Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 16 June 2009

Closing instructions

User:CelticWonder/Non-Barnstars

Very, very, very mean spirited. Blatant WP:NPA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:25, 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 • 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. ₪— CelticWonder (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 • 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. ₪— CelticWonder (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 Misplaced Pages since March 2005, and I'm just about thoroughly done with the strange political shit that goes on here. For case in point, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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. ₪— CelticWonder (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 Misplaced Pages admin, as well as other stuff like RapeLay and the 500+ individual Simpsons articles, but RantMedia isn't? *rolls eyes* yeah, makes perfect sense. ₪— CelticWonder (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)

• 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_(ζ) 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. ₪— CelticWonder (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)

• 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)

• Keep and tag with {{humour}}. –xeno 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Templates don't attack people, people attack people. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)