Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Collect/z


 * 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 While there is currently No consensus to delete this page, the creator may want to consider the concerns that see it in its current form as neither humorous nor helpful but rather hostile with the whole affair approaching an exercise of the type described in the page itself. Which probably makes me one of "the the admins out there" who "have not seen all" the parties "handiwork, so they will give the benefit of the doubt." Tikiwont (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Collect/z
Thinly veiled personal attack disguised as humor essay. Also seriously damaging to understanding of policy if anyone were to actually read it. -- Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a truly weird thing to try, CC. Anyone here can visit User Talk:Lar and the use of WP:ANI by you to see precisely just how accurate WP:GAMING can be at times. My page mentions no one at all, not even indirectly, but does link to WP:GAMING. As it is not a page on a subject, I do not see what criterion Cumulus is seeking to use. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's your chronicle of our interactions which you are using to try and demean me. The page serves no purpose except as a personal attack. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting it is a chronicle of your interactions? I did not write it as such, to be sure. I read WP:GAMING and decided it was a neat topic. Collect (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me one good reason for keeping it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to prove it should be deleted. It is humour, and mentions no one, unless, of course, you assert it accurately reflects you, which I do not claim. Try reading WP:GAMING. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You say it's about no-one in particular in almost the same breath as you say "look at CC's actions" - that's disingenuous at best. Franamax (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I doid not publicize this page and have no idea how CC found it. I did not model it on anyone -- but on WP:GAMING. If this is deletable for using that page, that page should be deleted. And I doubt anyone is likely to find this page and not know how to follow the link, at least I hope not. Collect (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you did publicize the page - you created it on a public website. There are several different ways to arrive at the page. You could equally well have written your essay on your own PC and viewed it there at your leisure, instead you chose to create it where other people would be able to find it. Expressing -gasp- surprise, "how ever did you find it?" is again disingenuous. Franamax (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I would not consider this funny, or even a joke. Some users might take this page and do what's on it. Seems like just a waste of space. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Decided to stay uninvolved in this, still the page lacks sufficent value. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not humourous, rather it seems spiteful and an invitation to look at the author's history to see how badly they've been treated (in their opinion), and by whom. Written by a user almost half of whose edits concern Sarah Palin, I doubt that we're being given an insight into Wikipedia, whether by humour or other means. Waste of space. Franamax (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at the wide range of articles I have been involved in. Most of my edits on Sarah Palin have been in Talk, not edits of the article, and no editwarring on my part there in any case. Nor has CC ever apparently done anything in Sarah Palin. CC and I have no conflicts there that I know of. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your entire edit history is centered solely around the promotion of conservative candidates for public office. Numerous editors have pointed this out and you've responded by making noncontroversial edits to unrelated articles to try and hide that fact. I think that was the point Franamax was trying to make and I agree with him 100%. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just relized this entire thing is just part of a big edit war, I think deletion and edit history should be kept seperate. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No editwar on my part -- unless "Dime" is controversial? Collect (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (also, per WP:BEANS, it looks like a guide on how to game the system, some of the weed-out-all-opposition advice is actually sound) Not a humorous essay at all. Probably a personal attack against other editors that are in an edit war with him, or something similar. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This mfd, is nothing more than an attempt to continue a edit war. Look at this; User_talk:Lar cease the personal attacks now, there is no need to WASTE MFD RESOURCES with junk like this. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I add strong comments that this is specifically undesirable behaviour, would that ameliorate your "delete"? Collect (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Im done with this, don't expect me to even come back to this mfd. I'm sure an administrator will come in any time now and deal with this mess. This post is as involved in this edit war as I will ever get. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, come to think of it, this smacks of an invitation to mob "justice", which is anathema to me. Whatever happened to free speech? I'm with Evelyn Beatrice Hall and Voltaire on this one. Writegeist (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like legitimate criticism.  I see no users named or even implied here.  It's in userspace.  What's the issue?  If someone is inclined to believe that, somehow, the page is about them, I think they need to calm down.  And hopefully, consider why the feel that's the case. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think Collect is an arse. Having posted an appreciative message on my Talk page just because of an edit I made on Sarah Palin that he/she liked (I imagine he/she misread me as a like-minded sanitizer of Conservative-candidate BLPs), he/she became hostile when I made edits that ran counter to his/her very obvious agenda. However. Although I don't think the page is funny, the fact remains that it mentions no names. On the face of it, the worst I can say is that it's kinda ambiguous.  It may or may not be a personal attack.  My heart goes with CC, who has had a very trying time with Collect. (Haven't we all.) But my head says there's insufficient evidence to convict. However I'm open to persuasion and reversal. Am I missing something?  (Don't answer that.) Perhaps CC could point to hard evidence that the page is, as alleged, a chronicle of CC-Collect interactions?  — Writegeist (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to the two above keep opinions. Read the lines, and between the lines. This is an attack page directed at CC, no-names or not. Read the too-precious comments directed above by the page author toward the nom, on the lines of "well, do you think it describes you?" What other editors would it be about? What other significant interactions has this 1/2PA account had? What insight are they giving? All we've seen here is reference to CC and WP:GAMING, isn't that pretty clear? Oh yes, also the statement "The onus is on you to prove it should be deleted" - geez, shouldn't that be linked to WP:GAMING too?
 * Now, I would be normally be first in line to have a go at the way CC often behaves. (Well, 45th in line maybe, I feel no personal damage and I partly understand, but I strongly disagree with their sometimes relentless methods) But I'm even more strongly opposed to maintaining uspace pages containing attacks on other editors, no matter how well-disguised. The author has made no presentation to indicate the page is anything other than an attack. And there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, you have two inalienable rights: the right to leave; and the right to fork your own version. (Well, come to think of it, you also have the right to keep whatever you want on your own computer. Franamax (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I re-read User:Collect/z and compared it with the interactions between CC and C. (Jeez, Writegeist, get a life.) It can be read as a satire, and/or as a pseudo-handbook on WP:GAMING. Or as a pseudo-handbook, inspired by CC's interactions with C, that satirizes WP:GAMING . I favor the latter interpretation, which permits me to view the page as a piece of creative writing. So I'm still for keeping it. Now I'll shut up. — Writegeist (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comparison to a famous Carly Simon song. The idea that this is about any particular user is speculation, no actual users are named or even implied, and this behavior can describe a lot of different people on this site.  Had it not been brought up, I wouldn't have known about it at all, let alone any connection to anyone. As far as "reading between the lines" goes, here's what I see: Attack pages can be speedily deleted under criteria G10, but this has yet to be tagged as such...if this were so blatant and thinly veiled, why is this the case?  --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is an appropriate reflection of wikipedia to be a user essay.  Is sufficiently veiled.  Cumulus Clouds would be better advised to not advertise the page if he doesn't like it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty harsh to me. If someone feels they have been the target of a personal attack, we don't say 'don't advertise it if you don't like it'. We try to fix the problem, by removing the attack if necessary. This 'essay' is clearly causing problems, and lacks any practical value that I can see; what do we gain by keeping it? Terraxos (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone "feeling" a personal attack is a very different thing to a personal attack". When I read the page, I didn't get a feeling that it was directed at attacking a person, but instead saw some valid general points.  Overreacting to perceived slights makes things worse than ignoring them.  Censorship, even of individuals divisive opinions, is a bad thing.  Tolerance, on the other hand, breeds tolerance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I could swear I saw a page kinda like this at some point in the past but I can't think of what it was called. I'm not sure that keeping this page around is healthy, it does read somewhat like a veiled attack. I'm also not sure that deleting it is proper, because it is an attempt at a humorous essay and we do allow these, to a point. My desired outcome would be that Collect decides to remove it themselves as not being needed or in line with the spirit of collegial editing we strive for... perhaps salvaging whatever might be useful to this (mythical?) page I seem to remember... On balance I'd rather see this page gone. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you will like User:Collect/thoughts better? Collect (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it quite a bit better. There are some serious issues that we all should be working to address, as well as some novel ideas that merit further exploration and investigation, in that opinion piece. ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not add your ideas as well then? Collect (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. As a complete outsider, I came across the initial complaint about this page by chance at User talk:LessHeard vanU, and it seemed to me very much in the tradition of other such pieces, so I tagged it as the same. An outsider (such as I am) would not identify it with any particular individual(s), but with possible behaviour in general. I am rather surprised that anyone would want to state that they think it is directed at them and based on their behaviour (slightly worrying)! Such satirical pages have a positive role in pointing out behaviour that is not acceptable.  Ty  23:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no idea who this is directed at, but it strikes me as extremely hostile, not funny, and not in keeping at all with the spirit of assume good faith. This is clearly an attempt at a subtle personal attack and harassment of a particular editor, and the fact that that editor isn't named doesn't change that. It isn't making any positive contribution to the encyclopaedia, and is clearly causing disruption judging from some of the negative reactions above. I strongly suggest deletion, and warning the user that 'grudge pages' like this are not acceptable. Terraxos (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you also would prefer to see User:Collect/thoughts ... and add your 2 cents there . Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a wonderful satire of the politics that wiki does not have. If anyone feels this is pointed at them... well, that list could be quite long, as that "game" has been playing out across wiki for a long time. Even those who have never "played the game" may well have watched it being played out over and over in debates and discussions... between editors and even between admins. We're human, after all. It happens. Its sad. But it's life on wiki. In assuming good faith, one should be able to step back and say to oneself, "what can I do to not play that game". It gives a tongue-in-cheek ironic peek at what can often look like a rancorous debate in discussions. Step back. Gain perspective. Say to youself, "Could someone have thought I was acting this way?" Humour can be a great tool for education on self. With respects to Cumulus Clouds, this is more of a water ballon being tossed into a crowd, than a sniper rifle pointed at your head. It's aimed at behaviors all across wiki. If it were to have been "discovered" next month or next year by someone else involved in a "spirited" debate, they might then feel it pointed at themselves. Perhaps the purpose here is that it is exists as an allegory directed at anyone and everyone who became a bit heated in a dispute. It can be seen as a lesson we can all take to heart so as to perhaps better ourselves and temper our discussions. If even one editor restrains himself while "in the thick of battle" becase of this "game", then wiki is improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment - WP:NOTWEBHOST requires a showing as to why a humorous page is justified in the location in which it resides. There does not appear to be a justification in User page for this particular humorous page having its particular brand of humor to be in User:Collect/z. If I missed something and the justification subsequently is listed in this MfD and based on User page, then keep. Otherwise, delete. -- Suntag  ☼  08:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTWEBHOST: Did you miss "Humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however."?  Ty  09:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick search finds many humorous articles on WP dealing with WP -- vide Adminitis and a raft of others. Many are, in fact, far more acerbic than the case in point. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Click here for starters.  Ty  13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While humorous pages can be maintained in User namespace, that still does not establish that this particular humorous page having its particular brand of humor is justified by User page. Arguing What about article x? is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. I don't give much weight to the keep assertion that this page has no serious use. Its message is clear and this thinly veiled user page should be refocused from attempting to be a humorous page to be an essay that reflects the beliefs of a limited number of editors similar to User:Collect/thoughts. As it now reads, it should be deleted as not meeting User page. I revised my !vote above to reflect this. -- Suntag  ☼  18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, this is a serious user page. It is wikipedia-criticism, and is debatably constructive.  Although it is satirical, which is considered a form of humour, I think that it should not be considered, or tagged, as attempted humour.  I do not see why it fails WP:UP.  Suntag, could you be specific?  If it is a borderline breach of something, User:Collect should be directed to fix the problems himself in the first instance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if anyone has a specific edit they would like to see, ask. So far no one has. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.