Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A.Z./Administrators/Outside essay

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete While it is customary and proper for the community to extend the courtesy of permitting users wide latitude in posting Wikipedia-related opinions to "their" userspace, the community maintains the authority to delete content with good cause shown. The clear consensus below, well-elaborated by many established users, suggests that the community's typical courtesy does not extend to this page. Xoloz 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A.Z./Administrators/Outside essay[edit]

Note: The page has been moved to User:A.Z./Outside essay. 18:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is a mirror of an off-wiki essay. It falls afoul of WP:NOT a mirror, WP:NOT a soapbox, and WP:NOT a webspace provider. The page is also problematic because it attacks and mocks by name specific Wikipedia editors (violating WP:NPA); in the original author's words, he is a noble 'truth teller' like Daniel Brandt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Note how he's picked up on the bogus outing of SlimVirgin. -Amarkov moo! 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. WP:NPA is not meant to prohibit legitimate criticism of other editors' actions, nor the citing of diffs to inappropriate actions by various editors (including Jimbo Wales, who is not above the rules). This page also does not violate WP:NOT; although I agree that Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a webspace provider, this is an essay about Wikipedia, which is entirely appropriate in userspace. As a community, we should accept legitimate, constructive criticism backed by evidence (which this is, for the most part), and try to improve, rather than trying to remove all criticism. The only editor who seems to be harshly criticised by the page is User:Ryulong, and the fact that the page links to a past RfC on Ryulong's behaviour suggests that there have been genuine problems with his conduct. This essay is neither irrelevant, inappropriate, nor an attack. It's constructive criticism. WaltonOne 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This essay wasn't written by someone on Wikipedia; it's just mirroring external content. I haven't argued about whether or not A.Z. can link to it from his own essay, but Wikipedia isn't meant to be a mirror or a soapbox for external content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that it would be inappropriate to use userspace as a mirror for large amounts of external content which was not relevant to Wikipedia - that would violate WP:NOT a free webhost. However, this is an essay about Wikipedia. The user in question clearly felt that it was sufficiently relevant to merit a copy in his userspace, and I'm inclined to agree that it raises important and relevant points. Plus, deleting this will just give more ammunition to those who attack Wikipedia; they'll argue that we deal with criticism by deleting it, rather than acting on it. WaltonOne 15:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's written by Wikipedia editor (and WR member) Ionas, who probably would've put it on here, 'cept he's been blocked. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This essay, bursting with unsupported assertions of wrongdoing, mainly has the effect of making the author sound like a kook. But, we should welcome constructive criticism. Heck, we should even have a large tolerance for silly criticism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but opinions about Wikipedia are relevant and welcome in project space or user space. If we tolerate kooky criticism rather than stamping it out, in my view this discredits the silly criticism far more effectively than removing it. Thus, in my view this is a keeper. Friday (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something which I didn't notice (but which Amarkov observes above) is that this essay attempts (albeit apparently incorrectly) to 'out' a Wikipedia editor's real name. The real name has been removed from the local copy, but I'm not certain if it's appropriate to link to such a page from anywhere on-wiki. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real name has been removed from the original essay as well. A.Z. 20:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It remains in the history of both pages, however—and frankly, someone who writes such a screed is very unlikely to respect either our privacy policy or your anonymous removal from their wiki essay. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author said that he likes Wikipedia's policies. It was just a mistake. A.Z. 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep do we actually want to justify the accusations of censorship? DGG (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aye, it's not really causing any harm, not even a copyright violation to worry about. Just advocating responsible administrators. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with it. --Hemlock Martinis 04:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Criticism of Wikipedia is certainly welcome. However, this weird, somewhat irrational essay goes far beyond constructive criticism into specifically attacking specific administrators to the point of childish name-calling ("Slick Jimmy"? "Court Jester"?). This is very typical of Ionas's rantings -- a troll who has already been blocked here on en as well as on meta, where he posted this naive semi-death-threat against Jimmy Wales. Let's deny this guy the recognition he is obviously craving. --Krimpet 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a line between criticism and trolling, and Ionas crossed it long ago. Delete this little bit of nonsense. Sean William @ 11:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This "anti Wikipedia" silliness is going too far. Majorly (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Krimpet. This isn't constructive criticism, this is just ranting. Melsaran (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:DENY / WP:SOAP. >Radiant< 13:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag WP:DENY and WP:SOAP come to mind, as per radiant. The best part of the entire essay is the "Too many chiefs, not enough Indians" line. Apparently the author doesn't realize the 'indians' refer to native americans, not the inhabitants of India... Someone help him with his idioms and adages! David Fuchs (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as on-site hosting of off-site material, borderline attacks on editors by naming names (which A.Z. can't control, since it's not his work). "if it is deleted elsewhere" is not a reason to copy it here, IMO. Note: I am the administrator who declined the speedy, as I feel this deserved a full hearing in MFD. --nae'blis 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present, will authenticate from home later if necessary)[reply]
  • That the criticism is so very silly is not a good reason to remove it in my view. I prefer knowing which editors align themselves with trolls over not knowing. Give anybody enough rope to hang themselves, if that's what they insist on doing. Friday (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete it attacks users (both directly and indirectly), was written by a troll blocked on the English Wikipedia and Meta, and mentions nonsense that an attack site spouts. It grossly violates WP:NOT. We don't need this sort of page at all. Acalamari 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This does not belong here. --Isis4563(talk) 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a Personal attack, why should we bend over backwards to keep attack material? Carlossuarez46 01:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sean William. Oysterguitarist 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Sean William. Cabal conspiricst theory (that doesn't exist): He's released all rights, so can't we just modify it to say whatever we want, then protect the page? Cool Bluetalk to me 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then we'd have to remove his name. My contributions in this very MfD debate are released under the GFDL as well, but you can't just modify them to say "I'm an idiot", leave my signature beneath it, and protect the page ;) Melsaran (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:NOT. If you want to save it for posterity, copy it into the edit history of your sandbox. - Crockspot 01:39, 23 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/User:A.Z./Administrators/Outside_essay&oldid=1146641349"