Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bamadude

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 debate was speedy delete: CSD G10, attack page. – Steel 15:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bamadude

This user has taken the liberty of creating a bullet-point list of thinly-veiled attacks at other users. Most recently, I found myself trying to explain to him that he cannot scan and upload sources (he seems to think WP:V allows him to do this). He then made this addition, which reflected his comments about me here and here quite obviously. This is not appropriate material for a userpage. Cheeser1 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I take great offense that my user page has been nominated for deletion by a person who has a grievance with me on another matter and is trying to manipulate WP policy to suit his needs to putdown the argument in his favor in a backhanded fashion. This is an utterly-ridiculous complaint, but it's obviously very telling that Cheeser1 would infer that any general statements I make on my own user page would be about him when they are strictly general statements and cannot be attributed to any one person and were mostly made long before I ever met him. They reflect my own general opinions of my usage of this site and I'm entitled to them; besides, they do help newbies who read them to better understand WP. Cheeser1 should be admonished for trying this highly-underhanded and childish tactic as it is prosecutorial, smacks heavily of censorship and is against the policies/essays of WP:BITE and WP:LAWYER, an action which violates the true spirit of WP.--Bamadude 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond: I am a regular volunteer at the Wikiquette alerts board. Bamadude has been repeatedly uncivil to other users, and is also uploading copyrighted materials outside of fair use. When I intervened to ask him to be civil, I also came across these copyrighted materials and put them up for deletion. He has been hounding me ever since, demanding that I make my case (as if pointing him to fair-use policy wasnt enough). Now, being from the WQA, I saw his userpage and immediately noted that it lacked civility, had no real relevance to building an encyclopedia, and was full of personal attacks (including one directed at me). Those are the concerns we address at the WQA. So I put it up for deletion, as is the appropriate action when a userpage violates policy. Hence this MfD. --Cheeser1 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, that is a highly-misleading statement by Cheeser1. What Cheeser1 constitututes as "uncivil" is my arguing against his points, using that word as an accusatory pushbutton to point a finger at me strictly because I don't agree with him. How many complaints do I have? It's actually only 1 complaint and it contains a counter-complaint by me against the person who filed it wiht plenty of diffs, and the complaint itself is a farce as the complainant is doing exactly what Cheeser1 is doing, which is manipulating WP policy to suit their needs. Cheeser1 makes a very questionable moderator in my opinion as not only did he stir up the debate on the Wikiquette page, a place meant for civility and peace, he also jumped into the original debate at the article and even created a whole new line of argument on an entirely different matter, not just at that article's dicussion page, but also on my own user talk page and even on the Wikiquette page itself! Also, a person's user page is not a part of the encyclopedic tone of the site as many people use it to give thier opinions and post other non-encyclopedic fare and their to-do list, etc, so that's a moot point in itself. The credibility of this person is very poor indeed and I submit that this is nothing more than a personal attack on me in order to win an argument and obfuscate facts. I had also conceded the original point to make the peace, but Cheeser1 apparently isn't satisfied with that and demands total vanquishing of his new arch-rival. Read my user page and decide for yourself --- do you think this addresses anyone in particular and is anything more than a user's experiences and opinions, and note that the history page shows virtually all of it created long before Cheeser1 arrived with his edit war.--Bamadude 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Keep. I'd appreciate it if Bamadude would relax the aggressive tone a bit, but while this certainly looks like it was influenced by incidents with specific editors, the attacks are basically impersonal. Absent ad hominems, opinion pieces are generally considered acceptable per WP:USER: "Another common use is to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. So you might include current plans, a journal of recent activities on Wikipedia, and your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed.". — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that he doesn't "name names," it is added to whenever Bamadude finds himself in a particular dispute - he adds comments like "Wikipedia is FULL of mostly young people who, because they have low self-esteem and haven't made any significant impact in this world, have nothing but their pride, their words and their reputation, so when you step on any or all of these things, they get very hurt. Many of them have nothing better to do but edit this site and they spend an awful long obsessive time doing so. This becomes their world, so in order to get along, many of them create a union with other users and work to exclude edits made by "outsiders", i.e., unregistered users, newbies, or others who oppose their edits & efforts." While opinion pieces are certainly allowed, this is not just an opinion piece about Wikipedia, but a personal attack on other users. The fact that he doesn't say exactly who inspired his latest rant, it doesn't change the fact that he's making personal attacks on his userpage. I don't see where the policy states "one must attack a single target explicitly" - attacking unnamed editor(s) is well within NPA, which states "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." He is also using his userpage to accumulate these attacks because they would not be tolerated elsewhere. The policy on userpages states that one cannot include "material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." --Cheeser1 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least they're not framed as personal attacks. I can see how they could be considered implicitly personal, but I think it's fair to say that it's more politically correct this way, if still slightly offensive to a small group of users. So I guess WP:NPA has some bearing, but I think it's on the border of qualifying at most. Again, I'd very much like it if Bamadude would tone down what I see as moderate hostility, but I'm still (slightly) reluctant to support outright deletion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And please note that the most operative word in the part you quoted is: " your (constructive) opinions on how certain Wikipedia articles or policies should be changed." I see no provision for constructive changes (or any changes), only a long list of negative, hostile, inappropriate commentary about other users. --Cheeser1 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, seems rather hard to judge. Maybe a new editor will stumble across the page and find it insightful (it is much more blunt than something you would find in WP-space, after all). Maybe an editor involved with Bamadude will read the essay and better understand where Bamadude is coming from when he makes some contentious statement. Or maybe not. Whoso knoweth? :] — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:16, 14 October 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.