 09:13, 19 January 2008 (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.