Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster

background
There are at least three background threads:

Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard
 * (beginning with) User_talk:WebHamster

Other threads: TharsHammar Bits andPieces 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list
 * Old Comments to WebHamster

some policies

 * User page
 * What_Wikipedia_is_not
 * Consensus
 * Images
 * Userboxes

Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing?
This was open for a grand total of 8 hours, why close it so soon? I know I would have liked to weigh in for a delete, as I tried to bring this issue up weeks ago at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. Vandalism states in its opening paragraph "Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor." Others have said "use of that image is boorish and juvenile at best." The picture in question serves no point other then to be obscene as a crude form of humor. It should be deleted from the user space. I know I personally mentioned the issue to WebHamster when I clicked on his signature at a coffee shop. Do we want wikipedia to become a community where you need to be prepared to close the window ASAP whenever you click on a user's name? There are certainly valid uses for images like this in the course of building an encyclopedia, but this is clearly not one of those uses.

It's unfortunate that people couldn't act like adults when discussing the deletion of this image. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. While it seems abundantly clear from the comments here that the MFD would have ended with consensus to keep, it was still aruably inappropriate to close it so quickly, and deprive the community of the opportunity for further discussion. There was no need for an especially urgent decision here - what harm would leaving it open for another four days have caused? Personally, I would have argued for a delete, and while I accept that almost certainly would not have been the outcome, I'm not too happy about not having the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Robofish (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This page's puprose was to discuss the deletion of a specific user page. If you agree that it would have ended in keep regardless, then there's really nothing to complain about.  If you want to have a broader policy discussion about some of the issues that came up, nobody's stopping you from doing so.  You could start one at the Village pump that I'm sure would be lively.  Also, I think some of these issues are still being discussed on Jimbo Wales' talk page.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair point - my issue is with our policy here in general, not this specific image. I think I'll go join the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. (I'm still not too keen on the speedy close of this MFD, but there'd be no point taking it to DRV - even though proper process wasn't exactly followed, the keep was ultimately the 'correct' result, as in the one demanded by consensus.) Robofish (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Spectre closed it twice, way too early I think. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have let it run, but I really don't think that there's anything to be gained from re-opening now. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably a moot point now, since things have gone so bizarrely off-track, but take a look at the history sometime. This is not the first time people have reverted this such an image- it's been happening ever since he put it there.  Last time he edit warred and called people names over it.  This is not even the first time administrator action has been taken - the page was protected once before.  I think this evidence shows that the community does not think this type of user page is OK, despite what this latest MFD says.  It's rather weird that the results here are so different than normal- I think it's safe to say that people became very entrenched in their positions, for whatever reason.  If WebHamster had been blocked a year ago for this, I can't imagine it would have been controversial.  If anyone still wonders whether or not he's just doing this for the lulz, take a look at that history.  It will tell you what you need to know. Friday (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops- to pick nits, it wasn't always this same image- apparently there have been different ones. Comment ammended. Friday (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Called people names? As far as I can see, he made one unspecific comment about "some asshole". As to edit warring - at least he didn't try to get the page protected in his preferred version. Friday - you seem intent on stirring up drama over this issue - I suggest you spend less time on it and more on actually editing articles - I think that would be much more productive both for you and the encyclopædia as a whole. DuncanHill (talk)
 * (ec) I've already said elsewhere I think he wove together the linkless sig and the image to stir up kerfuffle. This has nothing to do with "censorship" or "taste." So far as "drama" goes, Wikipedia is drama, like it or not, that's what spins things and drives the traffic here. Calling for an end to discussion because it's "drama" is nothing more than a bash at stopping discussion, I don't abide it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well regardles of if you abide it or not, you have lost this bid for deletion and imposition of your views fair and square. So why not shut up and find a new cause? Giano (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)