Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2

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 - A forum for nonsense not appropriate in any namespace in it's current form. I will point out that the comments of the original creators did not directly affect this determination. We do not delete things because they will get misused but because they violate policy and one user made WP:POINT edits to the userpage which were highly inappropriate both in their substance and in their Pointy purpose. The G7 by the original creators was highly questionable as there were more editors than just the two of them. Although none of the arguments here directly cite relevant policy, all of the arguments here relate to WP:NOT. This page invites users to write something for no particular reason with no particular relevance to Wikipedia or at least with no particular relevance to improving Wikipedia and with no collaborative intent. So I guess the argument of User:Basketball110 had the most persuasive policy argument, except that under that rationale it can't be anywhere as things in userspace should still have something to do with improving the encyclopedia. Go have a beer IRL, Go yell IRL, go have sex IRL, or if you must blow off steam on project - go to User:Lupin/Recent IP edits, but this page is no longer an option per WP:NOT#STUPID. Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Screambox

[edit]

Wikipedia is not MySpace. Cheers, Glacier Wolf 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Keep — Don't take everything so seriously. Why do you care? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep This deletion argument doesn't even make sense. —  MusicMaker5376 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep. Wikipedia is not a turtle. Seriously though, shouldn't there be a link to the last MfD nom? R. Baley (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Missed whatever caused it to be deleted last time (didn't realize the original creators had requested it). I will assume that whatever it was . . .it was not helpful. Sad that it had to go, but there you go. Delete per the original creators' judgment. R. Baley (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original co-creator of this previously co-creator-consensus-deleted[1][2][3] page, I'd just like to comment that the nomination rationale is not the reason the page was or should be deleted. There were other, more valid reasons. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 11:46, April 1, 2008
  • To make this clear, the idea was funny for a while, but imo the page should've remained deleted and should be deleted again. It has already been misused, and that's highly likely to repeat. Dorftrottel (ask) 15:02, April 1, 2008
  • Notes to closing admin. First, the "history" of the page has not been restored, and shouldn't be. Transhumanist simply re-created. Yes, it was kept in the previous MfD. After MfD1 passed, the page was abruptly misused. Dorftrottel,(the page's originator), and I (co-writer) discussed it, and decided as co-creators to db-author the thing as a headache waiting to happen and not worth the humor. We chalked it up to "fun while it lasted". This page should be deleted, and the title salted. There are lots and lots of good humor pages. I love the humor of this place. This missed the mark and needs to go away. IF, for whatever reason, Screambox actually stays, it needs a selective undeletion, namely to get the instructions back that are sorely missing (and were well written), and explain what the intent of the page was. In it's current state, this page will get misused. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the instructions would need to be restored -- perhaps with a caveat warning editors that any explicit or implicit references to any other editor, article, or situation will be swiftly met with a block. Those would be violations of WP:NPA; general screaming would not. —  MusicMaker5376 15:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's basically (in a nutshell even!) what the instructions said. However, they should not be restored. Nothing should be restored. The whole thing was deleted by the authors. The whole thing should get redeleted, sent to orbit, removed completely, salted, never to be seen or heard of again. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Perhaps my mention of Wikipedia is not MySpace as a deletion reason was not the best reason ever (it even resolved in what I consider to be a personal attack by MusicMaker5376), but it doesn't really benefit the encyclopedia at all. Delete, as the authors chose to delete it in the first place. Cheers, Glacier Wolf 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original authors asked to delete the original content. But this is not simply a resurrection of the original content--it's new content that just happens to be named the same. It's the content that I think is what's really relevant for a db-author, not the title or the subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The context and the concept are what I am advocating for deletion. The content was technically db-authored, true. Because the concept was flawed, the content was flawed. The original content had explicit instructions about WP:NPA. And it was misused nonetheless. The current content does not have explicit instructions, and will without question be misused. The concept needs to go to the eternal dustpin, IMO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the current "content" seems to be headed in the exact same direction, so the reason we decided to dump it still holds true. What's worse, without the insightful philosophical ruminations and usage guidelines Keeper and me put in the original incarnation, the likeliness of future misuse is even greater. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:27, April 1, 2008
  • Delete and I consider every keep vote above a personal attack on me, obviously cast only to harass me, knowing that I would see this and be outraged... Consider this your last warning! No fooling! Ignore the date. ... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgh! --Abd (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good illustration. Dorftrottel (complain) 21:24, April 1, 2008
  • Unfortunately, so to speak, the prior page history isn't available for non-admins to prove the misuse that occured and which was the reason we wanted to get rid of it. As to the first MfD, the nom rationale there was "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia", and we were naive enough at the time to assume that people would actually use the page only for proper cursing and not personal attacks. IIRC, there was e.g. a comment directed against the ArbCom, which is clearly unacceptable. So as long as the page exists, it will require close monitoring. Keeper and me realised this and thus decided it wasn't worth it after all. Dorftrottel (criticise) 00:58, April 2, 2008
  • Seems rather prudish to me. You're being too coddling. It's like you are trying to protect us from each other, putting up baby fences. Good grief. It's easy enough to simply revert personal attacks. Anyone accessing the page could easily delete them, and instructions to that effect could be included on the page. No big deal. Rather than pick out the bad apples to prevent them from spoiling the bunch, you'd rather stop filling bushels of apples altogether. Not a very good approach. Results in zero apples. The Transhumanist 01:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe me when I say that I do understand your approach to this: It's pretty much identical to what I thought when I first created the page. It's just, like Keeper says, the context and concept is neither particularly useful nor all that funny, and common sense and actual experience tell us that there are people who are not capable of grasping the true spirit of things like the screambox and who would most certainly not even understand that they are the ones being addressed by a potential top notice saying something to the effect of "Idiots who abuse this page for personal attacks are fucking lamerz and all they do is ruin it for everybody." — Simply assuming intelligence, good faith and basic decency on everybody's part is an honorable approach for sure; however, its essential and fatal flaw is that it does not pay tribute to reality. Besides, if we don't delete this page now, it will wind up at MfD again very soon anyway. I suppose nothing speaks against having a personal screambox in userspace though. And if someone wants to MfD it from there, you just tell them to "piss the fuck off and die" and they will certainly understand and comply. On a related note, I'd like to explain that the primary reason I came up with the screambox is that cursewords are not well-liked in usual discussions in main talk and wikispace. This is the paradox of this MfD: If everybody on Wikipedia would just relax and focus on not doing harm, we (i) wouldn't need anything like the screambox, and at the same time (ii) we could actually host it in wikispace without fear of misuse. Dorftrottel (ask) 12:56, April 2, 2008
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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox_2&oldid=1144825324"