Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kirbytime/America

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete. >Radiant< 08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kirbytime/America

Violation of WP:USER, defers from encyclopedic mission. Yanksox 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --TeaDrinker 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Comment:Another thing that defers from the encyclopedic mission is when an administrator violates Wikipedia policy. So let's have some background information on why yanksox decided to nominate a subarticle to my userpage (which can be briefly explained with its history):

1. . Too long ago I don't remember,Someone put something on my talk page and so I decided to archive it, because I don't like my talk page being used as a soapbox.
2. . November 5, 2006 until January 3, 2007, Nobody cared. Seriously, that's why nobody gave a shit when I archived the talk (November 5, 2006).
3. . On 29 December 2006, I requested that the article on Child pornography should have more pictures that help explain child pornography.
4. . 01:51, 3 January 2007, User Yanksox responded to me. This is the first time I had ever been aware of his existence. He replied by saying that "NO PICTURES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. EVER.". Please note that I never once said to put pictures of actual child pornography.
5. . 06:48, 3 January 2007, User Yanksox leaves a message on my talkpage telling me that I "should consider asking for this part of your userspace deleted considering it has nothing to do with the encyclopedic purpose of this site as listed on WP:USER." By userspace he was referring to User:Kirbytime/America. So right from here, it gets bad. He has already violated WP:AGF. He instead assumes that I, for some strange reason, created the userspace in spite of WP:USER. I don't know, but that isn't at all in compliance with assuming good faith. Assuming good faith means that he should have asked me why I have the userspace FIRST, before saying hey delete it cuz i think ur violatin wpuser. I think this is incredibly sad that I have to lecture an Administrator on Wikipedia policies.
6. . 07:37, 4 January 2007, I played nice and pretended he asked me why I have the userspace. And that's why I responded by saying that I created it because I archived it from my talk page.
7. . 2:19, 4 January 2007, He responds on my talk page by saying that my "interpretation of WP:USER is a bit off." So basically he's calling me a moron. And then he goes on to say "...it does not apply in this circumstance unless someone else posted it on your talk page." ??? No shit? I think it's strange that all the time he spent scouring over my userpage, he seemed to have overlooked the userbox that plainly says This user is a native speaker of English.
8. . 18:49, 4 January 2007, I tell him again, that I archived it from my userpage.
9. . 22:54, 4 January 2007, He responds by calling me a liar.
10. . 00:28, 5 January 2007, I tell him that calling me a liar is a violation of WP:AGF. Also, I tell him to stop being a WP:DICK. And although I didn't mention it then, I think it's important to state that he also violated WP:NPA (by calling me a liar).
11. . 00:34, 5 January 2007, he responds that he "appreciated" my "beautiful behavior" and my "badgering back". So I guess, "badgering back", according to him, means not sucking his dick. And then he lists the userspace on this MFA page.
12. . 04:44, 5 January 2007, I respond to him by reminding him that by saying that I badgered back, that he must then mean that he badgered first. Now of course someone may say "ok, that means both of you are to blame". And I agree with that entirely. However, there is a slight objection from me; I'm a random user, while he's a fucking Wikipedia administrator. Is it too much to ask for when I think that Administrators should be held to a higher standard than everyday users? So anyways, I remind him that by listing the subarticle on mfd, he's violating WP:POINT and WP:STALK. Also, I ask him to stop Wikilawyering.
13. . 04:49, 5 January 2007 His final response to me, which states (and I'm going to reproduce the entire thing here):

Ok, I nicely asked you to delete this and then pointed towards policy and reminded you that we should keep an encyclopedic mission in mind. Meanwhile, you are dragging your feet into the ground and calling me every name possible in a juvenile fashion. And yes, I am an admin, meaning I do what I can to keep everything running smoothly and nothing goes ajar. This isn't the first time that you have had major incivility issues. Honestly, if you are unafraid to call someone an "asshole" or to "shove (something) up (their) ass," I have to question what you are like outside of this. If you help with Wikipedia, that's one thing. However, harassing and bickering in a senile manner is another. I think you need to relax and, to be frank, stop being a complete hothead. Thanks, Yanksox 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Which of course epitomizes how much of a joke this has become for him. Last time I checked, asking someone to delete a subarticle is not the proper way to delete articles (yet he says it's policy...? Is there any way I can check the block logs and contribs of the people who referred this user for adminship?). And then he rambles about "encyclopedic mission". Oh yes, him wasting my time by making me write all this stuff about a non-issue (when I could be making a useful template, something I was doing when he interrupted me) is definitely contributing to the "encyclopedic mission". And then he goes on to say that this isn't the first time I have had major incivility issues. Oh really? I have major incivility issues? You know, I don't even want to comment on this, as it is such an incredibly preposterous argument that it doesn't even merit a response. The only thing I will provide is a link to my contribs, and let people judge for themselves. And then he says that I am unafraid to call someone an "asshole". So let's look at my contribs again. I can't find the last time I called someone an asshole. Nor did I ever say to "shove (something) up (their) ass". So, where is he getting this stuff from? Perhaps he has a secret page that lists all of my contributions which contain the word "asshole" in them??? And after that, he tries to argue that I am harassing him.(?) What the hell? I'm not the one that came to his userpage to complain about his userpage. And finally, he closes the discussion by calling me a hothead. An important question to consider is: How many names have I called him (none?), versus how many names has he called me (liar, moron, hothead)?

I think that's all I have to say. Honesty is my best policy. I just wish that yanker here would feel the same way. Bottom line? Bad faith nomination. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Your case that the page is an archived talk page would be a lot stronger if you could provide a diff of the edit in which it was added to your talk page. I have looked over every edit on your talk and did not find it (but am fully ready to be corrected). It is also a bit unusual to selectively archive comments, leaving those older on the page. If you could explain these problems, I would be happy to reconsider my opinion. --TeaDrinker 07:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Um, I don't think you should be citing WP:NPA as a defense considering your last comment on User talk:Yanksox, dated 4:44 5 January. I'd also like to point out that he has every right to look at the userpages of those involved in the child porn discussion (probably making sure nobody uploaded any poorly licensed photos), and this does not constitute wikistalking. I don't see any evidence of him reverting your every edit. I really don't think you should be feeling targeted, because you're not. Srose (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete you created it 05:27, November 6, 2006 but I see no evidence of anything like that ever being on your talk page. I did come across this [1] while searching for the entry to your talk page, if honesty is your best policy then please apply it. Anyway, the America subpage sounds like a rant against the USA which is not benefiting the encyclopedia so it should be deleted. Violates the first line of WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page?. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, regardless of accusations of a "bad faith nom" this is not a valid use of userspace. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a soapbox, I see no evidence that this was ever on your talkpage (much less posted by anyone else), and in short, this is an inappropriate usage of the userspace. -- Kicking222 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As per my comment above, I must object to the accusation of a bad faith nom, and in any case, this is a blatant violation of WP:USER. As far as I can tell, this "comment" was never left on this user's talk page, and therefore it is not protected as an archive. It's obvious POV and quite divisive. Per Kicking, Wikipedia is also not a soapbox. Srose (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. To some degree it is acceptable to state some of your political opinions on your userpage, as a way of presenting your possible biases, saying a bit about yourself, etc. But this appears to be nothing more than political propaganda and soapboxing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are a lot of really good free webhosts out there. On them you are welcome to express whatever political opinion you want. You can stand atop any soapbox. Wikipedia, however, is neither such a host or such a soapbox. alphachimp 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 10:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. some of the UN things are fun dirty facts, I agree, but this isn't the place for that... Grandmasterka 06:04, 8 January 2007 (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.