Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Analogdemon (3rd nomination)

 __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  Keep. --RL0919 (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Analogdemon
Full of vandalism but not quite a G3. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 10:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not appear to be "vandalism" to me. And this is userspace - the page violates no guidelines or policies of WP regarding userspace.  It is informative, and does not, for example, use language which is not found in regular mainspace even.  It informs us about the user, and is, in all, proper use of userspace. Collect (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Access Denied  [FATAL ERROR] 10:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure what kind of crusade you are on, but this is a normal user page. Gigs (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure if the whole page qualifies for deletion, although some of the userboxes need to go. For instance: "This user loves pussy." and "This user loves tits." and "This user loves for a woman to suck his cock." and "This user came on Eileen."  If this user is not agreeable to removing this irrelevant comment, then I think deletion of the entire page is the next step.  Snotty Wong   express 22:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They are an inactive user. If the user boxes bother you, I'd suggest boldly removing them.  WP:UP allows any user to remove "excessively offensive" material on sight.  I don't think they are that offensive, but that's kind of a subjective thing.  Anyway, considering the inactivity, removing them now and having a discussion about them if he ever becomes active again seems like the way to go. Gigs (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, or selectively remove userboxes. I agree with Gigs; be bold and remove them, with a talk-page comment saying you've done so. The words aren't intrinsically offensive to me, but their use in this case seems to be disruption to make a point. Kind of like purposely talking really loudly all the time in normal conversation just because you can, and then claiming that anyone who complains that a lower volume would be more productive to cooperation is violating your rights. The whole women as sex objects thing isn't productive for intellectual collaboration with the other kind, either; it distracts from our principal purpose here, imo. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This doesn't violate any userpage policies, least of all vandalism. Did you not realize it was a user page and that user put that stuff there intentionally?  EdEColbert  Let me know 06:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You couldn't be more wrong if you think this doesn't violate any policies because it's a userspace page; of course it does: Take a look again at The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. The first one is relevant, the fourth more so: "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner." No one can seriously argue that it's respectful and civil for an editor to use any Wikipedia-hosted page to advertise his desire to use women as sex objects. This person is free to objectify women and to try to impress people that he's some a stud, but there's no reason Wikipedia should subsidize the effort. Let him go pay for his own web server if he wants to promote himself in ways that create a hostile environment for women and that conflict with the goal of building an encyclopedia. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because you use phrases like "You couldn't be more wrong" or "No one can seriously argue that" doesn't make it true. I have looked over every word on the page again. I assure you that I can seriously argue that I found nothing objectionable on that page, and indeed I am seriously arguing that I found nothing objectionable on that page. I hope that this satisfies you and that you now understand my seriousness. He wants to have sex. I hope he is having sex right now as I'm writing this.  EdEColbert  Let me know 05:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's interesting information that you've provided, and I see I owe you an apology. Evidently I underestimated the seriousness of your commitment to sexual candor; my mistake. But you "not finding anything objectionable" isn't the policy that's relevant, nor was it the one I referenced, was it? Did you look at the one I did refer to? Look now, if you didn't. Explicitly then, just so we're on the same page: would you consider it a "respectful and civil" interaction for some random guy to walk up to your sister or your girlfriend or your mom in a cooperative work environment and say, "I like it when a woman sucks my cock"? Nothing wrong with that at all? And if you're fine with that, then you'd also presumably consider it "respectful and civil" if a guy were to walk up to you and tell you that he likes it when another guy bends over and spreads his cheeks for him? What could possibly be disrespectful or uncivil about that? You do think homosexuals have the same right to be open about their sexual desires that straights do, I'm sure? I just want to be clear: I wouldn't want to offend you by not taking your belief in the value of sexual candor in a work environment seriously enough.  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The user is stating one his interests. Some people put in userboxes "I like pizza"; he is saying "I like oral sex and am straight". If he said he likes gay sex or the spreading cheeks of guys, same thing. If I thought this was uncivil, disrespectful, or objectifying anyone, I would vote delete too.  EdEColbert  Let me know 01:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: This page tells a lot about this editor. Probably more than most people's user pages.  Frankly, most people like sex (and most men prefer to have it with women), so I don't see any problem with him saying it. Buddy431 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 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.