Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Analogdemon (2nd nomination)


 * 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 was Keep. There is no consensus to delete. I do not like this page but I respect the arguments put forward to keep it. There is some tolerance of user pages, and this does not violate any policies. --Bduke 06:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Analogdemon

 * (MfD#1)

Inflammatory userpage, as WP:UP. Examples of that being: citing his previous MFD of his userspace as "bad faith" and were also among discussion of "bad-intentioned users". Personal attacks against User:Doc glasgow are cited. Calls deletionists "vandals". Unproductive userboxes (i.e. "This user loves pussy.", "This user loves for a woman to suck his cock.", etc. — M o e   ε  21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This user page is obviously a type of humorous advocacy for free speech. He is being deliberately provocative to make political points re his view of Wikipedia policy and procedure. The previous AfD was already shot down, so why bring it back? If you don't like his message, then counter it with a better argument. By deleting the page, you would make his point for him better than anything he's published on that page. Censorship sucks, especially on an encyclopedia.Verklempt 22:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Furthur more, it wasn't an AFD, it was MFD. And consensus can change, thats why it's back. It's not censorship either, and if it's an encyclopedia you claim we should be writing, trolling shouldn't be made here. You want a better argument than his soapboxing for free speech, your answer is here and here. — M o e   ε  22:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that you don't like the content of the user page, and so you want to shut it down. I think that sets a very bad precedent. You lost the last time you tried this. What has changed since then?Verklempt 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer your question, delete per nom and per WP:USER.--WaltCip 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is nuts. Say WP:NPA and per Moe Epsilon. -- Hirohisat Kiwi 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Except for the one on Doc, I consider the rest harmless. Stupid, but harmless.DGG (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM isn't a valid argument for keeping an unproductive use of the userspace. — M o e   ε  07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Doc would appreciate it if we removed this little bit of libel against him, and the rest of the users.--WaltCip 11:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, that page just reeks of inflammatory-ness.  Sebi  [talk] 07:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, needlessly inflammatory.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Inflammatory is as inflammatory does. If it bothers you so much don't look at it. Remove that attack on Glasgow and move on. No need to delete the entire page. Also isn't it common courtesy to tell the editor when nominating his userpage for deletion. Seriously people. --MichaelLinnear 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not going to play games of "I didn't see that, so I'll ignore it". It's bad practice. As for notifying, if this editor cares as much as I think he does about his userspace, I would think he would know about it as soon as he logged on, which he hasn't done in a while. — M o e   ε  23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's the one personal attack (that should go), and the userpage leaves me thinking that this user isn't a very nice person (to put it mildly).  But, really, it doesn't violate any policy I can see.  Let him have his fun.  It's not my place to criticize someone's idea of personal expression.  And for the record, apparently his last MfD was in bad faith.  --UsaSatsui 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Userpage & Related user templates.- Flubeca Talk 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Non compliant with WP:UP. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also like to point out the following pages:
 * User:Analogdemon/Shitty article candidates/Analogdemon
 * User:Analogdemon/Support of SPUI
 * User:Analogdemon/Beach Boys Albums
 * As potential violations of the userspace. I will add them to this discussion to let the closing administrator decide on the use of these pages as well. — M o e   ε  06:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, that's not fair. Those are unrelated pages being added in halfway through the discussion.  The time to bundle is at the start.  I call foul.  What have you got against this guy anyways?  --UsaSatsui 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Adding new candidates for deletion half-way through an XfD is always a bad idea, and often results in a complete mess for the closing admin. WaltonOne 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - user can (and probably should) be warned and asked to tone down the objectionable content. Deleting a user page containing useful and appropriate information is IMO not an appropriate solution. — xDanielx T/C 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Before deletion, consider threat of blocking and/or clean-up and protection of the userpage.   Has someone already asked the user to tone down offensive content, and/or move offensive content down the page out of the default view?  --SmokeyJoe 09:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not my taste at all, gahk, sorry I visited, but obviously satire, and very well done, and obviously a user page. KP Botany 16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech, for anything. It's not what a userpage is supposed to be used for. — M o e   ε  01:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And this is precisely why this user page is okay, plus the overall satirical nature of the user page when taken as an entire body, namely he links all of his "user boxes" to the various articles on the topics,
 * "wb This user thinks that a woman's body is the most perfect work of art the world will ever see" is wikilinked to the article Woman. "pu This user loves pussy" is wikilinked to Vagina.  "bj This user loves for a woman to suck his cock" is wikilinked to Oral sex, and so on.  He's not advocating any of these activities for anyone, none of these activies per se are activities that demean other human beings.  His comments about deletionists is about their actions, "Deletionists commit the ultimate vandalism by putting articles up for deletion that they view as non-notable or patent nonsense," rather than calling deletionists "vandals."  Calling his prior MFD for his user page a "bad faith nomination for deletion" is a matter of personal opinion, and clearly he's offering his, and it doesn't appear that the prior deletion for this user page was all that good faithed, imo, because apparently the advocacy of illegal activity was jaywalking, or maybe the blue laws involving oral sex in some US states.  I can't find the doc glasgow thing.  But again, many people are arguing about the crude ones, not these other problems with the page, and articles on oral sex and genitalia are part of Wikipedia, and oral sex and genitalia are not per se advocacies of abuse against other human beings.  He may be trolling, but if he is, he's doing it very carefully, and he's making people come in and ask for the bait.  His user page is a reason for not reading user pages, imo.  But the topics on his user page are not proclamations of violence against other human beings, and they are not demeaning to other human beings.  And he sure as hell isn't announcing, "Gotta keep the pimp hand strong always" boldly across his page.  He's using crude and adult language.  He's stating his opinions about issues on Wikipedia.  He's satirizing user boxes.  I don't like it, I don't agree with it, I really did not want to read it, but I'm not demeaned by his expressing his opinion about goings on on Wikipedia in the way he chose, because he doesn't intend to offend or demean people or victimize people or celebrate victims.  He's merely expressing his opinion on Wikipedia issues.  And this is a part of Wikipedia.  KP Botany 02:50, 9 September 2007 (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.