Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade




 * 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: Service awards are not something with enforced criteria - those criteria are not policy, nor a guideline. If a user wants to call themselves a 'Master Editor', he/she has just as much of a right to define 'Master Editor' as Service awards does. So long as the user isn't representing 'Master Editor' as some position of authority, there is no problem here. I doubt anyone is going to suddenly defer to you because you consider yourself a 'Master Editor'. Indeed I suspect the opposite would likely be true. Prodego talk  22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Bryan.Wade/Bryan.Wade
This page includes, among other things, an award which is an entitlement for those with seven years' editing experience. The user in question has just over one year and is only including the medal (and edit-warring to keep it) to be disruptive and make a point: specifically, he is invoking his "right" to post false and misleading material in his userspace. I don't see how this serves Wikipedia, and I can think of many ways in which it harms the project, and causes problems. Thus, it should be removed. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 10:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment User never claimed any "right"; the term was brought up by me at ANI in the course of the discussion. Didn't mean any "legal rights" or otherwise. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Read the discusion page [...] There is no rule against it." That is what I was referring to: his only explanation/rationale seems to be that it's ostensibly allowed. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  constablewick  ─╢ 10:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I have stated a few times that I am keeping it because I like how the template looks.  Bryan.Wade (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To all reading this thread: Please note that a relevant discussion on this issue exists at WP:AN/I. -- PS T  10:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per precedent @ ANI/User:Zaferk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also affected this discussion:
 * User:Karan.102 templates removed restored by Fences&Windows, re-affirming my vote for keep
 * User:Paul Benjamin Austin (possibly>claims 40,000 edits when it's only 12,000)
 * "He did it too" isn't a legitimate argument. It's just plain wrong and disruptive. BTW, User:Zaferk is blocked. Disruption hasn't been rewarded in his case, and neither should it be here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is a very strong argument... I admit that my above removal of templates was somewhat pointy, but you now how many userpages we'd have to police, and track, edit-war, take to ANI, and nominate for deletion if this MfD goes through? You wanna do the honors? be my guest... start with the two listed above and then check up on the edits of every user who parades one of these templates around. Once you're done, you can volunteer in collecting diplomas and official language-certificates for every corresponding userbox (do you really know Mongolian at level 4?) -- and make sure you get certified copies of the supposed BA's, BFA's, and MA's...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Placing misleading templates for no readily identifiable reason on a userpage is unhelpful behaviour that is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. ~ mazca  talk 11:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Mazca and remove it from Zaferk's page as well. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 11:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally, I find nonsense such as this a useful indicator of how carefully an individual's edits should be checked. (Not that it would take very long). CIreland (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is not a good idea to lie and mislead others, and serves no real purpose but to bully other editors in discussions, being able to wave a flag like that around without other newbies knowing the difference. If it is kept, it should state explicitly that nothing on the page was true.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 12:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The course of action is to delete the unearned awards. There is no process for being given such awards, so it is hard to find any case where deletion of the userpage was used as the remedy.   Self-given awards should always be suspect, and likely should be eliminated, but they are not taken seriously by anyone I know.   Certainly MfD is the wrong location for such a remedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by collect (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Frankly, what's the point of this MfD apart from mongering drama? He can write to be an albino Klingon on his userpage FWIW. Make no mistake, I agree it can be deceiving and unhelpful, and I would be more than happy if the editor decides to remove the page himself. But we're not here to parent editors. We're talking of unofficial awards, nothing serious. They're just funny and silly badges we put on our userpages to make people cheer, nothing else. If his contribution in other pages are fine, I see no reason to attack the editor on this idiosyncracy of his own. This MfD seems at least as pointy than the page itself. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cyclopia. The service awards aren't serious or official in any way. Plenty of people, sometimes very reputable people, have and continue to post service awards they don't actually "deserve", and there's no policy against it. Just because it seems likely to you that the page's purpose is to annoy people or even make a point doesn't mean he's actually disrupting a Wikipedia process. It's just a harmless page in userspace. There are no attacks or violent statements or even divisive statements. I don't see why this page should bother anyone. Its use during an argument about similar material doesn't make it a violation. Just calm down and ignore it. Equazcion  ( talk ) 12:51, 23 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per convention. We've recently let another editor off the hook for displaying service awards they're not 'entitled' to, and a user other than Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger is currently displaying a userbox that makes the claim of being the founder of Wikipedia. The Service Awards are pretty meaningless and are never policed, who cares what level of tutnum someone is? (Yes, I display a service award....) I could claim to be The Ruler of the Universe in a userbox, and I hope nobody would feel the need to delete it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not intend to sound rude to the nominator, since I respect his/her point of view, but I feel that this is an unnecessary escalation of a harmless matter. Firstly, if the user in question (User:Bryan.Wade) is productively contributing to Wikipedia articles, his claims on his user page should not concern anyone. The encouragement of a potentially valuable contributor to the encyclopedia should be of greater importance than the prevention of harmless self-praise. Secondly, one should be permitted to do that which one desires, unless his/her deeds influence others in a manner of which they do not approve, and which disturbs them even in their ignorance. Although Bryan.Wade's actions are not acknowledged as productive, they may be easily ignored; his userpage does not affect anyone who ignores its presence. In fact, an extremely small population of the world has seen his userpage, most of whom are participating in this thread ;). I certainly agree that his self-praise does not further the goals of the encyclopedia, but it does not degrade them either. In this vein, and in that of my previous comments, his userpage should be ignored but kept. -- PS T  14:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fences and windows. We have absolutely better things to do than policing made-up awards.  Sandstein   14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Disruptive deception is wrong, especially when done to make a point. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm starting Dramaout2 early. Many users maintain a fictitious persona in their userspace. If Bryan.Wade wants to have some fun or make an ass of himself in his own userspace, I say let him. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question to anyone voting to delete because the content is misleading: Did you ever think that (to take one example) "This editor is a Royal Editor, and is entitled to display this Meitnerium Editor Star" was a significant claim? -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No but I still think that page should be deleted. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 16:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent AN/I disussions. As long as they aren't claiming to be an admin or otherwise violating WP:UP, this nomination is without merit. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per precendent. Also, deception is not why I have the template.  I have it because I like how the template looks.  Bryan.Wade (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: This user page does not improve Wikipedia. When something is proven to be untrue it should be deleted. If the user refuses to delete the false item, the page should be deleted. Maybe this should be raised at WP:VPR and policy firmly established. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I doubt it would be such a big deal if wade was actually editing, but almost all of their edits are basically edit warring over these awards or arguing about them, he has a minimal number of actual constructive edits. Also comments like this, suggest he just wants to cause trouble. -- Jac 16888 Talk 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, but if it is so, bring its case to AN/I, ArbCom or whatever it takes and have him blocked. What is the purpose of deleting a harmless userpage? Is it a novel form of WP punishment I am not yet aware of? -- Cycl o pia talk  19:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, to clarify the statement, comments such as that suggests he only has the page to try and cause trouble- Jac 16888 Talk 20:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What would happen if folks just ignored the page?  WP would collapse? Collect (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "cause trouble" you mean "annoy people", I can think of a lot of other pages that need to be deleted. Unless in causing people to dislike the page it actually violates a policy, deletion has never been a valid recourse in these situations. Equazcion  ( talk ) 22:12, 23 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * Who cares? --Carnildo (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not me. But let's not begrudge people their relief from seasonal horror. Arguing about this concentrates the mind and thereby blessedly turns off consciousness of such aural atrocities as "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" and "The Little Drummer Boy". Bah humbug, Hoary (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ironically, we are causing more disruption in attempting to "prevent" apparent "disruption"! Could not the time of everyone in this discussion be better used if we were contributing to WP articles instead, or even responding to a more serious AN/I issue? Of course, I should respect the nominator's wishes, but I am sure that his/her experience is more needed elsewhere. On another note, this edit is a particularly clear indication that we should leave Bryan.Wade's userpage alone, and end this thread. -- PS T  03:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - god this is lame. There are very limited criteria for editing/locking a user's page or talkpage against their wishes. 1 - They are posting blatantly inappropiate content (e.g. An explicit image of sexual activity). 2 - The page is being used as a venue for personal attacks or blatant biographies of living persons policy violations. 3 - The user is impersonating an administrator/steward/developer/bureaucrat. This doesn't fall under any of these criteria. Exxolon (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep The real problem is the endless barnstars and various other awards. There is a growing underground of young editors on here who just sit around all day long giving them to each other.  Until we deal with that problem in a more constructive way in a proper forum then there is nothing to do here.  Ridernyc (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I completely agree that the community of people who are here to do pointless things like give one another meaningless barnstars is a bigger problem than this. However, I fail to see why that is an argument for keeping this: other rubbish exists, therefore we should keep this rubbish too? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. You (or me) do not have the right to judge what is "rubbish" on a personal userpage. I can personally agree with you, but it is none of my business. As long as it is not directly against policy or harmful to the project, there is no reason it cannot stay. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because as of yet no one has pointed to a policy saying he can not have this rubbish. Ridernyc (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove stuff that is misleading. Block user for disruption if he insists on hosting misleading content.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good faith user who participated on the service awards talkpage to determine if he was allowed to post the awards. After a brief discussion it was determined that the awards policy is unenforceable therefore, by default, anyone can post anything they like. Awards are simply no better than mere decoration. I would dare say that we need users with such unorthodox points of view to keep reminding us how trivial these awards are and to prevent us from drowning on our own self-praise based on number of edits and to prevent us from being infected with edit-countitis. To make my point even more clear I will give an example. One of the awards is for a "Grand Tutnum". Now "Tutnum" is a non-existent word, therefore meaningless. It follows then that this award is in itself meaningless because its point of reference is meaningless. Who could possibly construct an award scale with a such a meaningless award if their intention was serious? I think the answer is obvious. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree. The fact that the placement of these awards can't be enforced, and that we are therefore forced to accept their placement by users who don't "rightly deserve" them, reinforces the lesson that high edit counts should not necessarily be held in high esteem, nor should they be something editors work towards achieving. If we start enforcing the placement of these awards, we place an importance on edit count that Wikipedia has always sought to avoid. I'd go as far as to say that anyone who truly feels bothered by the "fraudulent" placement of these unimportant userpage decorations needs to re-evaluate their priorities. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:00, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points. I completely agree. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 02:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I initially thought this was a case of feeding frenzy. Checking up on his contributions, I get the distinct impression that Brian has considerable previous experience as contributor. So, to those who say the award is misleading: How do you know? The account looks burbaish enough, but what verifiable sources lead you to believe that the person is not entitled to this award? As long as you cannot show this, the prosecution's main argument falls flat.
 * Discuss the issue, not the person: Are there actual claims of authority on account of his previous contributions, real or not? Did anyone self-censor before the overpowering might of his edit counter? No? So where's the problem? Paradoctor (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, he has made "125 edits since: 2008-08-02", and many, if not most, are related to this issue. He's simply misusing Wikipedia as a playground. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's another judgment of the person, not the page. Take it to RFC/u then, and maybe suggest banning him. The perceived general misuse of Wikipedia is something that would need to be determined there first. If it's determined there that this page is a symptom of a larger issue and a ban were imposed, I could see the page then being deleted. Right now there's no reason to delete the page, as its content isn't against policy. This isn't ANI etc. Equazcion  ( talk ) 21:22, 27 Dec 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ad-hominem arguments should be avoided. The user contribs, if controversial, can be dealt with via an RFC/U as Equazcion correctly suggests. Also given the currently low number of this user's edits, a statistical analysis of his contribs may be premature. IMO, at the moment we should AGF the user and trust that his contributions will diversify with the passage of time. I see nothing wrong with this approach and many things right. Dr.K.πraxisλogos 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (Before any more edit conflicts happen. This is a reply to Brangifer.)
 * Was "Checking up on his contributions" too subtle?
 * How many exactly? My count is about two dozen. About as many as votes in this discussion.
 * How many would that have been if nobody had made a fuss about the matter?
 * How many of his edits to articles are related to this issue?
 * 34.75% of Brians edits are to the article space, and 36.11% of Brangifer's edits. If we subtract the approximately two dozen edits related to this issue, about 40% of Brian's edits are to the article space. Should we start looking for other userpages to delete? Even if they are your "territory"?
 * I notice that you are displaying a well-deserved Platinum Editor Star©. Maybe you're taking it a bit too serious? You don't see me swinging my Little Red Book in an attempt at paper-cutting your Achilles tendons, do you? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you feel the need to engage in a personal attack. Please refactor your comment accordingly. The only reason I responded to your call for the edit count (which was called for by you as evidence for the "entitlement" basis of this whole mess), was because of your statement that he had "considerable previous experience as contributor." Unless you were alluding to something else? Was your comment sarcastic? Do you believe he's a sock? I really have no idea what you might have meant. I just took it as written and AGF, and then provided what you asked for, and for which you then attack me? That's odd. Please refactor. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This was not a personal attack. I compared facts about you to to facts about Brian used by you to support your argument in order to give some perspective on your claim that he's using Wikipedia as a playground. The verifiable facts point to enough similarity between his edit statistics and yours that your statement about Brian contributions become preposterous. Of course, this assumes that your contribution to Wikipedia is beyond reasonable doubt. I'd consider that the opposite of a personal attack. If you seriously want to pursue this any further, post on my talkpage, invite me to yours, or take it to dispute resolution. This is an MfD. Paradoctor (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, to further clarify what I think was Paradoctor's intent: He was just using you as an example, BullRangifer, to show how users with presumably good intentions on Wikipedia, such as yourself, would look just as guilty if subjected to the statistical analysis you suggested; which shows that such an analysis is a poor indicator of intent. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:30, 28 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct, thank you. Paradoctor (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't care if he claims to be a Lord of Kobol, the reincarnation of Marley's Ghost, or the love child of Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater and Eleanor Roosevelt, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:09, 27 December 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.