Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Make personal attacks at requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Deleted; the general consensus in the discussion was that the page was spiteful and unhelpful. --Cyde Weys 04:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Make personal attacks at requests for adminship

[edit]

User:John254, the creator of this page, was involved in the Crockspot RfA, and said to me that by not promoting Crockspot (who recieved more opposition than support), I was effectively endorsing personal attacks at RfA [1]. This page is clearly meant to be a rant about Crockspot's RfA, and is not even remotely humourous given the seriousness of the subject matter. Thus, I propose its deletion. --Deskana (banana) 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I find it to be apt social commentary on the state of RFA in the form of satire. The motive is irrelevant. MessedRocker (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't funny (but it is somewhat truthful), but I do think the motive is relevant here. Majorly (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least move to user space. Wikipedia is not the place to satire Wikipedia, we have plenty of other sites out there for that, and there's plenty of blogs out there you can sign up for too and say whatever you want about Wikipedia and it's editors. This is apparently directly influenced by the Crockspot RFA, and is rather insulting to pretty much everyone that opposed there. Userfying this might be an option, but it's still pretty offensive to a lot of editors. Also reeks of beans. --lucid 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The potential for offense outweighs any satirical or comedic value it might have Nathanww 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, poor quality sarcasm. I expect something better than this. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the humor tagging is suspect... doesn't this describe actual modern RFA behavior? --W.marsh 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nathanww. The essay is too specific to be humorous (as per Deskana, it reads like a gripe about a specific instance). I also think the title is a bit suspect ... yes, it's supposed to be satire (though I don't think view it as such), but the title still constitutes incitement to make attacks. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rather apt satire. Even if it was inspired by one RfA, it could easily be applied to several. Satire is a form of constructive criticism, allowing us to learn from our mistakes as a community. (And failing to promote Crockspot to adminship just because of his sensibleconservative beliefs was one of the worst mistakes we've made recently, IMO.) WaltonOne 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on CrockSpot, there was no consensus, in the bureaucrat's defense. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. The bureaucrat was quite right to close as no consensus - it was the community that made an error in not promoting Crockspot. WaltonOne 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not funny, and no useful essay material. The thought implied that off-wiki behavior shouldn't be examined in RfAs is absurd. Starcare 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreeing with W.marsh and Walton, or if necessary, userfy to the creator's userspace. Acalamari 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No useful content. When it's tagged essay it generally should be one of two things: 1)Provides useful information that really doesn't have a chance of becoming a guideline/policy, more informal than anything else, or 2)Humorous, mostly inside/wiki humour. This is just, at the best, embarrassing and insulting to the community, providing no useful content. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless, not even funny. While satire provides something constructive if read as satire, I don't think a title that could potentially promote a blantant policy violation should be kept. Userfy if you want because it can be associated with whomever believed it to be constructive, but I believe it shouldn't be in the Project namespace. — Moe ε 23:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Maybe seen as weakly disguised attack page aimed at me and Deskana and maybe other editors who reject racism and homophobia. Maybe concerns Crockpots failed election. The old phrase 'Sore Loser-man' comes to my mind and maybe others too after reading it. ΞSMEDLEYΔBUTLERΞ 23:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comments are far closer to a personal attack than this page is. By talking about "other editors who reject racism and homophobia", you are implying that Crockspot and those of us who supported him are somehow racist and homophobic, which is clearly not the case. Also, since neither Crockspot nor his nominator created this page, "Sore Loser-man" is hardly an appropriate epithet. You and others already sunk Crockspot's RfA by wildly over-interpreting some of his off-wiki comments (which shouldn't be brought up on-wiki anyway); please stop attacking him and the rest of us. WaltonOne 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is perhaps the dumbest comment I have ever read in a deletion discussion. In no way is this essay an attack on people who reject racism and homophobia. Implying that opponents to this MfD and supporters of Crockspot's RfA are bigots is an unwarranted attack on the character of many established editors. I suggest you refactor your comment. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me this -- if this is supposedly some attack of the people who made some RFA fail, then how come the text of the article makes no such allusions? MessedRocker (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy I don't see why this would not be allowed in user space, but I don't think it should be in WP namespace. But I didn't think that Wikipedia:Policy shopping should be in WP namespace either, so what do I know? - Crockspot 00:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, since it doesn't actually attack anyone in particular and honestly has a point (whether one considers it funny or not), there's no real reason to delete it. —Dark•Shikari[T] 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if it's a "weakly disguised attack page" then I must be half-blind because I don't see it as an attack page at all. More like a satire, which indeed could be seen as an "attack"... by the guilty! :-) ugen64 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox and as a veiled personal attack.--Jersey Devil 04:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Declining to provide any substantive critique of this project page, Deskana instead nominated it for deletion based on a criticism of my motivations in starting it [2]. Rather than responding in kind, I will simply note that as I am no longer the only primary author of this page [3] [4], the rationale for deletion provided in the nomination (and in several votes for deletion which restate it) is now irrelevant. I would, however, take issue with the contention that "the title still constitutes incitement to make attacks" [5], since the title of Wikipedia:Assume bad faith is not generally regarded as incitement. With regard to the assertion that the page constitutes "a veiled personal attack", [6], I note that to the extent that this page is considered to critique the behavior of editors making personal attacks at RFA, the page is not therefore itself a personal attack, since criticizing other editors' on-wiki behavior is not inherently considered to be a personal attack. John254 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this page is rather obviously spiteful rather than funny, and weaseling it away under a "humor" tag is really not the way to go. >Radiant< 07:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy - allegations of mens rea aside, would the Project really benefit from yet another snarky personal grouse-piece? We've already got hundreds, most of which make no effort to hide the chip on their shoulder and are neither funny nor wittily insightful, much less actually beneficial to the encyclopedia in any way. Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts) 07:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not userfy, this is absolutely not funny and the page is definitely spiteful. It's pretty much an attack page. --Coredesat 07:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a battleground... a concept which seems somehow lost on the warring cliques at the heart of this nonsense. Attempting to enshrine this ridiculous bad blood in an 'essay' is inherently divisive and serves only to disrupt and detract from useful work. Get over it. Stop squabbling like school-children. Go do something productive. Preferably on some topic that you don't get incivil and combative over. --CBD 12:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and other concerns raised. David Fuchs (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the generic issues of this RfA are not well addressed by this page, and what does come over is a mixture of WP:CREEP, WP:POINT, and some kind of personal ruleset or aphorisms. The humor doesn't make the point well, it's more likely to be inflammatory, and whatever is of value here, is not limited to RfA, and needs much clearer thinking. This will only become a source of new edit wars and used (by both sides) to justify battle stances. Not a good idea, whatever the problems of that RfA might have been. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its designed to be satirical in nature. Probably needs to be moved to his userspace though. Sasha Callahan 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - my reading, especially of the first paragraph, is that it's a veiled shot at various participants in the Crockspot RFA. It's not funny, isn't really educational, does seem to cross over the WP:BATTLE line, and shouldn't, to my view, be in the WP space. Make it a personal essay, that's not so bad. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or userfy for teh lulz. Apt satire, strong precedent, etc. --Iamunknown 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete pure spite/sour grapes. ViridaeTalk 09:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to main policy statements. Brandon97 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Not particularly appropriate for mainspace, but acceptable for userspace. It appears that much of the debate on this issue revolves around the RfA that may have precipatated this essay (although the Charlotte Webb RfA is also relevant); as I participated in neither, I don't have a vested interest in the issue. (The recent successful RfA for Haemo was another example, in which I did participate.) I don't find it particularly humorous (which is sad in and of itself, because it is often true), but there are other "humorous" essays in userspace that which I don't like, but they are in userspace. Horologium t-c 23:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and do not allow re-creation or userfication. It isn't humourous or helpful. It doesn't help build the encyclopedia in any way that I can see, and the spirit of it is just all wrong. Sorry, it needs to go.   justen   17:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the comment above says, unfortunately neither funny or helpful, and does not help promote the aims of the project. -- The Anome 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point would seem to include do not encourage others to do so. There also is don't give examples of how to cause disruption, which is directly on point. I think if this essay were written with an eye towards improving the encyclopedia, it might have had some value. However, the message is lost in the present form of the essay. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though granted there is WP:POINT, but I feels this illustrates a point by the use of Satire and is not disruptive to Wikipedia. Userfy for sure, but don't delete. Perhaps, it should have a little tag in additon to the humour tag saying that it is satirical so as not to potentially cause confusion.. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the Crockspot RfA left a bitter taste in my mouth, it is my belief that the creation of this essay is probably a violation of WP:POINT (but I do happen to agree with the point that is being made). Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Make_personal_attacks_at_requests_for_adminship&oldid=1140158670"