Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MZMcBride/Going rogue


 * 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.

User:MZMcBride/Going rogue
Instructions on how best to disrupt Wikipedia are not an acceptable use of your userspace. Prodego talk  00:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Keep. Really. This is a joke. This is not detrimental to the project in any way, shape or form. Jonathan321 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Epic fail doesn't even start to touch on the damage that can be done with JavaScript, not to mention what you could do with !. BJ Talk 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL  Syn  ergy 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)  !Vote struck in light of explanations on how damaging this actually is. Sorry folks, not a tech guy.
 * Keep: "While not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating." I'm quite disappointed that Prodego willingly skipped this step. As for the specific page, the only thing that does real harm is advertising it to the world via MfD.... --MZMcBride (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The page was obviously not created in good faith
 * This discussion is about the page. If the page did not exist, neither would this discussion
 * I know for a fact you were aware of the MfD, as I posted the link to it on IRC, and you immediately responded, asking how long it had been since you created the page to the MfD.
 * You are being very disruptive for no reason. There isn't even a point. Prodego  talk  01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two comments: (1) WP:D. Lulz. (2) zomg IRC. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, seemingly bad-faith creation, though I won't suppose to understand the reason for its creation. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't really have a point. Not really appropriately humorous. Rather, it has the potential to be disruptive as Prodego has noted. cmelbye (t/c) 01:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This becomes a question of why? MZMcBride, I've hardly interacted with you, but if I were an admin and didn't know your previous history of editing, at first spot I would have the suggestion that you were turning into a vandal and would watch your actions very closely. I've seen humorous pages before but this seriously is not humorous or appropriate. I'm almost positive if I were an admin, I would speedy delete this if I could find grounds to do so. I suggest you go ahead and remove the contents of the page MZMcBride.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 01:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everybody is missing the point of the page. Everything listed on the page is a security vulnerability that should be fixed. In MZMcBride's typical fashion this is a humorous attempt at full disclosure. Deleting it is just burying our heads in the sand. BJ Talk 02:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, report the bugs on Bugzilla, where they'll actually be looked at by people that can fix them. cmelbye (t/c) 02:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BJ:I get that. In fact its what I thought this page was for in the first place. But from what I understand, irrevocable harm can be done with one of these methods (like, hello, bye bye wiki) and thats not something I knew before finding this.  Syn  ergy 02:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only irrevocable thing you could do would be to distribute viruses etc. The DB itself would still be there. Prodego  talk  02:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which brings me back to my stricken !vote comment (the I'm not a tech guy part).  Syn  ergy 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Tznkai (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (mainly as per BJ). Currently totally harmless. If you have an admin password you could do stuff that's a lot uglier. Could evolve into a security essay, or into humour, and I assume that's how it was intended. --Pgallert (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but mark The material is not utile to anyone without an admin login, so is unlikely to cause vandalism.  I did not read this page as encouraging vandalism but as showing concern for some admin powers which the user feels may be abused.  If it is, inded, an essay on some admin powers which the user feels should be kept under closer control, then that is a legitimate userspace essay.  Especially since it is not even a day old.  Express your concerns to the author, but deletion at the start does not make sense. Collect (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete To much like putting a sign on your front door with instructions on how to break into the house. Common Sense says delete. (but wait til I get a copy ... LOL)Ched (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The title and the way these things are worded suggest they were intended for use rather than to address the issues listed. If MZMcBride wants the issues addressed, he can dig up the info from the deleted page history and submit them to bugzilla without leaving the sign inviting vandals or rogue admins to try these acts lying around. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Security through obscurity is bad. We should fix these issues not simply delete the page. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete What the...? I can't believe an admin had this disruptive info in a subpage. And no joking. —macyes: bot 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think we trust administrators not to do this stuff. Pointing out that it can be done, though it violates the spirit of WP:BEANS, is allowed. Crystal whacker (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Though any user can think of this on their own, having a copy to refer to for ideas might not be the best idea. Poetlister anyone? I'd even prefer a deletion via oversight for this, though I do know that is probably impossible. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BEANS. If these are security vulnerabilities then put it in an appropriate technical discussion page.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. At first, I thought it was sort of a joking "What not to do" guide for admins, but the creator's reply (merely a complaint about not being notified) and complete lack of defense on these grounds worries me. Both sides have valid kee/delete reasons, but I'm more curious as to whether there's something deeper here.  I particularly want to know MZMcBride's intent. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sure, I understand this is a joke, but that's not how it would seem to everyone. Just like a "Don't press this button or you will crash Wikipedia" sign.  C h a m a l  talk 05:09, 24 January 2009 (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.