Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SmashTheState


 * 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 a foregone keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SmashTheState
The first paragraph of What is Wikipedia? Violates WP:NPA and point 10 of WP:UP by a long, long way. A request for him to have it removed met with no reply, so I've brought it here. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Wikipedia is also not somewhere that user pages are censored because people disagree with them. The page doesn't make specific personal attacks and does seem to reflect the user's opinions about Wikipedia. The fact that we all think his opinions are stupid, offensive and incorrect doesn't mean we should just zip him up. Of course if he wanted to voluntarily tone down his abrasive comments, that would be nice. Nobody forces people to read his user page and they don't need to to contribute to any Wikipedia article, so the argument that he's disrupting work on Wikipedia (on which some of these rules seem to be based) seems pretty weak to me. TastyCakes (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of the policies I have cited claim that direct disruption is needed. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep An interesting and entertaining read that also happens to be rather perceptive. I couldn't see any personal attacks or violations of any policies. RMHED . 16:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Describing WP editors as "angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders" and you see no personal attacks? Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How are those general comments personal attacks, they're aimed at a large group not an individual? RMHED . 17:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't see any personal attacks or soapboxing. If you disagree with the content, you can voice your displeasure on his talk page, but to wipe it just for that... doesn't fly. I actually find it quite admirable that there are other users on here opposite of the ultra-conservative Christians that bash users for their beliefs on a daily basis. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — Referring to Wikipedia editors as nerds et al is an insult on a person's lifestyles and intellect, just as akin to referring to a ghetto as a bunch of house poor n*****s and j*******s. It is grossly uncivil, and such crap has no place on Wikipedia let alone a userpage. It only serves to inflame other editors and hence distracting them from improving the encyclopedia. MuZemike 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is "such crap", it's laughable. The only sad thing is I think you're being serious. RMHED .  18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? So calling someone a nerd is now akin to calling someone a nigger? Or a jihad (or whatever you meant)? Wow. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Actually, jiggaboo (didn't want to cause any offense, but now the floodgates are open). And yes, intellectual slurs fall in the same line as racial, homophobic, etc. slurs. MuZemike 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly so in the alternate universe you seem to inhabit. RMHED . 20:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the target group of a slur takes it on as their own... Nerd and proud of it! *Dan T.* (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep — or no wait, Burn it to the ground —and while you're at it, burn my user page also, LOL.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless and slightly ridiculous - I'm tempted to regard it as satire (describing Wikipedia editors as nerds while being a Wikipedia editor oneself is as ridiculous as me describing the contributors to this page as "nerds" - I'd be guilty of being an idiot, nothing more).  The userpage has existed in its current form largely unchanged since July 21st last year without apparently causing offence. Cheers,  This flag once was red propagandadeeds 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per multiple comments above. Plus the fact that if i'm called "angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders" I think I have to plead guilty to 4 of the 6.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The misattributed Voltaire quote applies here. Collect (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It seems SmashTheState has been blocked by JzG... Apparently for calling Ayn Rand a psychopath, as well as his user name, confrontational attitude, and user page. TastyCakes (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See also: here. TastyCakes (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, angry white males like me sometimes benefit from having our shortcomings pointed out. DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Such expressions of opinion not targetting anyone or any specific real group are not what user page policy is about.John Z (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The allegedly offensive comments do not appear to be creating any serious disruption. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If he truly hated Wikipedia, he wouldn't contribute. And his page doesn't really qualify as hate-mongering, which is the only good reason offered for deleting it. (And real nerds don't get offended if someone calls them "nerds", they just quietly ask what the person's username is. -- llywrch (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there are no personal attacks on that page, it's just a general rant (& fwiw one i'm mostly sympathetic to) not directed at anyone in particular. That said, the nominator might benefit from reading the section NPA, or WP:DGAF, or simply finding something worthwhile to do.--Misarxist (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No personal attacks on any individuals. I thought we had decided to allow criticism of Wikipedia. The page is a valid criticism of our systemic bias. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. An entertaining page, containing no personal attacks. Wikipedia - the online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Even Anarchists. DropShadow (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have practically nothing in common with this guy's politics, being a white male nerdy Libertarian, but I believe strongly in the right to criticize Wikipedia even within the belly of the beast. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lacking any personal attacks or How to Destroy Wikipedia Now! tips, who cares? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; as an unrepentant "angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerd with a serious personality disorder", who is taking time out of his busy schedule of creating corporate media propaganda in pursuit of world domination just to comment on this deletion, I find the page so flattering and entertaining that it deserves to be kept. Antandrus (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. What does it say that someone deals with a perceived slight that is in personal space, and is vague, general, amusing, and of no great consequence, by launching a specific and, as far as i can tell, unjustified and unprovoked attack? If there are to be consequences here, they may be flowing in the wrong direction. Richard Myers (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors have sundry takes on what's ok for a user page, I'd canny wield some good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly where did I launch an attack? Ironholds (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the request for deletion is aimed at a particular individual, and unjustified (and it is), then the act of requesting deletion appears to be an attack against their page; i.e., harrassment. And, this incident appears not to be isolated in its irony, nor in its method. Specifically, another editor said of you, "Do you see the irony in your statement here? You have nominated PR's page for deletion because it has attacks, but in your nom, you are issuing personal attacks against him?" So is this (advocating deletion of someone's page) a common mechanism we should use in any dispute we might have? I say no.
 * If i recommended that your user page be deleted because you called someone a "nameless vandal" and refused to change it, would you not consider i was attacking your page as a means of leverage in our disagreement? I wouldn't be justified in that, and neither are you in this. Richard Myers (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't aimed at 'a particular individual'; I have requested the deletion because of the content, not the writer of that content. Where have I ever given the impression that I was nominating this page for deletion because it belonged to SmashTheState? If you see the followup to that statement on the PR discussion page you will see that they are not personal attacks. I have no disagreement with SmashTheState outside of this page, so your analogy fails quite spectacularly. I'm not sure quite why you are getting so worked up about this with your threats of 'consequences' but I'd suggest that you calm down and assume a bit of good faith; I note you have worked with SmashTheState before, so despite your cries that I am trying to use this MfD as leverage (quite what for I dont know, because I have never encountered STS outside of this) I'd suggest that you are more likely to be here with a touch of bad faith than I am. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The existing consequence refers only to advocacy of deletion as your response to his content, a case in which seventeen or eighteen of us so far apparently believe the content in question is not cause for deletion, and one other has agreed with you that it is.
 * Simply by calling user pages user pages, some sense of personal use is implied. Absent any malicious content or purpose, i suggest hands off by all others. The (qualified) "threat" of consequence (your word, not mine) is simply a suggestion that someone broadly advocating deletion of others' user pages (as in this particular case, for a reason that i find very questionable) may be acting against the best interests of the Wikipedia community, and (especially if it extends to more than these two examples), perhaps that practice should be monitored.
 * You are reading much into my comment that i did not intend, and which i believe i did not state. I hope that my further comments have clarified. Richard Myers (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you simply meant that my edits should be under additional scrutiny due to my MfDs of other editors userpages? I'm not broadly advocating deletion of userpages; if you know of a broad number of userpages containing polemical, offensive statements then please provide them. Users are given more leeway over the content of their userpages than they are over their mainspace contributions but they are still expected to abide by certain rules. Ironholds (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I've commented within this MfD, any worries if I close it now? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to see it go away. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 19:40, 7 February 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.