Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion


 * 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 Speedy keep. There is obvious consensus to keep the page. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion
This seems to be just asking for WP:NPA problems, while I understand humor pages, this isn't so much a humor page, as a humor project. And this isn't the site for humor projects, this is the site to build an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Considering that, and that this could easily become a problem, with no benefit, I don't think it is something to make any exceptions for. Prodego talk  03:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:MYSPACE and has have NPA problems in the past. To see what I'm talking about, please go here. Also I don't see that it's fair for people being banned from it (other than to prevent disruption and excess myspacing) but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. BoL (Talk) 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not anyone, no. How could users be banned, in that case? Also, I don't see violations of NPA at the link you provided.  Enigma  message 04:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion/Prohibited users and does the word "your mother" come to mind? That makes it an attack. BoL (Talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As can be seen, just about everyone who comments there knows what the intent is. It's pretty clear. Wikipedia is not myspace, but we have historically given a lot of leeway to these kinds of things in userspace.  Enigma  message 04:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - If there's no humor on this project, what's to keep people here throughout all the drama? --Coffee //  talk  //  ark  // 04:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called the department of fun. BoL (Talk) 04:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And IRC. BoL (Talk) 04:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BoL don't cite the "dept of fun" and IRC as reasons why this shouldn't exist, when you know you're asking for it to be deleted just because you're not allowed to edit it. --Coffee //  talk  //  ark  // 04:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not because of that. Sure there should be humor, but what kind of humor is that? Attacking other editors is humor? BoL (Talk) 04:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has actually been attacked on EFD. Maybe you misunderstood what someone said on that page? --Coffee //  talk  //  ark  // 05:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - BoL contributed to the deletion of the original EFD. The disruption he caused with his previous account is what has lead to his current restriction from posting to it. And he has also complained in IRC in the past day or so about being restricted from editing the page, feeling that it was unfair, so it's a bit confusing that he would now be arguing against it, considering how badly he wanted to participate just hours ago. As far as NPA violations, that has not been an issue with this version, which has been in place for somewhere close to a year. It has caused no harm, and those with a sense of humor appreciate it for what it is. It's also not a humor project, and there's nothing to support that claim. It's a subpage that almost anyone is free to post to. There's no collaboration or anything even remotely related. It's also not even advertised. It's just there. Jennavecia  (Talk)  04:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The MFD for the previous version of this page was a unanimous keep. User:Jennavecia and I have put a lot of effort into making EFD a fun environment without any feelings actually being hurt, and not taking up an excessive amount of time. That is precisely why there is a banned users list; anyone familiar with the previous incarnation is well aware that a couple users, including BoL, spent far too much time on the page, nominating each other and unfortunately killing the atmosphere of the page when they should have been working on building an encyclopedia. As Jennavecia mentioned, the prohibited list is very small, and all the users listed are there in order to prevent excessive Myspace-ing. Glass  Cobra  04:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The admin who deletes this page might as well delete WP:LAME and all the other pages that have that big freaking purple box on them.  This is not an attack page, but rather a place where people can discuss thoughts of deletion without actually frivolously nominating for MfD or AfD. Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Solution looking for problem.  MBisanz  talk 09:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily the funniest thing I've seen for weeks.  Seriously: Don't go deleting things due to hypothetical future problems.  Benefit is showing that humans behind the pseudonyms.  Relates to wikipedia so WP:MYSPACE doesn't apply.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the page in question clearly exists. EJF (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Absolutely no reason to delete. Let Wikipedians have their fun. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless fun. I'm sure GlassCobra would swiftly delete anything that crossed the line into PA territory. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep one of the reasons I decided not to quit, because I can have fun on here, and I know that many users strongly enjoy this. Nothing else matters // Fi  nns  18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This page - this little tiny speck on the corner of Wikipedia - is one of the things that keeps it interesting for the very few editors who maintain it. No harm is being done, and the MYSPACE cites don't apply; no promotion is being done here and no solicitation of "oh, come see me on the EfD page" is being spammed out to the search engines...no reason to delete, every reason to keep. Frank  |  talk  18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, and proposal. Rename to User:GlassCobra/Editors for deletion per AfD. Keep, per all of the above -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 21:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks like it has a small history, and I can see that there are a lot of editors here (who edit to the page no less) who would not like to see it be deleted (whats that, a third time? anyway..). I don't think deletion is the answer, nor do I think the rationale to delete as NPA is appropriate. The best solution is to tag as historical and walk away from it. Humor, I've learned recently is purely subjective (so not every wikipedian will find it funny, poot) and this page is wasting a small portion of time. Sure it was funny, you had some laughs but (and I'll be the only one to say it I'm sure) go back to building the encyclopedia already.  Syn ''' ergy 05:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is using up a very small portion of time, and is frequented by editors who spend all the rest of their time fighting vandals and writing articles. You would be hard pressed indeed to make the claim that EFD is causing good editors to focus less on building this project. There is no need to tag as historical. Glass  Cobra  05:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a silly thing to argue over, so I'll make this short. The concept was spectacular, I loved it. But it sets the wrong precedent, the reasons why we're here. Humor pages only last so long (another great laugh I enjoyed, now archived) and when it gets old it gets old. I realize I'll be the minority view here, and thats ok with me.  Syn  ergy 06:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll support any notion to dock the wages of editors found wasting time.
 * This is not just simple humour. It is an exercise of collective self-reflection on wikipedians and their approach to internal administrative matters.  As such, it is a valuable learning tool.  Things learnt will be far from obvious.  Deleting or otherwise shutting down such a page would be an exercise of narrow-mindedness.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * .....  Syn  ergy 10:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very Dian Fossey and all that, but I think you may perhaps be reading too much into it. It isn't a Gorillas in the Mist thing, it is almost always simple humor. So I agree that it should stay, but I don't think anyone should be going to that page to study our gorillas in that mist. Mike H. Fierce! 10:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your analogy. However, I wasn’t looking at it as a place to study a few wikipedians.  It is a parody of XfD and RCF/U.  It is an interesting alternative perspective on processes that can sometimes be taken too seriously.  Given that XfD and RCF/U are problem areas, a little reflective exercise by way of parody, on the whole is probably a good thing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see that. I don't think it's the primary focus but I think everyone can see the other stuff if they choose to look that way. Mike H. Fierce! 11:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep until my deletion goes through. Seriously, this is silly - NPA accusations are negated by pretty much the entire page which makes it clear that it's not. JuJube (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Lolwhut? The editors being nominated clearly don't mind, because if they did, they could remove their nominations freely. If you don't like the idea of ending up there yourself, you're alright, because you're on the "Users you can't nominate list" by virtue of being "banned" from editing there. If you have any other accounts you'd rather not see there, simply add them to the opt out list... Chaotic  Reality  11:35, 30 August 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.