Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MCW07

Closing instructions


 * 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 keep per cleanup of his userpage. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:MCW07
Nominating userpage and talk page of an editor with clear WP:COI edits recently. Also, blatant advertising for an off-wiki commercial site - editor informed of WP:UP problem with link, but re-added anyway after prior removal. Duplicate content on both userpage and talk page. -- MikeWazowski (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - speedy G11 if possible. → ROUX   ₪  04:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G11. - t'shaél chat 06:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some editor issues here. The user is a valued contributor.  Links to promotional external sites are not OK, should be removed, and if reinserted, the user needs to be warned and blocked if he insists on repeating.  The blunt hammer of deletion is not likely a good solution.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment per the nomination statement by user:MikeWazowski MCW07 has been informed and these links have been removed, he then re-added them. - t'shaél chat 09:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. There is a bigger problem than his user and talk page.  The editor seems to believe that it is OK to link to blogspot.com sites.  His userpage and talk page are only examples of the bigger problem, which is the user damaging mainspace with the addition of non reliable sources.  User:MikeWazowski seems to have been correctly acting in reverting these edits.  User:MCW07 needs to be warned, and blocked if he continues.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. If he keeps on inserting spam links despite being warned to stop, that is the course that this will take. - t'shaél chat 09:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess I don't understand how blogspot.com links are any less valued than anything else, something I think was the original reason for my targeting, and was confirmed by the statements above. Preferential treatment over people with the money to pay for a yearly domain name is ludicrous.  I offer something different than other websites do, especially those run by AOL and Gawker, for example.


 * I've never spammed anywhere on this entire site, something that is ignored in favor of controlling my very own profile page. If you'll look back, every link I posted on a Wikipedia article was for something related to that article, i.e. a review for said film mentioned.


 * As far as my user page, what exactly do I put there, a big picture of me hugging a Wikipedia logo or something (Oh wait, nope, that's probably illegal as well considering it has a logo in it)? I've donated to Wikipedia in the past thanks to the wonderful service provided, now I have to block harassing emails from its users.  It's not a friendly place, sadly.


 * And no, I received no warnings for anything. I just came one day to find out every article I had edited had been reverted.  I then confronted the editor about never being warned before all of my work was deleted, simply to receive a response that "he was not required to warn me of anything, that's how it works here".
 * MCW07 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the lack of polite discussion. Unfortunately, there are people who make it their business to insert links to their sites wherever possible, for the benefit of the website, not for the benefit of wikipedia.  The big red flag here is the character string "blog" in the url.  As a rule, blog sites are not reliable or reputable websites.  Of course, there can be exceptions.  If the site or the author is independently notable (WP:WEB, WP:BIO), then a case can be made.  If someone suggests that your links are not sufficiently reliable/reputable (as is now done), you can take it up at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and see if anyone there disagrees with you.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MCW07 is only presenting part of what I emailed to him, and out of context - I must also point out that email contact was initiated by him, accusing me of a personal vendetta, targeting his website personally, and he seemed to be under the impression that I had to contact him before I reverted what appeared to both me and another editor as linkspam/self-promotional edits. For the record, this is exactly what I emailed to him after his initial email: "You have no valid reasons to complain. According to your Wikipedia userpage, you personally run a blog called Uncovered Films - nearly all of your recent contributions were to insert links to your blog into articles, in clear violation of the conflict of interest guidelines - specifically those about self-promotion. I and other editors removed those links, and rightly so. I was under no obligation to email you and ask your permission before doing so - that's not the way things work over there. Unless you can show valid reasons why we should ignore the conflict of interest rules and let you promote your site just because you want to "slap a link everywhere you possibly can", I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I think I'll be removing those links should they re-appear." This is essentially the same message I posted on MCW07's talk page, as well. Also, his comment that he's "never spammed anywhere on this entire site" is also demonstrably false, as his recent contributions were exactly that, only inserting links to his blog. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is risk of harm with little useful purpose in examining the history in forensic detail. The real issue is where do we go from here.  Does MCW07 accept that he should stop adding blogspot.com links?  If not, let's take the question to Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  Will MCW07 agree to remove excessive promotion unrelated to wikipedia off his userpage and talk page?  He seems to have done this already, though grudgingly.  As he has one it, there is no need for this MfD.  Keep, as edited.
 * MCW07, you are a serious contributor, so some leeway is given to you for your userspace. However, especially where your content could be considered promotional, you should endeavour to ensure that your content says something about you and/or your contributions.  We are very sensitive about being used as a webhost for promotional activities.  You may like to read Free speech.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I found no policy saying that people with a COI can not have user pages. Nor can I find a policy saying userpages and user talk pages can not have any content overlap -- especially when it is a total uf under 1K long.  Remove commercial links? Sure. Baby out with bathwater? Nope.  As to "Blogspot.com" a search in user and user talk space shows about 20,000 references, and more than 25,000 in articlespace  -- seems that it is widely used in userspace and in mainspace, and raising it here is not a valid reason for deletion.  It needs to go to RS/N for a "general ruling" (actually I thibnk because it is so widespread it may need an RfC).   Meanwhile, sledgehammers on userpages do not have efficacious results.  I trust I answered all facets of the deletion arguments. Collect (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This was not about not letting the user not have a userpage - this was about the editor's insistence (at the time) for including links to swagbucks on his pages - links that served no purpose here on Wikipedia. While there are valid uses for some blog links, in this case the problem was blatant self-promotion of the editor's personal blog - and there are guidelines about that. Normally I wouldn't have gone this route, but Berean Hunter suggested I try this. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, I would support a deletion of the nominated page, but the user has cleaned it up and hopefully learned his lesson. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - now that the links have been removed. We have other sanctions available if he resumes adding those links to articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, can someone go ahead and remove the "Speedy deletion" banners from my pages now? I think the statement has been made, I've been made a significant example of (Yeah yeah, my profile page is not the place to list my profile). I've since made contributions to the site that I doubt anyone will argue with, considering they aren't linking to any site I run and/or benefit from in any way. I'm sure there are bigger problems/people on Wikipedia that can be bullied than me.
 * Remove 'Speedy Removal' Notices Request

I doubt anyone here would agree with me moving them myself, which is why I'm politely asking the people who defaced my page to remove them at this point. No more comment is necessary from those people, as I can't stand to read another word of it. Either do it or don't... no explanation needed.

MCW07 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2009 (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.