Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia ban speedrun

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 discussion was: Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia ban speedrun[edit]

I don't think that essays in Wikipedia space, even those tagged as "humorous" should encourage vandalism. "Humorous" shouldn't be a "Get out of jail" card that allows you to say all sorts of things that would otherwise be considered improper. I have no problem if this is moved to User space but I don't think it should be in project space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a marginal but non-negligible chance that the essay could inspire vandalism. This detriment is not outweighed by any benefit coming from the essay. Undecided about userfication. —Alalch E. 22:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No redeeming value and WP:DENY is best. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And we should have it somewhere that anything treating Wikipedia as a video game should be removed, similar to WP:NOTSOCIAL. And WP:NOTANARCHY for that matter. See also the youtube link showing an actual vandal in action, from the nominated page, and speedrun.com. - jc37 23:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That video actually demonstrates an interesting nuance of ClueBot NG’s behavior: its reliance on the current revision of the user talk page to determine which warning template to spit out.

It was interesting to see what it’s like to be a vandal. I doubt anyone would find it particularly fun to be that blatant though.

I maintain that all the energy that went into this discussion would be better spent on working on the problems of hoaxes, paid editing, promo-spam, etc.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no conceivable value. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userify, I wasn't trying to inspire vandalism and I clearly warned people that it isn't worth it.

Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I understand what the creator was going for, but Wikipedia:Go ahead, vandalize handles this much more maturely and makes the point much clear. Currently, a search for "Wikipedia ban" in project namespace (a reasonable search a new user could make) lists this second right below WP:Banning policy; as such, I agree with the statement marginal but non-negligible chance. I don't see the value it would have in userspace, but I think the negative factors are far reduced there, so userfying could be a possibility. Curbon7 (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not userfy. This is a joke, but it is a bad joke, and Wikipedia is not for bad jokes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The document may contain inappropriate content that's harmful to the editors and newcomers. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone wants a project, go through the Category:Humorous Wikipedia essays and you'll find plenty of similar, unfunny essays on how to get around Wikipedia policies and rules. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a poor attempt at humor, that could very well inspire vandalism. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 12:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy without redirect: ~~Sounds like a fun endeavor, but~~ Wikipedia:Go ahead, vandalize does a much better job explaining why you shouldn't vandalize Wikipedia then this. It's pretty hard to just stumble upon a random user subpage, especially without a redirect, so there isn't much harm in userfying opposed to deletion. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 05:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Curbon7 that we shouldn’t let the page stay in project space under a name that pops up in search results.

That said, the tone of some of the replies here are mildly concerning in my opinion. While I have quite a lot of respect for the work Liz (nom) does on here, I worry that what she’s advocating in her subsequent comment could easily end up leading to the suppression of essays that make insightful and thus useful criticisms of WP’s imperfections because they’re deemed to be unfunny by the denizens of the rarefied realm of MfD.

Anyway…

Paradoxically, I don’t see much point in disincentivizing that kind of behavior since it’s relatively less disruptive compared to alternative, more dangerous forms of mischief like hoaxes, sneaky vandalism, gray-area POV disruption, etc. per WP:GIANTDICK. Some of those scary things aren’t significantly higher effort than what the essay is suggesting. Just a thought.

In other words, I’m sure all of us here can agree that it is of the supremely highest priority that we take unambiguously decisive and relentlessly unrelenting steps to definitively mitigate the systemic risk of a catastrophic scenario such as the emergence of another idle homemaker in rural China who decides that it’s fun to weave elaborate hoaxes about medieval Russian history!

(I know it sounds stereotypical, but this actually did happen on zh-wiki and it’s the most outlandish real-life example I can think of.)

A general attitude of excessively curbing humor is one of the worst things that could happen to our bottom line.

And frankly, my opinion of the page is that it’s amateurish. Just copy-paste an obscenity-laden WP:NPA-flouting screed insulting and pinging a large number of the most active and most trigger-happy admins onto a talk page in a contentious topic area, and you’d be dead meat faster than you can say “λοπαδοτεμαχοσελαχογαλεοκρανιολειψανοδριμυποτριμματοσιλφιοκαραβομελιτοκατακεχυμενοκιχλεπικοσσυφοφαττοπεριστεραλεκτρυονοπτοκεφαλλιοκιγκλοπελειολαγῳοσιραιοβαφητραγανοπτερύγων”.

I’d just like to add that freedom, including the freedom to let off steam, generally makes people, including Wikipedians, more civil and constructive.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t even feel comfortable freely celebrating the fact that that ^^ turned out to be my 16000th edit to en-wiki, so I have to make a rhetorical point out of it to avoid potential accusations of WP:FORUM or something else. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't advocating that Wikipedia become a totalitarian state. There just seemed to be a lot of sketchy stuff that's in Project space that somehow is permitted if it is labeled "humorous". I am the first one to criticize the failings of Wikipedia, both the English WIkipedia and the entire project, that's not what this is about. I have come across a lot of User pages of departed editors that are just rants about things they hate on Wikipedia and I have never tagged any of those pages for deletion for being a POLEMIC. But criticism, even unfair criticism, is one thing, advising editors on how to get away with violating policies and guidelines and labeling it as funny is something quite different. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - We allow humour on Wikipedia because it helps with collegiality amongst encyclopedia builders. Providing a friendly environment for open discourse. This does none of that. - jc37 07:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel like there is a significant demographic that might feel it does help with collegiality. I don’t know precisely how many introverted teenage males there are in the editing community, but the percentage is undoubtedly higher than the general population.

And even without the presumption of good faith, it’s pretty clear what the creator’s intention was.

The reason I made that sleep-deprived textwall ^^ is that I wasn’t seeing any real attempt to understand the page or why it was written. Some of the above comments give off strong “summary procedure” vibes.

If a consensus is to be reached, it’s only fair that the case for “keep” or for “userfy” (which should be the “default” outcome, procedurally — no?) actually get a bit of consideration.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no.

The focus of this project is to build an encyclopedia. And that means every page, including userspace, must do this either directly or indirectly. If this page does not contribute to that, then the result isn't keep in somewhere that you think is a hidden play room, the result is delete. See also Wikipedia:User pages. - jc37 16:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fair, but can you give some examples of other essays in project space that actually contain practical advice on how to “get around” P&G?

I apologize if my reaction was a bit knee-jerk. Various comments felt to me like editors were, well, too old to even understand the content of the page, much less find it amusing (I’m only in college and I don’t think it’s that funny). My immediate impression had been that a bunch of “responsible adults” were overreacting to a relatively harmless article.

Anyway…I don’t really see what the problem is in encouraging troublemakers to try to get stopped as quickly as possible.

Also, I think it might be possible to overhaul the page so that it might be less concerning to some editors, while still expressing the intent of the original creator.

If not, then userfication seems more sensible than deletion.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for "practical" advice on how to "get around" policy and guidelines, do you mean on how to navigate them? Or how to bypass them? - jc37 16:30, 13 August 2023 (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.