Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars


 * 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars
Very, very, very mean spirited. Blatant WP:NPA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from creator: Input from users like User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, User:Hobit, and User:Orangemike have reinstated the notion to me that there actually ARE genuine people on here after all. Ultimately, I was this || close to using a choice phrase from this page as a response to Wikipedia as a whole and wash my hands on something I was trying to save from what I believe to be unfair and unbased attack, which is what inflamed my model of actions as of late.  I am very much adamant about the RantMedia article (as you all can obviously see).  So as far as the Non-Barnstars go, keep in mind that they're in my subspace, I'd be happy if they were just tagged (as they currently are) with , and I'd be eager to tone it down if necessary (and make more!) if they stay.  They had something to say that I was feeling, and I even chuckled when I was making them saying "what am I doing?", but I figure others would get a kick out of them too.  Keep or delete, I don't really care.  ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder   (T·C) " 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars/Axe To Grind and User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars/Admined, the barnstars themselves. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED And to wit, 'tis not "blatant".  For a "blatant personal attack" you need to have someone's name in it, don't you?  Sure looks like they were written generically to me. ₪—   Ce lt ic Wonder  ( T · C ) 04:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)  "


 * Delete Appears to be nothing but a platform for personal attacks against other editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most likely retalitory to WP:Articles for deletion/RantMedia too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Those are actually pretty damn funny.  Keep if being used for obvious (and therefore IMO harmless) humor and venting, or not being used at all.   Delete if actually being handed out to well-intentioned admins/editors to poison wells and otherwise cause grief and drama.   Keeper  |  76  02:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One was placed here. Cameron Scott decided to leave it as an apparent "badge of honor". IMHO it's still a personal attack though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's discouraging. If these are actually meant to foster ill-will, then the choice is obviously delete, with other relevent warnings to the user about our cultural guidelines here.  In fact, I believe I saw his/her username at ANI recently for other issues.  Perhaps a short timer.   Keeper  |  76  03:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I never had any intention of putting them on User pages; I had posted one of each on User Talk pages. What's in my user space that is my own creation has every right to remain.  If anyone took offense to it, it's their right to simply remove it from THEIR page, not mine.  I'll note that User:Cameron Scott moved it to his User page on his own accord, and that User:Doug wasn't so "offended" as some of you seem to be, enough of the contrary to leave it here untouched also. ₪—   Ce lt ic Wonder  ( T · C ) 04:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)  "


 * What a funny idea, but well, if the non-barnstars are actually intended to award editors for whom the creator feels to deserve them, well, that situation could be ugly, so I'd say, delete.--Caspian blue 02:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete These are inappropriate and are of no possible positive use. Camw (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but not that it matters one fucking bit. I've been on Wikipedia since March 2005, and I'm just about thoroughly done with the strange political shit that goes on here.  For case in point, see Articles for deletion/RantMedia, paying careful attention to the multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources, and see how somehow no one can answer my question "What SPECIFICALLY is it going to take for a 10-year-running staple of internet radio to STAY in Wikipedia if this isn't enough?"  Instead, the notable sources which *should* by all means prove notability beyond reasonable doubt IMO (you'd think others too, but stranger things have happened) are flagrantly dismissed with comments like: oh, besides the "little" article in Wired, I don't see anything else [around my blinders]. I would have loved to contributed to this project more, but I'm at wits end here and dumbfounded at the idiocy that happens with all these "not-notable" attacks on perfectly good articles. ₪—   Ce lt ic Wonder  ( T · C ) 04:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)  "

Comment: I should add that I believe it's perfectly just for me to point out that somehow Chris Crocker is notable enough for the typical Wikipedia admin, as well as other stuff like RapeLay and the 500+ individual Simpsons articles, but RantMedia isn't? *rolls eyes* yeah, makes perfect sense. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder  ( T · C ) 04:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)  "
 * Let them be These do no harm if they are not used, as seems to be the case. People can be allowed to express extreme annoyance in their own user space at deletion of their articles--it's much better than when they become actively disruptive.  DGG (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is evidence of him using them twice presented above. Neither caused great drama-producing offence however.   Keeper  |  76  05:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And some linkies. Gave User:Doug an "award" here, presumably for closing this as delete.  Not a very collaborative response to his frustration.  Proves to me that celticwonder has created these out of frustration as a way of attacking the integrity of an admin simply closing a debate. Not cool.  Keeper  |  76  05:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * my meaning was, if he doesn't use them that way again. DGG (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have no idea where the idea that a personal attack must refer to a user by name came from, but it's simply wrong. A personal attack need simply be intended to refer to a specific user - and these "non-barnstars" are certainly detailed enough to have been intended to refer to specific users who the creator was in a dispute with. Regardless of the fact that neither of them have caused any great offense thus yet, this is not behavior which we should condone. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:CelticWonder. Reasonable leeway within userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Runs counter to user page guidelines and clearly violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I add to leave words on users' talk pages describing same as "semi-sentient HORSE SHIT" or 'COOL' (linking the word to feces odor) is clearly a personal attack. The fact that the user is described in the second person and not by name makes no difference whatsoever. Victoriagirl (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's interesting, Victoriagirl, because the "I have an axe to grind" non-barnstar was originally custom designed for you actually, but I decided not to put it on your page to leave you be after you threw a fit and stormed off. Hey, 'YALL forgot this one too: WP:SOAP. ₪—  Ce lt ic Wonder  ( T · C ) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)  "
 * Comment & Queries CelticWonder, I find your statement curious as I have made a point of avoiding all contact with you for several months now. Indeed, It is only today that I broke this practice by commenting here and at the RantMedia AfD. I wonder then, why after all these months would you have felt the need to write create a non-barnstar designed specifically for yours truly? May I also ask when and where it was that I "threw a fit and stormed off"? I have never done so. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1) The majority of what was written had you in mind, I just hadn't posted it until last week. 2) In my bedroom last time when you decided you didn't feel comfortable using a toy "like that". retract At the previous Sean Kennedy (author) DRV. ₪—   Ce lt ic Wonder  ( T · C ) 16:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)  "
 * Strong Delete The exchange above is by itself enough to convince me of the need to remove this stuff. CelticWonder is clearly using it to attack people - stating that the "Axe to Grind" was made for Victoriagirl is tantamount to calling her/him a "semi-sentient HORSE SHIT that managed to gather the kinetic skill of typing."  If CelticWonder could tone down the extremely abrasive and abusive nature of the comments, then perhaps they would become acceptable.  As they stand, however, they are simply a way of getting around expressing his/her true feelings from reactions to AfDs and other articles CelticWonder feels attached to, which would very clearly be reverted and CelticWonder left with a warning.  Completely goes against the spirit of Wikipedia and especially the Userspace, which is not a free license for whatever one wishes. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 03:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep "Mean-spirited" as opposed to "legitimate use of irony" is not something readily judged in a deletion discussion -- and certainly is not a valid reason for deletion. Not an attack on anyone as normally interpreted here - so that is not grounds for deletion. And we likely should recognize humour where it exists.  Would we rather have the user engaging in actual destructive behaviour of some sort?  On a scale of 1 to 10, these barely ht a 1 on objectionableness, and apparently furnish a reasonable outlet for an editor's frustrations. Collect (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And to prove a POINT, I suppose, I was awarded one for defending userspace. I find it shows far better the attitude of the one "presenting" such than anything I could say. Many thanks! Collect (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - tag with humour. –xenotalk 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Templates don't attack people, people attack people. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Gigs, with all due respect, templates such as these consist of words and, as WP:NPA makes very clear, words can be used to attack people. To create such a thing, whether "custom designed" for use against a specific person (as CelticWonder has stated) or for use when the spirit moves is a clear violation of policy. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * His excessive behavior is something that should be addressed in an RfC or the like, not here. The templates' existence is not a personal attack, as there is nothing about them that indicates they are about any person in particular, whether they were created in bad faith or not. Gigs (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-constructive, incivil and non-collaborative. It's been my direct experience that people who hand out rude crap like this are rarely doing so to be humorous, but genuinely do have an "axe to grind", and are more often than not out in left field on the issue they are upset about to begin with (cf. the example I've kept on my own userpage for a case in point). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Goes against the spirit of Wikipedia as a community of editors working towards an aim through consensus doktorb wordsdeeds 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It appears the barn star I got was created about an hour or two after I took a number of actions: I deleted the user subpage mentioned above, deleted another on the spot G12 noted on his usertalkpage, removed links to GFDL violating mirrors and Google caches from his main userpage and warned him for copyright violation.  As for it remaining on my usertalkpage, I try to never remove complaints, especially complaints about admin actions, though it will eventually get archived, if MiszaBot isn't completely broken.  I find the barnstar objectively offensive to the point of rediculousness, subjectively it didn't upset me.  I'll abstain from taking a position or making any arguments due to my involvement.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not helpful to the project, only likely to cause more unnecessary discussion and drama in the future. Guest9999 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete likely to cause offence, more trouble that it's worth.--Otterathome (talk) 17:59, 22 June 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.