If Wikipedia doesn't delete Steven Pruitt's "biography", it will be the single most vainglorious thing they have ever done, or ever will doCheck this insanity out.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ven_PruittThey're totally ignoring their own bar for inclusion, to the point of even ignoring Steven's own assessment of his lack of actual merit, which is incredibly ironic given what he is famous for, to glorify his achievement as a person worthy of encyclopedic recognition. Andy Mabbet even wants a recording of his voice to add to the article. They've gone completely fucking gaga!
--------
Everyone say hello to Everyman!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =805524749What a sad individual. If people like him had never discovered Wikipedia, or they somehow developed a screening process to keep them out, it might have stood half a chance of becoming an encyclopaedia. At least he's bombed out of RfA twice, that shows at least there are some standards, but not much.
This biography he has foisted on the world has already suffered a manifestly bad edit, a result of it being a vanity project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =804743279That is if you don't count Everyman's addition of the following categories.....
-Customs officers -21st-century American singers
One wonders if he even knows what categories are for.
Hey, it's me, Everyman (yes, I am User:Everymorning on Wikipedia, the user who created the article and put the canvassing tag on the AFD b/c of this post). Thanks for the shoutout. Couple things I think I should point out: 1) Not a "vanity project" (I don't know Pruitt, have never met him, and honestly am not that familiar with his WP work outside of what's in the article- I just knew he made a ton of minor edits I see on my watchlist all the time). 2) Pruitt works for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, so he is a customs officer, and he belongs in the singer cat b/c he sings in the Capitol Hill ChoraleSee WP:CATDEFINING. This is basic stuff. Seriously basic. As basic as understanding Pruitt's coverage doesn't add up to notability, not by a long way.
I never said you create these biographies for people you know, that I could at least understand as a motive, while still condemning it as wholly improper. You create them for no other reason than they are Wikipedians, and others are failing to delete it, because he is a Wikipedian.
Hence the reference to a vanity exercise. Your collective vainglorious nature is on full display here, especially in the way you cherry picked even that scrap of coverage for only positive material. There is no other biography on Wikipedia with this depth/type of coverage which would survive deletion. Only biographies for Wikipedians.
What makes me laugh here is, if Steven actually expressed horror at the prospect of having a Wikipedia biography, as Brian has, it would be gone in a hot second. So clearly, this is not an exercise in the dispassionate recording of notable people as an encyclopedic exercise, it is an exercise honouring his service.
You're immortalising this guy because he is a notable Wikipedian, and yet as this very debate shows, you reject any notion that his 2.2 million edits to Wikipedia has given him any more authority or experience with BASIC concepts like WP:N over anyone else. It is such a Wikipedian way of looking at the world, it's not actually even funny.
--
Everyman has now removed the categories, not crediting me with teaching him, a four year veteran with 901 edits to category name space alone, the basics of categorisation.
Fine. You explained something to me that I admit I should have already known, despite being much less experienced on WP than I am. What do you want, a cookie?---------
Also note Montanabw's stated justification for removing the fact he lives with his parents in Mount Vernon:
Irrelevant and privacy issuesNot only does this ignore Pruitt's own on-wiki statements...
Delete, though I'm flattered to have been considered. Various issues, none of them having anything to do with BLP issues (believe me, I'm fine with anything in the article appearing publicly. I'm an open book, generally speaking.)....it also grossly misrepresents the sources own interest in the topic. This is literally the byline of the Vocative piece...
One user who lives with his parents in Virginia is responsible for more than 1.5 million edits....and it goes on to say this.....
The only time he likes to interact with technology is when he sits down at the same desk he’s had since middle school, inches away from his family’s Hewlett-Packard computer screen, making minor contribution after minor contribution to the world’s largest encyclopedia.......so this edit was arguably a violation of NPOV if we are to assume there are any value judgements being made in their editorial choices, either by Vocaitv or Montanabw. Society being what it is, I'd say that's a fair assumption.
Does Pruitt, as a human being, deserve to not be publicly maligned for his life choices? Yes, if we assume he is a nonpublic individual of no ultimate importance as reflected by independent reliable sources. And that funnily enough is another way of asking, does he warrant his own Wikipedia biography?
It is sad fact of life that the media has yet to catch on to just why someone with 2.2 million edits to Wikipedia might be a person whose impact on the world is worth documenting, but that is naturally not a human interest story, but an investigative report.
-------
It's also worth noting, to further show self-glorification is their motive for this insanity, you will note the details from the coverage that the biography doesn't include.
Namely that he thinks Wikipedia has become a less welcoming place, and that he is still essentially performing grunt work that could quite easily be done by bots if only someone would code them (the real reason is way more hilarious, but alas, no reliable source coverage of super ridiculous stuff like the recent cosmetic edit wars).
I'm also guessing the stuff about spending half his waking life in his childhood bedroom isn't going to make it into this advertorial for the wonderous life that being a Wikipedian offers young people (of indeterminate age and birthplace, as he himself hilariously notes in a vain attempt at convincing them he's really not notable).
--------
Ah yes, it is deleted. And the people who were wrong about a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, the all important GNG, collectively had thousands of edits and decades of service between them. Surprised? You really shouldn't be.
Welcome to Wikipedia, where merely being a certifiable idiot isn't a disqualifying quality, you actually have to be disruptive with it too. Mere incompetence, if done with good intentions, can be repeated for years. Nobody will put you in special measures, nobody will send you for re-education, nobody will even be looking for the tiniest improvement in your abilities.
Because of the unique way Wikipedia works, every one of these people is free to create a Wikipedia biography as poorly referenced as this one was, tomorrow, and once again stand by the blind assertion it meets the GNG. And as always, it will be the responsibility of others to protect living people from their rank stupidity and utter recklesseness.
Normal people would be hanging their heads in shame right now. Both the people who fucked up by saying keep so assuredly, and the people who said delete, but who will be doing nothing going forward to ensure the likelihood of a repeat is prevented.
But these are not normal people, these are Wikipedians. They log on, and tune out. The normal rules of a responsible academic endeavour don't apply. The normal rules of an enthusiast/hobby society don't even apply.
They exist in their own little bubble of unreality, making their own rules, setting their own norms, shamelessly not even admitting when the outside world has done them a favour by disrupting the Matrix with a bit of real world competency and common sense.
Just fucking die already, you cancerous stains on humanity.
--------
