Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)




 * 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  delete. I realize that this may be contentious, but regardless of whether or not it is marked as a joke, the information contained within is accurate, and there is no positive way in which that information can be used. Though we give fairly broad leeway for humorous content in userspace, the potential for misuse and WP:BEANS trumps any issues of userspace sanctity. I am always open for deletion review, however. GJC 05:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)
Clearly not appropriate, and in no way helps to build an encyclopedia. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 08:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally fails WP:UP, and per WP:DENY page is extremely counter productive and harmful to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as humour. And precedent allows humourous pages in userspace.   As for "building an encyslopedia" - it does, by presenting a way to not take ourselves so dang seriously all the time.  Clearly WP-related, to be sure.  Collect (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. How can that be considered constructive rather than disruptive? I can see how some pages such as WP:Go ahead, vandalize would get kept, but this is disruptive due to its how-to-vandalize tone/nature and the fact that (until I nominated them for deletion) it contained templates to actually use in vandalizing. In fact, there is currently a discussion ongoing about the final template's deletion at Templates for discussion. IMO, this page is not constructive in any way.Ks0stm (T•C•G) 12:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough, I regard "it's a joke" to be an indication that it is intended as a joke. Nor any indication that any templates were used in any improper manner.  And for some reason, I associate "joke" with "humour."   It may just be me, of course. Collect (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of jokes are inappropriate, and this page is one of them. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally innapropriate, and it encourages vandalism. No help to Wikipedia at all. Plus, the other humour pages I've seen, like WP:Go ahead, vandalize make it clear that it is NOT a good idea to vandalize, they just do it in a humourous way. HaiyaTheWin (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure the editor in question really gets what we are doing here. Edits thus far haven't been particularly constructive. Gigs (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Aaaaagghhhhhh. I can handle regular articles I created being deleted, but infringing on my userspace?! Absolutely not! That's the only place I can make my own pages that are humorous and whatnot and not have them deleted!!! TheGreenMartian (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I understand that you created the page for humour, I would like to note that an editor's userspace does not belong to (i.e., is not under the exclusive jurisdiction of) that editor and that pages in userspace "should be used as part of ... efforts to contribute to the project", and while humorous pages in userspace are sometimes acceptable, vandalism is a particularly sensitive issue. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 03:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added tons of notices that the page is clearly a joke if the title wasn't enough. TheGreenMartian (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! You didn't tell me you wanted my page completely annihilated on my talk page but these guidelines say you should. Deletion guidelines for user pages
 * You were notified of this MfD here at 08:36, 21 December 2009 (same time as the above nomination). Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A seemingly automated notification is different than actually posting on my talk page. I should probably remove the deletion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenMartian (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 December 2009
 * I would highly recommend against that...or you would have another notice on your talk page, more specifically . Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed the tag, but I did make a parody of it in my userspace and place it below the original tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenMartian (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 December 2009
 * GreenMartian, try to remember that the main point of being here is to build an encyclopedia. A little humor is fine, but Wikipedia isn't a game or a webhost.  Gigs (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BEANS. Whether intentional or not, this could be viewed as a vandal's manual, documenting various techniques and showing which are most likely to cause irreparable damage. We don't need that. If its only purpose is a joke, and it could potentially be harmful, it should be deleted. Equazcion  ( talk ) 12:46, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but mark as humour and as an essay, plus clean up in order to avoid WP:BEANS. Look, it's partly funny, and we have a lot worse allowed on Wikipedia. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest cleaning it up to avoid BEANS? As far as I can tell, the entire page is fundamentally BEANSy. Unless the page is basically blanked it would still be that way. Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:12, 24 Dec 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - First, it's a joke. Second, it does not contradict WP:UP at all. It's a joke.  Naluboutes,Nalubotes Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris  18:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak Keep and mark with humor. It's Wikipedia related, and it's in the userspace, no need to censor peoples' userspace except to enforce policies such as WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:Attack page. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just want to address all the "it's a joke" comments: Marking something bad as "a joke" doesn't make it okay. If someone makes an attack page (for example) and marks it as humor, that doesn't suddenly absolve it of any violation. Secondly, and more importantly, despite the intention, the page contains real information, not "joke" information. When you advertise actual methods for damaging something, saying "just kidding" doesn't negate the harm done. You've still advertised information that could help someone inclined to cause damage. Equazcion  ( talk ) 01:56, 2 Jan 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it's very immature. It is indeed promoting vandalism to a certain extent. However, as far as promoting malicious activity, it's not much worse than a particular page in someone's userspace I once read title "RfA for fun and profit" or something to that effect. I'm not big on the censorship of userspace. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the two remotely compare with each other. The possibility that someone could get the idea to post a bad-faith RfA nomination is not only low but the damage it would cause would be minuscule; it would affect a single page that has continuous high attention, and would quickly and easily be taken care of. This on the other hand provides instructions for contributing to an already-overwhelming problem across the entire encyclopedia. Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:58, 2 Jan 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Pages that provide ideas to vandals about the most "destructive" forms of vandalism (User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)) do not belong on Wikipedia. This "joke" page does not improve the wiki. While some may find it very humorous, the negatives (teaching vandals malicious forms of harming Wikipedia) far outweigh the positives (giving people a laugh). Cunard (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry about this. I really am. I thought it was pretty funny and all, but it's giving people ideas. It gave me a few ideas. The thing is, I won't take the advice, whereas a vandla will. Marking it as a joke is very unlikely to change a vandal's opinion. Sorry, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  16:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This page clearly violates WP:DENY. Th e T hi ng  Ed it or Rev iew 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, it's funny, but it is also far too instructive. WP:BEANS and WP:DENY are essays, not guidelines, so I won't say this page "violates" them, but they do give cogent explanations of why a page like this is a bad idea. --RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (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.