Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Antigrandiose userboxes and other material

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was Delete all except for User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sockpuppet, which will be kept. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Antigrandiose userboxes and other material

 * List of pages below.

user:Antigrandiose has added a large amount of sexual "pushing the envelope" material and warnings by quite a number of users including deletion of "grotesquely inappropriate" and potentially quite offensive or disruptive material. 85% of his 730 posts have been to userspace with a large number of sexual images in galleries. The talk page post sums up the background:


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:90%" width="95%"


 * Talk page post to user

Past edits - [...] By the end of your first day's editing your userpage was a gallery of sexual images, articles titled with made up sexual terms and a number of inappropriate userboxes - also often including sexual imagery - added later. Also your writing in April that "I want to get into the Guinness Book of World Records by being the only guy to ever get laid using Wikipedia" was inappropriate, as was your page stating "this user would like to have sexual intercourse with... the women who look at (page)", which was deleted by Dragonfly67 as "grotesquely inappropriate".

Feedback in May 2010 - Other feedback was given by Dougweller, DMacks, Andrensath (inappropriate humor), and MuZemike. On May 22 you were told: "Wikipedia is a writing project not a social networking site... This is an encyclopedia, not a social experiment station... [please] desist from exploring how far you can go with sexual and other non-project imagery... will eventually be seen as something that has to end... please consider this a friendly request to put an end to your interest in sexual imagery, at least on this site. It could be backed up by formal request or warning, but I hope you'll understand nobody wants that."

Content added since May 2010 - Since then you recreated the deleted page, this time stating "this user is always horny", posted a simulated bot notice to an IP user page pretenting to be a "warning" and advising them also to "Stay off of nakedlittleboys.com" , created a "sockpuppet of a sockpuppet" userbox , created an entire page of userboxes, several sexual in nature , Added inappropriate edits such as  (you added "leftist" as being "taken from cited article" but it is not actually stated there, though it's implied) , and engaged in fairly uncivil replies to other users.
 * }

I've dealt with the other matters. This MFD covers possible deletion of:


 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/fembot
 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sex
 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/enjoysex
 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/dark hair
 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/love
 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/userpage

The last two are probably on the whole not beneficial to the project given the context, as they are too close to sexual/gender related content given other editing to really be in any way "benefiting the encyclopedia" even as userpage humor.

There are 3 other non-sexual pages that are possibly problematic in the context:


 * User:Antigrandiose/Template:Canada (Canada knocking, in context of incivility or inappropriate edits related to "the left" cited above)
 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/canada (ditto)
 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sockpuppet (sockpuppetry related)

FT2 (Talk 01:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for chrissakes. At least one of the userboxes in particular is trouble. Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this has no place here. Dayewalker (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all except the Canada-related ones. Tasteless? Possibly. Unnecessary? Certainly. Worth antagonizing a user with some worthwhile contributions over? Probably not. In violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT, as claimed here? Not even close. --erachima talk 03:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all except the Canada stuff. Seriously, lighten up people. MtD (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Attracting and keeping women involved in the project has been a problem for some time. Userboxes like these aren't likely to make this environment more hospitable. The Canada stuff should obviously be deleted. AniMate 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is a blog an acceptable source? MtD (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think deletion discussions are subject to WP:RS, MtD. --erachima talk 03:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was being silly. MtD (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a reliable source. AniMate 03:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per erachima and MtD. I would be interested in a community-wide discussion on userboxes, and wouldn't mind at all if 90% of them were deleted as a result of new policies concerning them, but in the present circumstances there's no reason that these need to be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all - I was under the mistaken impression that this editor was a useful contributor to the encycylopedia, but that is very much not the case. Looking over their contrib list, it's more correct to characterize them as a troll.  Non-contributors should get no dispensation on stuff like this, so all of these boxes should be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a blanket !vote - This is a line item veto... er ... line item MfD !vote. Sorry, but I can't in good conscience !vote the same on all of them. I agree that most of these userboxes and the one template are inappropriate. I have attached arguments to each item with my !vote, all per WP:Userbox:
 * Delete - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/fembot - This one is overly edgy and inappropriate to my view. Contrast with "I'm always horny" #3.
 * Strong Delete - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sex - Delete due to totally inappropriate graphic image. Women's private areas should not be included, except where use is educational, and only educational. This one is "grotesquely inappropriate".
 * Strong Keep - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/enjoysex - Saying one is always horny is exactly the same as saying one is always hungry (especially since both are normal appetites and part of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs). Or the same as saying that one likes cats as pets, or any other affirmational preference. It doesn't apply to anyone except the displaying user. Harmless and funny.
 * Strong Delete - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/dark hair - Also delete due to inappropriate image, but not quite as bad as #2.
 * Weak Keep - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/love - Very diffuse, applies to approx 50% of worlds population. Does not mention Wikipedia. This one is borderline for me, and someone prolly could tip me toward deletion with a compelling argument.
 * Strong Delete - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/userpage - This one is inappropriate due to use of Wikipedia editors as target.
 * Strong Delete - User:Antigrandiose/Template:Canada (Canada knocking, in context of incivility or inappropriate edits related to "the left" cited above) - This template apparently is intended to be used in mainspace, and is clearly WP:POV. Userboxen in user space is very different, but this one is "grotesquely inappropriate".
 * Strong Delete -  User:Antigrandiose/userbox/canada (ditto) - Characterizations about a small subset of Wikipedia editors as targets. That makes it inappropriate as divisive.
 * Keep - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sockpuppet (sockpuppetry related) - This one is clever and funny. I don't see this one as serious.
 * The only one I would go to the barricades to keep is #3. — Becksguy (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete/Keep as per User:Becksguy. This is less of an MfD and more of an RFC/U:  User:Antigrandiose needs to be more professional in his activities here.  Much of the above is not, is needlessly offensive, and is not welcome.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unconvinced that equating "user has sex drive" and "user has hunger drive" or that both are basic drives, makes "user is always horny" an appropriate Wiki userpage content text. I wouldn't got to the barricades to remove this one but I'm not at all convinced that it's beneficial to the project. More to the point this user has engaged in a range of edge-pushing related to sexual content and encouraging that doesn't work for me either. Even if this were a more serious and more experienced user, and all other userboxes sensible ones, I'd still probably opt for deletion of a "user is always horny" box. FT2 (Talk 09:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you, FT2, on this user's pushing the envelope of sexually related content. That's a major reason I !voted to delete all the userboxes that have sexually suggestive images included. But I found the "always horny" userbox to be quite funny, although I get that not everyone sees it that way. To me, it doesn't target, it doesn't objectify, it doesn't have objectionable words or images, it's not divisive nor mean, it's not inflammatory, it's not uncivil, and it's honest in a Portnoy's Complaint kinda of way (and that should pretty much date me). Yes, he pushes the envelope on most of the userboxes, but I think there is a sense of humor somewhere in there as well. I could have voted to delete everything, as the initial votes did, but even though there isn't a baby in this particular bathwater, there seems to be a nice cake of usable soap. My feeling is that allowing a wider latitude on user pages may actually encourage participation. We are all very social animals, and since this is an all volunteer project, some very small corner where we can share little bits of ourselves, some humor, or maybe even vent a bit, would help collaboration in a social sense, if not necessarily in a technical sense. Anyway, my 2 cents. — Becksguy (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all It is not helpful to joke about sockpuppetry, and it is not helpful to display a strong interest in sex on Wikipedia. Here is a clue: we are all obsessed with sex, but some of us understand that Wikipedia is not the right time or place. It's fine for an editor to specialize in editing sex articles (if WP:5P is followed), but it is disruptive to go on about it in userspace. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, except the Canadian ones. User seems to be somewhat in need of a clue, but images are not graphic (nudity != pornography), freely licensed and "ZOMG VAGINA!!!1!!1" is much farther on the unhelpful scale then an immature editor. -- ۩ M ask  09:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a blanket !vote per Becksguy.

My !vetoes for each item:


 * Weak keep - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/fembot - I find it tasteless but it doesn't bother me. I understand that some might find it disagreeable.
 * Delete - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sex - Objectifying.
 * Strong Keep - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/enjoysex - per Becksguy.
 * Strong keep, suggest another picture - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/dark hair - if it had been that picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edvard_Munch_-_Madonna_%281894-1895%29.jpg, who would have complained?
 * Keep - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/love - I cannot see what possibly could be offensive about this one; please enlighten me if I'm missing something.
 * Neutral - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/userpage - This is too oblique for me.
 * Delete - User:Antigrandiose/Template:Canada - Obviously disruptive variant of Canada.
 * Delete -  User:Antigrandiose/userbox/canada  - Targeting a nationality.
 * Keep - User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sockpuppet - Humouristic.

walk victor falktalk 09:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Think light. Does not harm WP. The userboxes are pretty much unseen by anyone, so I really doubt that trying to set a line here on allowable images will do much - there are lots of userboxes which someone can object to. My opinion is that they are generally best ignored. Suggest to the user that some should be self-deleted,  but I can not aver that the posts made to him are in the gentle vein.   Oh, Canada can be deleted, I suppose. Collect (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Antigrandiose/userbox/dark hair has, during this discussion, been copied to User:AKMask/salvage. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sex, User:Antigrandiose/userbox/enjoysex, User:Antigrandiose/userbox/dark hair, User:Antigrandiose/Template:Canada, User:Antigrandiose/userbox/canada, User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sockpuppet as inappropriate userpage content that is not conducive to collaborative editing.... Peacock (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and Keep User:Antigrandiose/userbox/love, User:Antigrandiose/userbox/userpage, and User:Antigrandiose/userbox/fembot as mostly harmless. Peacock (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete everything other than the sockpuppet one (it's funny and harmless). This content is inappropriate and the user is not particularly a contributor - he has a whopping 27 mainspace contributions, at least two of which are wholly inappropriate and border on vandalism. --B (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All  Last time I checked Wikipedia was un-censored.   Doesn't mean I like any of 'em, nor would I want any of 'em on my userpage, but I don't have to look at them either.   KoshVorlon  Naluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Another non-blanket !vote: after reading all of the comments above, I've come to a slightly different opinion than Becksguy.
 * 1) Weak keep my gut reaction is to delete it, but in sum, it's not as bad as the others. I won't be sad to see it go if deleted though.
 * 2) Strong Delete objectification of women that's not appropriate.
 * 3) Delete not really appropriate. Yes, I know that it's a basic biological function, but shouldn't we encourage people to have a little class around here?
 * 4) Keep on one condition: the photo is changed. If not changed, delete.
 * 5) Keep: nothing wrong with this one really.
 * 6) Weak Keep: nothing really wrong with it, except the implication that only two women on WP look at user pages. I could be persuaded to delete it as insulting to women.
 * 7) Strong Delete: Honestly, that looks like a textbook example of CSD T2: "Templates that are unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy. This includes "speedy deletion" templates for issues that are not speedy deletion criteria and disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles." [emphasis in original]
 * 8) Delete while WP isn't censored, and that is an opinion, it's divisive and inappropriate to the purpose of collaborating to build the 'pedia.
 * 9) Weak Keep: it's humorous and not serious at best. I wouldn't be unhappy to see it deleted though if consensus is for deletion.
 *  Imzadi  1979   →   20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Still thinking about these, but what do people think about his copying over other people's posts from other talk pages to his user page? Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all nudity NOTCENSORED is about us covering things that an encyclopedia should cover, like sex. Gratuitous nudity in places where such would not be expected by a hypothetical reasonable man, like usepages, does nothing to build the encyclopedia.  I could care less about Canada or sockpuppet jokes. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Aw jeez... The user could better help the Wikipedia by not instigating this time-waster of a discussion. Herostratus (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This isn't Uncyclopedia.Access Denied(t&#124;c&#124;g&#124;d&#124;s) 03:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep... sorta: I want to be a true wikitrooper here: if a majority of people are really offended by some of these user boxes and they think it would be better to delete them, then by all means do so.  But don't delete the swans, and lighten up about the fembots and sockpuppets- those are so clearly over the top that no one would take them seriously.  The templates were intended to make fun of certain sections on my user page (which will have probably disappeared by the time you read this).  They were never intended as templates for articles.  If I have violated a wikilaw then I plead guilty and will accept the consequences. --Antigrandiose (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is remarkably forgiving. Note that we're primarily an encyclopedia and social and humor are not our core work. If you establish a record as a serious editor then that's fine. Building a reputation for pushing edges or appearing to treat concerns of multiple users as unimportant, while being a marginal and contentious content editor (only comparatively few content edits and those showing concerns too) isn't any help to the project and ultimately that's how the editing record may be perceived. It's easy to fix any mis-impression though; if you want guidance or help, just ask :) FT2 (Talk 13:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I changed the pic on this one: User:Antigrandiose/userbox/dark hair.  (Now if I can only find more appropriate pics of sockpuppets...). --Antigrandiose (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all These are not useful to the project, and many of them are just plain inappropriate. Reach Out to the Truth 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all although I wouldn't be upset if the sockpuppet and horny ones were left. This is nothing to do with censorship, although part of a rationale for deletion it to avoid causing unnecessary offense. We aren't Facebook, and personal pages that aren't in aid of building the encyclopedia are not appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No unexpected porn please, Per JClemens, and others. Some of those pictures especially the one showing pubic hair would be not safe for work, and for some of us that can be a pretty serious issue. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles where I expect and defend nudity, but not on a user page please. As for the others I don't see the concern about the swan picture, or the joke about how few women we have here (unless I'm missing something this is joking about the problem not reinforcing the problem). As for being concerned about someone arguing that we over represent Canada, would anyone be really offended by a "This editor believes that Wikipedia's coverage of North American countries should be in proportion to land area" userbox?   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost All All of these are inappropriate, except for the sockpuppet of a sockpuppet one. That one is harmless and funny, in my opinion. Not much to say; everyone else has said it all.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 19:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all per WP:CENSOR.   Snotty Wong   soliloquize 22:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. As noted above, WP:NOTCENSORED refers to the fact that articles cover notable topics regardless of whether they may be offensive. Userspace is for building the encyclopedia, not exercising free speech. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, userspace is not required to be for just "building the encyclopedia" - per many previous MfDs, the precedent is clear that one purpose is for showing who the editor is to others, which indirectly does benefit the project, but no direct benefit is required. Collect (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * More accurately, past cases tend to concur that the images may be fine but their usage may not always be okay. "One purpose" of userspace is to show who the user is to others and no direct benefit may be needed, but pure sexual provocative material of this kind and sexual galleries aren't quite in that category and have routinely been deleted for a variety of reasons - disrepute, web hosting, harm to project (by suggesting sexual provocation is welcomed which may deter female contributors), distraction to community, and most famously for a rather crude but accurate comment in a past MFD that attempts to create mere "wank galleries" are generally removed (forgive the crudity). FT2 (Talk 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect that userspace is not just for "building the encyclopedia", but, to expand my comment, material that is fully compliant with WP:UP does help build the encyclopedia by helping to build a community of people who are focused on such building (with occasional recreational breaks). And it is certainly true that no page on Wikipedia is intended to exercise free speech. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is forcing you to look at his userboxes. If you don't like them, don't go to his userpage.  Simple as that.    Snotty Wong   gossip 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a social networking site. Userpages are for giving more detail about yourself to our readers and your fellow editors. There are plenty of articles here where one would not be surprised to see nipples, and if images of nipples offend you you can avoid those articles. But we have no way to warn people before they click on a userpage.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all but one as they're disruptive. However, the sockpuppet one is cute and funny, and not especially disruptive or inappropriate, and should be kept. (Any Wikipedia contributor who would take that box seriously probably should take a break from editing anyway. Maybe they'd think the user is a sockpuppet of User:Sockpuppet?) Full disclosure: Until this Mfd I had the sockpuppet box on my userpage, which I removed because the Mfd tag screwed with my layout.  elektrik SHOOS  09:46, 26 July 2010 (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.