Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stemoc

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 per WP:SNOW. Now move on. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 12:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stemoc

[edit]
User:Stemoc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The huge "Trump: Make America Great Again!" banner is a violation of both WP:POLEMIC and WP:UP#Promo and should be removed - after all, we are not a social media site, we are here to build an encyclopedia. When I removed it, the user reverted. BMK (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post facto addendum: Since there seems to be some confusion in what I am asking for -- probably of my own making -- it is not the page itself that I am asking to be deleted, but the current content of the page. It was my understanding, perhaps mistakenly so, that this was the way to go about having that done. If I was wrong, then I'd be happy to re-open the request in whatever is the proper venue. Again, it's the over-sized Trump banner that is at issue here, not Stemoc's user page per se. Also, just to state it again where it might be seen, I am not the biggest fan of userboxes, but I do not consider a Trump userbox to be disruptive, and would be satisfied if the banner was replaced with a userbox. BMK (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reminder to the closing admin: "Consensus is not based on counting heads", instead "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." (emphasis added) As far as I can ascertain, no Wikipedia policy has been correctly cited by any of the "keep" !votes, while a number of the "delete" !votes have cited specific Wikipedia policies in their arguments. It can be difficult for a closing admin, in a situation where shear numbers point in one direction, to keep in mind that numbers, while not irrelevant, are not ultimately determinative, while "the quality of the arguments ... as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" is. BMK (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ok, I'll (Personal attack removed), firstly, the image itself has no Threshold of originality, unless you can find somewhere where Mr Trump (or his lawyers) have filed for one, it can be used on commons and enwiki) 2ndly, we have no direct policy on relation to unseeing banners on userpages which support political parties or candidates, this is not "spam", you linked a Policy which does not define this at all.I'm not sure how the image "attacks" or "vilifies groups of editors, persons, or other entities " but if you think it does, you should probably take this over to the Donald Trump campaign team or TheDonald himself..oh, and while you are at it, maybe you can go though this and start removing it from every person who are using those logos on their userpages...oh and don't forget the read the last option on WP:UPYES before you do..--Stemoc 02:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and a banner that takes up almost half of your user page, Stemoc, is not "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" especially when WP:UPYES goes on to say, in bold letters, "Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion." If displaying a banner supporting a candidate for election as President is not "soapboxing", then nothing is, and we may as well eliminate that restriction altogether. BMK (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious question - how does this hurt you? How does this harm the encyclopedia? What net good will come of forcefully deleting this user's userpage? Other than removing an opinion that perhaps you don't share. SQLQuery me! 04:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Wikipedia is not a social media site. We are an encyclopedia. We are all here (supposedly) to build an encyclopedia. We all have user pages to allow us a reasonable amount of self-expression, but it's not what we're here for. Too many people are here for other reasons entirely, and do not put their energy into building the encyclopedia. Anything which distracts from building the encyclopedia is, ipso facto, harmful to Wikipedia. There are numerous sites to wave one's political, social, moral and cultural beliefs, this ain't one of them. Zip. BMK (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise when they say "promotion" BMK, they mean self interest right? and how exactly is it soapboxing if i don't even edit 'political' related articles..moreso US Politics related articles?, I'm neither pushing an agenda nor am I claiming one, You should really look at when that image was added and by whom...But alas, you don't care, you just trying to be something i mentioned you were on meta..continue please..I'm enjoying this :)--Stemoc 04:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Stemoc, "promotion" means just what it says, promoting the interests of someone or something. Is it not limited to promotion of one's own self. BMK (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I came to say that I'm taking this off my watchlist, and that extremely irrelevant question makes it all the easier to do so. I've said my piece, there are no other arguments to make, and no valid reasons to allow the banner, except for looking the other way and deliberately not enforcing policy. So, have at it. BMK (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with SNOW close. I think that this is a healthy conversation to have. Is it wise to disclose one's political affiliations? We would ask you to do so if you had a vested interest in XYZ corp - should the same be done if you are a Tim Ryan supporter who's donated a lot to his campaign - that's a vested interest as well. SQLQuery me! 04:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's only about the disruption it will cause and is causing. I don't care if it's a giant Bernie box. If it draws heat, it should be smaller or not there at all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is certainly not the answer here. If there is an issue with the banner size or presence in general that can be discussed at a different venue. Besides removing content from a person's user page without so much as a "by the way" on their talk page is completely uncalled for. --Majora (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. Stemoc, would you please just swap in a userbox instead? That would solve all of this disruption. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to a userbox. BMK (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After discussing with the nominator above - I'm not swayed on censoring people's opinions. People are entitled to opinions - and trying to stop them from displaying said opinions isn't ever going to work out. No matter how wrong these opinions always are. SQLQuery me! 04:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, and as an admin, I delete promotional content at pages every day. This is promotional content. How is this different from the userpage I delete that says "Shop at ABC company. We are great and provide good service!"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cause being a politician is a legal business (WP:NPOL) which does not violate our inclusion criteria, I have been working on "spam/promotional" userpages across wikimedia since 2007, this does not even come close to that definition..--Stemoc 05:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline has nothing to do with userpages. Userpage content is governed by Wikipedia:User pages which says the following is not permitted:
  • "...Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters..."
  • "...Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group..."
  • "...Blatant promotional may qualify for db-g11 tagging..."
  • "...Use of a user page as a personal web page unconnected with Wikipedia's mission may be a speedy deletion criterion, as is clear advertising and promotional use..."
With respect Stemoc, you are promoting a person, a brand, and an organization. Plus he is clearly a racist, sexist person who many consider to be a rising fascist. Plus it is disruptive.
So, what is your objection to swapping in a userbox instead? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, conditionally. I can't stay as it is due to WP:NOTADVOCACY. However, a user's userpage is appropriately used to briefly remark on one's opinions. To make this page acceptable, I suggest that it should be headed with the template {{Userpage}}, and that the userpage should say something else about User:Stemoc being a Wikipedian. The page will then be acceptable for the productive Wikipedian he is.
On the other hand, Delete User:Makeamericagr8again. CSD#U5-able, and SPA promoting accounts, and very likely WP:SOCK, not to mention an inappropriate username. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. People are allowed to have opinions, even if you don't like them. The guideline you cited, WP:POLEMIC, makes no mention of banning political opinions on user pages, and there are multiple userboxes in use which already display editors' political views. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like harassment of Stemoc by BMK, after Stemoc called him a troll on AN a couple of days ago. Other than that, keep per above obviously. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn, though I still do think that the userpage can be kept. The image was added by another editor as a joke, and from what I know it was kept there for the same reason. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not particularly care for user pages of this kind, which have little relation to improving the encyclopedia. I think it would be appropriate to politely ask the user to consider changing his page to make it less political and in-your-face. However, I do not see outright deletion as being appropriate. If someone can have a small userbox saying he supports Trump, there's no reason a larger banner supporting Trump should be a reason for outright deleting a user page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did politely ask above. See "Stemoc, would you please just swap in a userbox instead...". Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly irrelevant and unbeneficial to the encyclopedia, as bitey to new-comers of a different political hue, and seemingly purely intending to seek the reaction it has done; flying, frankly, in the face of collegiality and community. Muffled Pocketed 09:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am unconvinced that deletion is really necessary here. I agree with FKC, Majora, and Anna F. that simply asking Stemoc to consider placing a userbox instead might be the better course of action. BMK says that he's onboard with a userbox, so let's go from there. I see people citing POLEMIC; while Trump is indeed a divisive figure, I could imagine a similar case being made about most other politicians who have done anything remotely controversial. Let's please stay away from casting aspersions on one another's alleged ulterior political motives. GABgab 13:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Toned down to a userbox size & style, otherwise blank or revert to a previous version (because ANY kind of box THAT BIG is not a good idea). Delete is a bad option, this user is around for 6 years with some 8k edits, so it is actually good for the encyclopaedia that we know of this (and any) editor's (strong) opinions. Also, if WP as a whole may act as a political party-like force (not that I agree with that, see wp:SOPA), why can't a singular user express an opinion? - Nabla (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page but tone down or remove banner. Huge political statements (or political in-jokes as this may be from looking at the page history) of whatever kind are not appropriate in user space. A user box - fine, a "bumper sticker" - not fine. There is, however, no reason to delete the whole page its history.

    @Stemoc: would you please tone it down to a userbox or similar? @BMK: I do not see why you would think it OK to request the deletion of a user page which contains a non-policy violating history. JbhTalk 14:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • it is the content of the page that needs to be deleted, not the page itself. If there is a venue that deals with that, I would (should) have taken it there, but I'm not aware of any such venue, except perhaps AN/I. As for "non-violating", the content blatantly violates our user page policies, as cited here by myself and a number of others. To my evaluation, none of the "keep" votes have correctly cited policies in their argument, a fact the closing admin should keep in mind when determining consensus and closing this discussion. As I said above, I have no issue with a userbox. A userbox is the equivalent in real life of a bumper sticker, a lawn sign or a label pin, all non-disruptive ways of expressing one's views. A half-page banner, however, is the equivalent of plastering half of one's home with posters, banners and other political displays, something that most communities would have a hard time dealing with, even when free-speech is guaranteed. Here, there is' no guarantee of free-speech, what one can say and do is regulated, and I am only asking for the regulations to be enforced in this instance. BMK (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I think the huge banner is too much. The "non-violating" material I referred to is the history of the page. Deleting a page deletes the history. My suggestion would be to withdraw this MfD as out of process - we do not delete pages because one version may be "bad" - and bring the banner up at ANI which would be a better venue to discuss an objectionable revision of a page. JbhTalk 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I deleted it, it was restored by Stemoc, so it's his responsibility now. As to ANI, once again you've shown your unworthiness to be a Wikimedia Steward by suggesting something entirely ridiculous. BMK (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to say that my technical access has nothing to do with my comments or opinions unless I'm taking some sort of technical action as part of said comments or opinions. Other than that, you should try reading WP:CIVIL someday; it might be useful given your ongoing trend of poor communication with other people. And while it may have been re-added by Stemoc, I think the context of its original addition (i.e. by someone else on April Fools' Day) might give some indication as to it being more of a joke and less of political advertising. Stemoc also had a userbox supporting Jimmy Wales for president before the image was put on his userpage, while I'm assuming that he doesn't hold those beliefs either. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling someone incompetent usually requires some sort of proof that they are. You have demonstrated nothing with regards to any of my thousands of steward/sysop actions globally being wrong, only that you disagree with my opinion as stated in a couple of places. Here, you seem to think that I was suggesting that both of them should go to ANI, when I was actually pointing out to Jbh above that if his suggestion to take the edit to ANI was done then both editors would need to be brought there. Hence my use of the ellipsis after, indicating that what I was saying was not a complete and independent clause. WP:CIVIL suggests that you "participate in a respectful and considerate way", something which you repeatedly fail to do - including here. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and your lack of the necessary qualities to be a Steward are so obvious they can't have been seen by myself alone. I'll put my faith in the perceptiveness of the general Wikimedia community and trust that when you come up for re-election in 2017, you'll be turned out of office. Unless, of course, you would like to take the high road and retire from you post before then, or just not stand for re-election. In the meantime, I'll attempt to ignore your opinions, as I have no confidence that you have the abilities necessary to form coherent ones - certainly I haven't seen anything to the contrary since I've met you. BMK (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anna, as mentioned on IRC, its the quote which i like which is utterly useless (cannot be seen or read) in a small userbox...--Stemoc 03:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about reducing the size, then? The quote is still legible at 200 px; does not have to be 800 px. Pinging Anna Frodesiak. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although I personally don't like Trump, I do think that people should express their opinion. As he is one of the two major candidates for president, it should be kept, although I question if userpages should be used to make political statements. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As much as I'd love to say Delete ... everyone's entitled to their opinions and whilst I disagree with it - If Stermoc really wants to have a huge banner on his page then let them, If the banner was violent or sexual or whatever then I could understand but it isn't so I don't really see an issue ... as such ... –Davey2010Talk 01:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest SNOW close. There's nothing wrong with expressing your political beliefs on Wikipedia. This is far from advertising. Further, BMK's nomination of this page for deletion seems to be an attack on Stemoc for his comment at ANI. Omni Flames (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the user wants to look stupid, why stand in his way? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's fine to oppose Trump; I personally like Bernie Sanders. It's also fine to call Trump a (Redacted). It is completely fine for an American to support any U.S. presidential candidate they want. It's not fine, however, to delete other people's user pages because they have different mainstream political beliefs. (Unless, of course, they said that they like ISIL or KKK, in which case definitely nuke the page, since that's definitely not mainstream,) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone who does not live in New Jersey should also bother to read this. Supporting Trump is perfectly legal. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a question of legality, it's a question of Wikipedia policy. This is a private website, which has established rules which regulate what kind of speech and behavior is allowed, and which is not. Because it is a privately owned website, there is no guarantee of free speech, and citing such as a reason to "keep" is simply irrelevant. The question is not whether Stemoc has the right to support whomever he wants to – he obviously does – or whether he can express that support in the real world – he obviously can – but whether the manner of his expression of support here, on this private website, is a violation of the policies of the site. That's the sole and only question here, nothing else, and certainly not WP:ILIKEIT. BMK (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Template:User Obama is fine, this is fine albeit a bit big. If the editor wanted to look biased, that's their own problem. We can cut the insult here, folks. Stemoc, just realize that you are going to be called out over that page if you ever edit anything remotely political but that's your choice. It's promotional but so are most userboxes. Suggest the editor consider a userbox instead and then others can join in if they want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really can't compare a userbox -- which I've said I have no trouble with, despite my general dislike of userboxeb -- with the banner in question, anymore than you can compare
    WRITING LIKE THIS
    to
    Writing like this.
    WP:User pages recognizes differences in degree between what is acceptable and what is not. BMK (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keept Its a little larger than the usual userbox, but its not a unreasonable way of making the sort of personal expression that user pages are intended for. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many users express political sentiments on their user page and it's generally tolerated. BMK is not the "righthink" police and should leave userspaces of other editors alone. --DHeyward (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Stemoc&oldid=1091454450"