Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Tmxxine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I don't generally submit user pages to VfD, but this vanity page is a special case. This user appears to be using Wikipedia only to publicise the project described on this page; nearly all of their other edits tend to get reverted or deleted, as they push the idiosyncratic POV described here, or link to their other web sites. They have agreed in the past to move content elsewhere, but have failed to remove this page. Months have gone by, and this page is still regularly updated by anon IPs with similar disinterest for encyclopedic contributions. -- The Anome 10:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. DeleteOwenBlacker 12:32, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. No place for this here. --Ouro 13:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: This one is a good case (all edits since May seem to be on user page). Geogre 13:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abuse of user namespace. User has had more than fair warning, now a matter of MWOT. Andrewa 16:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: inappropriate use of WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, sheesh, delete very much. (I'm wondering why commercial outfits don't do that more often, actually. Perhaps they do.) There's something wrong with the link from the page to this discussion (redlinked). I hope somebody can fix it, because that gives people a really good excuse for removing the VfD template from the page. Don't undertand how to fix it, myself, sorry. Bishonen 20:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Double sheesh. This is a clear-cut case of abuse of this system. I voted every time to delete this guy's nonsense and it's time to vote to do so again once and for all. - Lucky 6.9 21:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Geocities. Gwalla | Talk 23:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: We normally allow users to put just about anything on their user pages. The content of this one isn't even offensive. I don't really see the harm in having it. It seems more than a little insulting to delete a contributing user's page. Everyking 23:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I had actually composed a keep vote, but then thought better of it. The reason, Everyking, is that people have discovered that placing a link on multiple Wikis is (currently) a good Googlebombing technique, since Google's PageRank then shows all these reasonably big, reasonably popular sites linking to it. And I've just verified that Google does indeed index user pages. In other words, placing links in one's WIkipedia user page is in fact an effective way to promote them. So it's not only hijacking a microscopic amount of Wikipedia's resources, it is also hijacking Wikipedia's good name. I'm not sure whether, how, or to what extent this harms Wikipedia. (Taken to absurd extremes, I suppose one could imagine thousands of people creating user pages for the sole purpose of inserting Googlebombing links to their own sites and that Google might retaliate by refusing to index Wikipedia any more, or something like that). On the other hand, I do find deleting user pages troublesome. I'm sure that's totally unrelated to the fact that someone listed one of my own user pages on VfD recently. (An innocent mistake on their part). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abuse of userspace. SWAdair | Talk 00:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Although I agree with the reasons for deleting, I am not voting; user pages should not be handled by VfD. -Sean Curtin 02:47, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • In general, I agree with you, Sean. We've seen people using VfD to settle private quarrels, but there are a couple of things that user pages can do that put them onto VfD, and using the pages as private web hosting is one of them. I have voted "delete" on only one user page, and that was InformationEcologist, because he had used his space to create a parallel wiki and even advertised on outside webpages that people go to his user space as if it were his web. In this case, Tmxxine has not contributed to the Wikipedia anywhere but his user page in four months. On the other hand, he has been very, very active in building those user pages. It looks like another Information Ecologist situation. Geogre 14:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enough user pages have come here recently to show there is consensus that user pages can be handled here. Jallan 05:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sean brings up a good point. It's rare that a user page would be posted for deletion unless it was a contentious violation of the rules like this one is. The question is, how does one bring it up for a vote? Should there be a special VfD page? - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The Tmxxine people have a history of abusing Wikipedia. Admins, see the deleted revisions for User:Projex, Tmxxine, and everybody look at the still existing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:ProjeX. They have had too much warning. Delete abuse of Wikipedia. -- Cyrius| 06:54, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons already given above. ping 10:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 12:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that it's abuse. I also agree that a case has been made that the route of polite requests has been exhausted and that if nothing is done, the likelihood is that the page will continue to be used in much the same way that it is now. However, the actual consumption of Wikipedia resources by this page is neglible, and in general my impression is that we cut users slack with regard to what they do on their user pages. I would like to see some thoughtful comments of why it is important to enforce policy on this particular page. How does the presence of the page harm Wikipedia? I've suggested above one way in which it does—allowing Wikipedia to be used for Googlebombing. (However, on examining my own user page, I notice that I have a link to my personal website myself). Are we saying that Tmxxine is no longer a serious contributor and has therefore forfeited a claim to having a user page? Why is this page regarded as more than a mild but tolerable annoyance? Why is it considered necessary to do something about it? Are there reasons for thinking that the storage size of his user area is likely to explode in the future? Is deleting this page important, or is it just "the principle of the thing?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:34, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment in reply: Dpbsmith, I respect your reasoning and enjoy your comments, but I think, in this case, we're more out of line discussing philosophy in VfD than debating the vote too long. First, though, "the principle of the thing" is sufficient on its own: an organization with rules has to follow them, or they are not rules (or they are double standards, as we speedily delete vanity pages from people who don't have accounts but allow extended personal essays to remain if they're by registered users). Secondly, though, my argument with this person is that he has, indeed, forfeited community rights by ceasing to be a Wikipedian. By no longer making edits or contributions to articles but continuing to build the private store of articles, he or she has ceased to help and has begun to subvert the site and organization and good will of Wikipedia as surely as an advertiser does who makes only short articles with links. We do not need to find out exactly the motives or judge them. Both of these reasons are exacerbated by the fact that the user has been warned on multiple occasions and, I hope, pleaded with rather than threatened. Geogre 16:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Slack is part of giving a user the benefit of the doubt, and allowing them some freedom. But this user has a history of abusing Wikipedia as a Wiki host, and I'm about to go list one of his other user space creations User:CurlChat on VfD because it is an advertisment! Tmxxine and crew have been given a lot of slack, and they have chosen to hang themselves with it. If we allow this sort of abuse, it will not only continue, but spread. -- Cyrius| 16:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I now feel that a keep vote on my part would be silly and counterproductive. A delete vote on my part would be based on my trust of other voters rather than an independent judgement on my own part, and is unnecessary since consensus is clear, so, no vote, but I appreciate having these clarifications. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. misuse of space. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, if user space can be used for googlebombing, how about automatically putting a do not index meta tag on all user pages? No need to encourage this sort of thing. The Steve 07:07, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is that it means you can't find anything on a user page when the MediaWiki search engine is turned off. -- Cyrius| 13:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • So? Why is this a bad thing? Isn't the point to make an encyclopedia? What could possibly be in user space that requires anyone on the internet be able to find it? The Steve 08:39, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • Discussions about an article. Discussions about policy. Drafts of articles, bits and pieces of thoughts, philosophical treatises on the way to run Wikipedia, information about meetups. Silly pages of quotes. If there's nothing in the User space that needs to be found, then what is it for? -- Cyrius| 10:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Suggestion: tag all user pages as INDEX, NOFOLLOW. Useful for Google searching, no use for Googlebombing. -- The Anome 18:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly delete. We should not be using VfD to decide this, but this is a clear-cut abuse. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This web site shows clear evidence that WP space was being used as a free home page host for a group of people -- but has now been replaced by another site - so even they won't miss it. Davodd 13:29, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)