Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to defeat editors you disagree with

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete, but userfy on request. There is consensus that it is unhelpful in wikispace. The creator is currently blocked, but if they or anybody else who appreciates it, wants to have it in their userspace, let me know. Tikiwont (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How to defeat editors you disagree with

[edit]

This essay does nothing but advocate incivility and poor behaviour. As Coren so elloquently put it on AN, "It's divisive and trollish; and there isn't even an attempt at deadpan humor or attempt to position it as satire." TalkIslander 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

** Comment: If you think you can add "deadpan humor or attempt to position it as satire" you are welcome to do so. There should be an "edit this page" link on it. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a humor tag, though otherwise I could care less if the page is kept or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as a record of the specific tactics that some people use to discourage the "anyone" who may edit from actually doing so. CompositeFan (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment. LOL! CompositeFan (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; something like this might have worked as satire or critique, but the tone makes it obvious that this is a rant against percived slights against the Truth. Given its complete assumption of bad faith and its divisive nature, it has no place in project space. — Coren (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is humorous, it makes it clear that it is intended to be humorous, and it reflects in a satirical way the experience of many editors, and why more people choose not to become regulars. It certainly gave me a good laugh.Poltair (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete. It has been viciously hacked edited from a well-observed piece of wit into a worthless pile of Wikishit drivel. Poltair (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Out of curiosity (and bearing in mind that the 'humor' tag was not added by the author), how in your opinion does it make it clear that it is humorous? It's certainly not clear to me. TalkIslander 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Comment - I don't really know how to answer that without being facetious; except by quoting from Humour: A sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, although the extent to which an individual will find something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence, and context...Satire may rely more on understanding the target of the humour, and thus tends to appeal to more mature audiences. Poltair (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The result of an editors opinion that there is a cabal wrongly removing unsourced statements on Family Guy articles. GrszReview! 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The essay is divisive. AdjustShift (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy - Clearly intended as a form of protest, rather than humor - none of the events here occur frequently enough, or are grossly exaggerated enough for it to be a decent parody. They evidently only happened to the author, and are described from their point of view. They should take their specific complaint to dispute resolution rather than vent through this essay. There's also a potential WP:BEANS risk. Dcoetzee 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Keep. At least a couple respectable editors here seem to think it's not actually a too-specific snarky complaint, and if they can construe it as such I'll chalk it up to my ignorance. Dcoetzee 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think with all the later edits, it'll now be taken as dry humour by most editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A tragically accurate description of how Wikipedia works (or, far too often, doesn't). This is not policy, this is an essay, and there is no requirement that anyone find it sufficiently witty to meet standards of retention. This is exactly what essays are for. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. This sort of thing happens with popular topics a lot. By sharp contrast, in the more obscure topics, one could break all the rules that are supposedly broken in the popular articles and never be called on it. Del arte (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it's supposed to be humour I'm not seeing it, and just goes to show the pitfalls of assuming everyone will "get it". I read it more as the snarky complaints of some editor with a point to make. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep or if not, Merge to WP:GAME. "Those who don't know history are certain to repeat it." This is a record of tactics used to violate WP's rules while pretending to obey them. There needs to be a record so that these tactics can be recognized when they're used. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Someone who wants to keep on using these tactics, how would they vote on this? Delete, of course. But they couldn't say "because I want to keep on using these tactics." So what can they say? "It's divisive" would be perfect, since, on its face, it lines up with the rules on civility. But it's pure lip service. And lip service alone will never accomplish what the WP:CIVIL was intended to do. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You... you d... don't mean, th... there are heartless and mean editors who use these tactics? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as long as the style is not improved. There are valid observations in it, but it is a bit BEANY, so I find it hard to make a call. If Mark Twain comes along, definitely keep, the behaviour described does exist and there should be a possibility to point that out. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy unhelpful and bitter. This doesn't mention anyone by name, and as such it deserves to be moved to userspace. Note to editors calling for an outright delete: I hate to be that guy invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since when are divisive, unpleasant screeds that don't mention specific names considered unacceptable in userspace? It seems to be par for the course when someone retires in a huff to leave a pissy user-page screed. I can name you 3 users just off the top of my head--two of which are former admins who resigned under a cloud and still have active friends--who blanked their userpages and substituted a bitter screed on their way out. Are we prepared to delete them, too? The attempt was made, and consensus firmly rejected it. We can either go whole hog or nothing at all, but please don't pretend to be outraged by this sort of thing if you're prepared to accept one and not the other. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 22:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep If the shoe fits...—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChocoCereal (talk • contribs) User:ChocoCereal is a block-evading sockpuppet. — Scientizzle 20:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This is what should be done if we want to maintain the spirit of WP:CIVIL: keep it, edit it and reword it until it becomes another tool in making sure the ideals of Wikipedia actually become a reality. Plinth molecular gathered (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Either keep or merge to WP:WIKILAWYER or WP:GAME. Those who recognize people using the tactics described will either find it humorous or sad. Those who use the tactics described want it deleted. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's obviously notable. Just look at all the responses and controversy it's generating. And as far as verifiability, the keep votes speak for themselves. And those are the ones who are still here. BobDysart (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or failing that, Merge to WP:GAME, or at least Userfy. It's an essay, it's not divisive, nor bitter, it doesn't attack, and it is helpful. And it doesn't violate any policy/guideline, including every one of the WP:XXXXX references listed here (such as WP:BEANS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc.) Life isn't serious, and WP even less so. Except when it is, of course. This needs to be kept, preferably as an essay, with expansion for use as awareness training. If we can have RfA coaching, why not this. — Becksguy (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I struck above comments that were indef blocked as sockpuppets of User:PrimeFan per this checkuser, which included the essay's author. Grsz11 →Review! 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy I was under the impression that humor pages have to be... you know, funny. I would vote "delete" but I guess that point of view is subjective. It certainly shouldn't be in WP space, though. JuJube (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2008 (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:How_to_defeat_editors_you_disagree_with&oldid=1140218546"