Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CyberAnth/HOS Essay


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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. --Core desat 07:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth/HOS Essay
A "hall of shame" is, in my opinion, not a good idea, especially when the comments quoted were made in good faith. I admit some degree of bias due to being used as an example, but I'm pretty sure that this is still a bad idea. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete-Seems well intended to make some fair points, but quoting good faith remarks in this fashion seems a bad idea, and almost a sort of attack.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete True. Some people might get offended. Best to get rid of that part. - Zachary crimson  wolf  06:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete People could get offended by this.--James, La gloria è a dio 10:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fyre2387-&mdash; arf! 11:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if it stays in the present "snark" form. A casual reading shows that there's material here which could be presented neutrally, but in its present form it's calculated to offend. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and provide a big bold link to it from the user's homepage. It's certainly informed my opinion of CyberAnth.  Seriously, though, it's an opinion piece in userspace about the project.  I think it's within our consensus as to what can be in userspace, and it is talking about the encyclopedia we're building.  I disagree with a lot of it, but I think it should stay.  --Ssbohio 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be statements about the project in it, and I have no issue with having a page that just consists of those. But this is primarily a hall of shame (as evidenced by the title), which is about specific edits, not the project as a whole. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Man up and stop acting "offended". If you don't like the idea of it, don't go there.--WaltCip 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ironically, with a new name and some cleaning up, this would actually make a good Wikipedia space essay (but still be inappropriate for user space). -N 20:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fully legitimate criticism of Wikipedia that fairly characterizes the mob-faith amateurism of some users. The page could be greatly expanded into a very useful essay to provide a nice mirror for Wikipedians into themselves, and to therefore help avoid the sorts of problems it clearly depicts.  I find it telling that the nominator, User:Amarkov, characterized his own edit summary "removed worthless crap", stated to Jimbo's reproof of him as a "good faith" comment.  You're kidding right?  I will definitely not AGF of him, the nominator, given such blatant proof otherwise. A "Hall of Shame" to shame Wikipedians who deserve it = accountability of all Wikipedians.  If User:Amarkov does not like that he is named there, than let him take it as a lesson for acting stupidly that will instruct him better in the future.  Honestly, is there any wonder at all why some Wikipedians would want to rebuff this sort ot accountability and kill an essay draft while still in the nest? CyberAnth 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: We already have methods of enforcing accountability.  This is something that you have put together as a more permanent record of the mistakes that your colleagues make to embarrass them.  I don't see how at all another record of others mistakes is very helpful to keep around.  Problem users should be brought for mediation, RFC, blocks/bans, etc.  If you want to embarrass the other volunteers working on this project, you should do that in one of those forums, on your blog or somewhere other than user space.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, I never actually did that. You are thinking of someone else. -Amarkov moo! 23:17, 12 June 2007 (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.