Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiWitch

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 no consensus. There seems to be a disagreement as to whether this is an attack page or a humour page. Most opinions on both sides hold agreeable weight. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiWitch

Attack masquerading as humour. Would not be missed if it were in the author's userspace. Nobody ever says "WikiWitch". --Snied (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An excellent educational humorous reflection on the characters at MfD. Perhaps a tad offensive, so fix it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does one fix a passive-aggressive rant? I think that the only way to improve this content would be by repositioning it in the originating author's userspace. It would be much better if an individual was accountable for this content rather than Wikipedia. Snied (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a good start. Remove the aggressiveness. Merely be descriptive. Allow for respect for not-quite-WikiWitch behaviour. This essay is a multi-user essay and as such belongs in Wikipedia-space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is indeed less vindictive now, but also completely pointless, arbitrary (you've just filled a space for the sake of filling it rather than saying something that needed to be said) and distracting (what is a newcomer going to think after reading this?). I no longer feel that this is a particularly harmful article, but I also think that Wikipedia would be improved without it. In fact, I'd prefer that it was left intact and moved to the initiator's userspace. It seems counter-intuitive for somebody to create an inappropriate article which then has to be whittled down to something that nobody really means or cares about at all. If there were some evidence for the community actually needing to say something about this sort of behaviour then fine, but is there?

Does Wikipedia policy really provide for people's attempts at initiating memes like this? If so, then I am happy to be called a WikiWitch (in what would clearly be the term's first actual usage). Snied (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is pointless. Why would a newcomer be reading it?

I think it is useful because there is definitely a wide variation of tolerance for {{humor}} pages amongst wikipedians. Documenting perspectives on types of editor behaviour is a good thing, if it is not aggressive or personal. I think it is useful to characterise extreme examples of behaviour, and to have these characterisation available. If you think you are heading toward an extreme, or you think someone else thinks you are (maybe they said so?) then it is useful to look at a dispassionate description from a distant perspective. This is what the essay is about. It is quite normal than in the early versions, it is a tad aggressive, passionate or too close in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is an attack page which is broken beyond repair. JBsupreme (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It's not naming anyone nor hinting at any particular person, so it's not violating NPA.

Keep it, it's funny!! _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete this, it is not harming anyone. --WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So much for writing a professional encyclopedia if it's just going to play host to people's community garbage. That something written as an attack about a term that has never been used exists here is why I don't donate to Wikipedia. I would quite happily donate to an open encyclopedia, but I don't want to help fund stuff like this. Snied (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Study and review of project processes is definitely worthwhile. This page contributes to that. See also WP:Editors matter. If you feel personally insulted, please tell me how and/or why. As for resources, the existence of the page consumes negligible resources, see WP:Performance, and certainly far less volunteer resources than this discussion. From another angle, the censoring of expressions of editors perspectives is in itself a bad thing.

Having said that, if you moved the page to Wikipedia:Humor-deletionists, to avoid the "witch" word, which does have a negative tone, and contributes nothing of substance, then I'd support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to see this as a study when it hasn't been referenced in any way. It's just soapboxing and tryhard community drivel. The author isn't being censored, they can just as easily put this in their userspace and link to it on their user page. Perhaps it would be seen by the right people that way. Snied (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a multi-authored essay, it belongs in project space over user space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one editor has authored this essay. The others, including yourself, have made minor changes. Cunard (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being an attack page that fails to be humorous. Having read the earlier versions of the page I am left with the impression that the page only serves to offend. While SmokeyJoe's changes have made the page less belittling, the fact remains that the page is still offensive. Pointing a fellow editor to this page and calling him/her a "WikiWitch" will likely serve to inflame a situation instead of diffusing it. I fully agree that humorous pages belong on Wikipedia but this is not one of them. Encouraging new users to treat Wikipedia as a webhost is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Deleting this page would be a net positive for Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this is written in a humourous vein it has a serious purpose, which is to belittle and dismiss editors who have a different opinion from that of the author. It serves no constructive purpose, and, as can be seen from comments above, annoys some editors: I suspect it is intended to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suppose it makes me a 'WikiWitch' for supporting deletion of this page, but that basically shows what's wrong with it. Compare it to a page like WP:WikiVampire: that one humorously characterises users who bite the newcomers, this one humorously characterises those who support deletion of humour pages. The difference is that biting the newbies is against policy - no one would actually admit to doing so; whereas many editors - like myself - sometimes have good-faith reasons for wanting to see certain 'humour' pages deleted. This page only serves to promote divisiveness and discredit those of an opposing opinion, and as such we're better off without it. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, although this is expressed as humour, there is a serious purpose behind it. There is a significant minority of Wikipedians who feel that the proper thing to do is to always add more content, and that deletionis inherently a bad thing. I have recently been involved in an AfD discussion where an editor was very rude and uncivil both in the AfD discussion and elsewhere to another editor who was in favour of deleting an article. Apart from the issue of incivility, the line taken was very much "deleting is destruction: only creating new material is worthwhile activity". Of course those who take this line have a perfect right to do so, and the fact that I personally regard maintaining the quality of Wikipedia as at least as important as increasing the quantity does not mean that I deny them the right to express their opinion. However, some of these editors, including the one involved in that dispute, do not extend the same tolerance to those who disagree with them. This "humourous" page is an example of this: although the message is covered with a veneer of humour, there is a clear underlying message that people who propose deletion are contemptible. I have no intention of speculating on the motivation of the author of this page (Meaghan), and since he/she has initiated at least one AfD discussion he/she is certainly not fanatically opposed to any deletion at all. Nevertheless, the page does express an attitude to some editors which is not designed to encourage a cooperative spirit, but is in danger both of antagonising those it ridicules and also of encouraging negative attitudes among people who may be antagonistic to such editors. Consequently, even if Meaghan's intention was purely humourous, the effect of this page is likely to be unconstructive. Even Smokey Joe (the only person who has made a significant attempt to argue for "keep") admits that "it is a tad aggressive", and although Smokey Joe has improved it by somewhat toning it down, it still is essentially aggressive in tone. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost convinced, but not. This page is part of a series (see Template:Wikipedia fauna) devoted to a humorous characterisation of various editor behaviours. As such, it is a useful education reflection. I think there is no great wisdom to be found in it, but in reading the series I at least see parts of me in places, and it is illuminating to see unexpected ways in which others may see me. There is merit in this. The reason for deletion seems to be that some unspecified editors may read into it some offense directed at themselves. I think that this is over-sensitive. I have ever encountered someone who is a clear "wikiwitch" according to the definition, now or originally. I don't think we should delete because some unnamed editor may be insulted. The fact that it read as a tad offensive is just a reflection of the feelings of the original author, and these do not affect the usefulness of the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2010 (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.