Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon (2nd nomination)

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. The consensus is clear—the page should be kept. It was already mentioned that "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines [WP:USERBIO] to regular participants.", which appears to apply here. Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon[edit]

User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:USERBIO, this much information on the user in question as an individual is unnecessary and not pertinent to the development of an encyclopedia. I see detailed information on poker stats (!), martial arts interests, academics, and family life, all of which is presented a pseudo-Wikipedia tone. Aside from this, there is also an issue of promotional language, such as "prominent Chicago martial artist", "standout collegiate powerlifter", and "The Greatest Poker Tournament Player on The Fool" (emphasis mine). This was originally created as an article (perhaps for promotional purposes), then userfied when no reliable sources came up. In user space it continued to grow (almost 900 edits from user), and then the previous MFD two years ago closed as no consensus. I think it's high time we stopped providing free, prominent web space (first hit in Google for Antonio Vernon), as required by policy.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Utter self-promotion, violates the fact that we're not a free web host, imitates an article, and contrary to WP:UP the pages does not assist in either communication or the building of the encyclopedia ES&L 13:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a harmless bit of fun in userspace. Having something like this for someone who is only or mainly contributing to this is symptomatic of deeper problems of being not here to build an encyclopedia. Tony is committed to the encyclopedia. Let him have his over-the-top vanity page in userspace. You know, for fun. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Martijn. Tony can be frustrating (indeed, I rediscovered that again yesterday, which is how I noticed this), but that's no reason to kick someone when they're down (Not saying that was the intention, Crisco, just that it is the effect). This page, in its current incarnation, is harmless, and a reasonable amount of leeway to give to someone who does a lot of work here. Throw a NOINDEX on it and leave it alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have added magic word, at least as a temporary solution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He fails notablilty. We've deleted other userpage bios for the same thing. And we're not kicking him when he's down. He got himself blocked, with only himself to blame (I've been blocked enough times to know that  :) )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you are in the midst of a major dispute with someone, MfDing a page in that person's userspace seems rather spiteful. Drop the stick, Crisco. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does no harm. And it's not like we're talking about an editor whose only edits are on his user page. Garion96 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, oh please, keep! This should be a TFA. I suggest September 31st. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... at AFD, such votes as the two above would immediately be linked to various essays about actually citing policies and guidelines in their keep votes. I do appreciate the sarcasm, though, Turkey. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per longstanding practice, as long as editors contribute to the encyclopedia great leeway is given to what's in their userspace. NE Ent 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonable leeway for a prolific Wikipedian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three blocks, 127562 mainspace contributions. 89734 tamplate space contributions. User:TonyTheTiger leads with a page full of abbreviated Wikipedia awards. User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon#Poker describes his dominant non-Wikipedia hobby, is well below the fold, the page contains few external links, as far as I read, it is not promoting to sell anything or advocate any cause. Userspace self-expression has always been judged in relation to productive contributions. The ratio here is fine. The precedent to avoid is allowing MfD to be used in user battlefield games. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm done.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting information about one of our very most talented and productive editors. Even adding a no index seems a net negative - unless Tony adds it himself, doing so may come across as spiteful and discourage Tony from further contributions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Falls under: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." With that construction in mind, the claim of "inappropriate" seems unfounded. There is nothing that is inappropriate there - is there an autobiography ever written that did not have a bit of puffery? The claim of excessive may have more purchase but, on the other hand, people are always asking, 'who is an editor' so whatever excessiveness there is outweighed by tolerance for such information, at least for information about an extensive contributer. Some users seek to tell their whole life in userpage infoboxes, about the most prosaic things -- so, this is prose, instead -- it says: "This is a userspace page not an article" and if you look at the page beginning at the top - it does not look like a wikipedia article with all those symbols. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and trout Crisco_1492 for trying to kick an editor while he is down. Xrt6L (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is clearly a userpage, and giving information about yourself is what user pages are for. User has How Many featured articles? How Many good articles? Lordy. I'd be proud to have a tenth of that. Looks like Tony is an outstanding contributor to the Wikipedia - clearly he's not just using us for promotion, he gives a lot here. Trout nominator for taking a conflict in another area and making it into a personal war. Crisco, let it slide. --GRuban (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you really not read WP:USERBIO? Or do you have a definition of "short" which is irreconcilable with the dictionary? I have said it before, and I'll say it again (although I am no longer naive enough to think people will believe me... so much for AGF): I would have nominated something like this for deletion if I had seen it in any user's userspace. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP guidelines aren't black and white, written policies sometimes lag behind actual practice. In any event, as indicated by the portion of the policy Alanscottwalker posted, regular contributors commonly get wide latitude on their user pages. It's folks that fill up user pages without contributing to the encyclopedia, or post disruptive stuff, that get sanctioned. NE Ent 23:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cris, we are so not a game of Nomic. We are a volunteer encyclopedia. Really we are. All our rules are here to make it possible to write the world's best open content encyclopedia. The rule you are waving around like a flag isn't there for itself, it's there because we don't want people to spend all their time editing their user pages, that's just a drain on the foundation's resources for no benefit - we are not Facebook. But clearly Tony is not spending all his time editing his user page - he's churning out Good Articles and Featured Articles like they were going out of style. If, in exchange for all those FAs and GAs, he gets some joy out of writing up one page of his own bio with a few photos and wikilinks, then bless him! Look, in the end it's simple. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Making his userpage look cool is allowing Tony to improve the Wikipedia, quite a bit. It is not getting in anyone's way, and preventing anyone else from improving or maintaining the Wikipedia - except, by a complete coincidence, when someone is annoyed with Tony for a completely different reason. I'm not making any judgments on that fight, by the way, from what I read there are plenty of people ticked at Tony for playing with awards. Fine, argue with him over that, I can see that possibly being an issue. But not this. This is just an innocuous user page, that gives Tony pleasure, and does no one harm ... no one who isn't disrupting the Wikipedia to make a point, that is. Cut it out. Stop using the letter rules to beat people about the head with, and start using their spirit, which to go and write an encyclopedia. I know you can do it, according to your user page, you made 25 DYKs and 73 GAs yourself, didn't you? Then you're also a valuable contributor, and I thank you for it. But this nomination is beneath you. Please, get over it. Good luck. --GRuban (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "25 DYKs" - Might want to check your tallies again. It's short by an order of magnitude. I also find it exceedingly odd how you mention Tony's featured content and not mine (particularly as that seems to be the core part of your argument: Tony writes a lot, so it must be okay). Not going to ABF here, but I will note that just because someone does not post 50x stars on the top of their user page does not mean they do not take pride in their writing. "Go and write an encyclopedia" - While this MFD's been open I've been contributing to one future GA and (just before it) I wrote another GA.
Again, please give a policy- or guideline-based reason for your argument (or at least make explicit what this "spirit" is that you refer to; I've always read the spirit as "don't advertise yourself or swamp your user space with information nobody but you cares about and is not related to Wikipedia). "Does no harm" is certainly not such an argument, and "because it makes Tony happy" is certainly not something we want to fall back on (if a prolific editor were to go on spurts of vandalism every couple months in a drunken stupor, he or she would be blocked for at least a little while, even if the vandalism made him or her happy and willing to contribute further). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 1: You are an even more truly wonderful contributor then. Thanks for your help. Millions of readers appreciate it. I was not implying you weren't writing an encyclopedia, merely that Tony's user page was one of the ways that he was doing so, and it wasn't getting in anyone else's way. Paragraph 2: My policy justification is linked and explained above. It's pretty simple. "Does no harm, and makes one or more productive Wikipedians more productive" is a fine justification; it justifies everything from User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard to User:Bishonen's dozen sockpuppets, and it can justify this. --GRuban (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph one: Fair enough, I was just curious about the different fields compared. Paragraph two: I can see such a rationale for a reasonably short (further down the page I said 1000 words, which is [I think] quite ample [this version has nearly 3000 words, longer than many featured articles]), neutral description in user space (preferably one which does not go against WP:FAKEARTICLE), and if Tony restructures this page as such I will gladly change my !vote from delete to keep. However, the sheer level of detail and semi-promotional language is currently preventing me from reaching a compromise (IAR is, after all, not a "do whatever free" card). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to close per Snow, but, per Crisco's 22:58, 2 September 2013 post, Crisco seems to still believe that the MfD listing has merit. If User:TonyTheTiger were listed at MfD, I would be inclined to iVote trim to below 20,000 bytes, for example, since it takes a while for User:TonyTheTiger to load on my computer, which discourages me (and probably others) from looking at the User:TonyTheTiger page. If User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon#Poker were listed at MfD, I would iVote trim down to two paragraphs, for example, since it current length and details discourages people from reading it and seems to lean towards Tony using user space for excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia. Tony, please consider trimming your Poker subsection. Perhaps you can add the entire poker subsection to a sub-user page and create a summary for your user page with a link to your sub-user page for editors who want to read the fine details. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't seem unacceptable to me. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can you imagine if a new user pulled something like this? We'd crucify him. If consensus is that self-promotional WP:FAKEARTICLEs or WP:USERBIOs are ok if we like you or if you've been around long enough, perhaps we need to update those pages. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly I've always thought the page makes Tony come across as an A-grade douchebag and excessively vain and trophy-oriented, but Tony has a right in my opinion to do what he likes with his user space. Technically it does fail WP:USERBIO as Crisco says, but just because somebody wrote it, doesn't mean I agree with it. Highly prolific editors here I think should at least have the right to put whatever they want in their user space provided that it isn't offensive or contentious material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have made comments to the same effect, so I apologize if it feels like I'm picking on you, but you're really ok with that? All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others? I know we're not a democracy, but shouldn't the policies and guidelines apply to us all equally? --BDD (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explain on my user page I don't agree with treating everything as a rigid policy and rule citing. I think common sense is the most important thing we have to rely on. My personal feeling is that yes the vanity page is unnecessary and not constructive to building an encyclopedia and I couldn't really care less if it was deleted or kept myself as it doesn't affect me, but I think for anybody who has put as much work into wikipedia as Tony they're allowed a little "playtime" on here, in fact I think anybody who contributes to the encyclopedia should feel free to do what they want in their user space, so you're wrong that I think he should be given special treatment. I once had a gallery page of beautiful women which was deleted and I really thought it was harmless. Tony obviously thinks it is cool to have a article imitation on him in his user space, and if he's happy with it I don't know why it is any of our business as it doesn't affect the encyclopedia mainspace. As I say, it isn't offensive or contentious, I think it's his right to do what he wants in his user space.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond as one of the "other editors". For me it's because it is within the spirit of the rule, whether or not it is within the letter. I am absolutely not OK with, for one example, people thinking that prolific contributions entitle them to be rude to others; because that actively hinders the others from improving the Wikipedia. But in this case, no one is hindered from contributing. The page is not harmful to our goals in itself. The "we are not Facebook" rule for not overdoing personal pages is there because that is not what our resources are best used for; we are not a free web host, we have a specific purpose, writing an encyclopedia. But in this case, from the depth and breadth of his other contributions, it's clear that Tony is not using us as a free web host. So the question has to be asked, in what way is his page harmful? Perhaps Jreferee's point that it is slow to load; but even Jreferee is arguing to keep. There are plenty of rules that have common sense exceptions like that - you can't have alternate identities except in these cases; you can't use open proxies except in these other cases. We are not a bureaucracy means just that; not that some people are more equal than others but that our rules exist for a reason, not just to be enforced blindly. The rules are only there to help build the encyclopedia. Where they don't help, they don't exist. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed completely on all points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we really say "it's clear that Tony is not using us as a free web host"? It's clear that he isn't only on Wikipedia for that purpose, but I think when you look at this autobiography, especially the poker details, it's quite clear that he is (also) using Wikipedia as a free web host. I appreciate the distinction you're drawing between a prominent editor being entitled to be rude versus this sort of behavior. I also appreciate that rules have exceptions, but is this really an exception worth making? What benefit does this grant (I could point out the benefits of exceptions to alternate identities and open proxies)? How many GAs, edits, or whatever, does an editor need before he or she can write a WP:FAKEARTICLE autobiography? Are you comfortable with the precedent we're setting here? --BDD (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not mind if Tony were to trim this page to reasonable lengths (maximum 1000 words or so, methinks) and remove promotional language, and would gladly withdraw if such an act were undertaken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree on both points. The way I see it though is all of us are motivated by something on here for whatever reason, and this might just be Tony's motivator having a vanity page, so if it helps him produce content and make wikipedia more enjoyable for him, fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vote is currently ~ 15-3 keep -- do you (Crisco) actually think it's going to close as anything other than keep? You should have gotten a pretty strong indication that this is not a dispute to keep pursuing? NE Ent 02:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are under the impression that XfD is a vote, then I suggest you reread the proper pages. Most of the !votes above are not based in policy/guidelines, and several of the keep !votes do advocate trimming. Such a closure would be perfectly serviceable, and perhaps better than outright deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are under the impression that any discussion is on this site is anything but a vote, you're only fooling yourself. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Says the editor with no policy-based argument. I'm sorry, but in a discussion with 8 keeps and 4 deletes, if the keeps are just "what a hot chick" and the deletes are based in policy, the deletes should have it. I'd take any closure otherwise to REFUND. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I certainly have a policy-based argument; WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:IAR, and WP:HARASS, for starters. But it wouldn't matter if my argument was policy-based, nor would it matter which side of the debate I was on. Discussions on this site are closed based on numbers; if you take it to REFUND, the numbers will again be against you, and all you will have done is wasted more time. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm sorry, but in a discussion with 8 keeps and 4 deletes, if the keeps are just "what a hot chick" and the deletes are based in policy, the deletes should have it. I'd take any closure otherwise to REFUND." - Erm, I must say I have a bit more faith in Wikipedia than you. A closure of keep would be a travesty. As for "policy": commonsense is an essay, IAR is certainly not a get out of policy/guidelines free card (and you'd have to argue how this helps Wikipedia), and WP:HARASS just shows that you are WP:ABFing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • People should stop shouting in CAPSONEWORDS, or at least check what they are referring to. WP:REFUND is for requesting uncontroversial undeletions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies: the caps were meant to show it was a Wikipedia-specific term, and I misremembered the redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A closure of keep would be a travesty"? If only those Syrian children knew how good they had it; they could have to deal with real problems like Wikipedians with user pages they don't like. At least you'll have your faith in Wikipedia to help you through this impending travesty. Good luck! Joefromrandb (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That you would consider comparing a Wikipedia deletion discussion to the gassing of innocent children speaks far more of your position than it does mine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well I wasn't comparing the two. I was illustrating your ridiculous use of the word "travesty" by pointing out an actual travesty. Yes it does speak more to my position than it does yours, and my position is that you're being pedantic and disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the link below. I fail to see what is farcical about the deaths of more than 1,300 civilians. That is a tragedy, not a travesty. That your argument is built on false premises and understandings is self-evident. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, useful link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, my own !vote was nothing more than gratuitously facetious smartassery, so the !vote is really only 14–3. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this goes far beyond what WP:USERBIO allows and Tony has spammed thousands of links to this page over Wikipedia by including it in his signature for years. For those worried that the list of FAs, FLs, etc would be lost - no. That comes from User:TonyTheTiger/Header_template, which is transcluded onto lots of Tony's userspace pages already. BencherliteTalk 11:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and what a ridiculous nomination. If anyone is bothered by this page, here's an idea (I know it's radical): don't visit it. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2013 (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:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138704031"