Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mrmattkatt

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 deleted per CSD U1 (which also removes the page protection, so the editor may post non-offensive content.) Per special agreement below, editor is subject to sanctions for disruption (including blocking, if appropriate) should any mention of ED or associated controversies appear on the page. Xoloz (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mrmattkatt

Oh fine, I herby agree to delete my userpage with the Encyclopedia Dramatica content on it on the grounds that since everyone is being a jerk about it and i don't feel like being classified as troll, as that was not my original intention. I will delete the encylopedia dramatica content and restore my user page before that content was added. However to do this i will need my userpage back, and be declassified as a troll. Mrmattkatt (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

so can i have my user page back now? Mrmattkatt (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Egregious spam filter dodging, article in userspace which will never make it to mainspace. Will ^(talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Blanked to remove all links to ED. Will ^(talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep So if it will never make it to mainspace why should it be deleted? if it will never make it to mainspace there is no threat posted to wikipedia to warrant deleting the content on my userpage. Mrmattkatt (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"No threat"? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO says otherwise. Will ^(talk) 23:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes i believe there is no threat, besides deleting the page is just a way of censoring wikipedia, and i am against censorship, so i think, since thearticle poses no real threat against wikipedia as i am almost never on here, that it should stay Mrmattkatt (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Explain that to MONGO, Zoe, Phaedriel, Nathanrdotcom, myself, Jaranda. We'd love to hear how real-life harassment isn't a threat. Will ^(talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

that is the users own fault if they decide to partake in user things, going to the site automatically does not get you harrased Mrmattkatt (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC) page undeleted do not erase the page unless an admin says so Mrmattkatt (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually seven admins said so. Will ^(talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

unless they say so on my behalf, the page stays Mrmattkatt (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC) if you would like to discuss a comprimise i'm open to that too on my discussion page Mrmattkatt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You're restoring links to ED. That's a bannable offence. Will ^(talk) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

if you give me the page back i can remove the links but keep the article, that's what i meant by comprimise Mrmattkatt (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, and let me tell you my finger is twitchy on that "delete" button. Recreating this article, deleted previously by community consensus, is of absolutely no benefit to our project to write an encyclopedia, and has plenty of demonstrable harm. This is an active hate site with a primary purpose of harassing our contributors and attempting to interfere with our project of writing an encyclopedia; placing it in your user space in a misguided attempt to fight "censorship" looks a whole hell of a lot like trolling and an attempt to create drama. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of the back history of "Encyclopedia Dramatica", the userpage violates WP:UP as it is being used to harbor a deleted article. The AfD has to be considered independently of this matter, so therefore can play no part in the MfD decision. The page must either be posted as an article or removed outright. Since its creation is prohibited, the harbored contents on the userpage must be deleted accordingly. The only recourse would be to contest the AfD, which is unlikely to be considered.--12 Noon ^2¢ 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete agreeing with Antandrus. The Encyclopedia Dramatica is a non-notable website, and it doesn't need to be recreated in userspace. Acalamari 03:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] this also helps my point of view Mrmattkatt (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

IAR doesn't apply to ArbCom decisions. Will ^(talk) 13:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just quote WP:IAR back at you. JuJube (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete junk, and per everyone above. "I believe there is no threat", and later saying "this is the users own fault" are examples of bad faith. JuJube (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Forgetting any prejudices about Encyclopaedia Dramatica, this UP is being used to host a deleted article as per 12Noon. It was made quite clear that recreation of the ED article was a Bad Thing. ><RichardΩ612 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The ED article was deleted ages ago and I don't see any consensus to recreate it, nor do I see any evidence that it's had enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:N. Given the hostility towards this website amongst many Wikipedians who have been its targets, recreating the article on a userpage (even if accurate and sourced) is intentionally provocative and not necessary. Unless it's going to be recreated in mainspace, this version needs to be deleted. Walton^One 12:32, 13 January 2008 (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.