Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:How to vandalize proficiently

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How to vandalize proficiently


This may be labeled as "homourous" but it advocates vandalism, sockpuppetry, and actually does a fair job of explaining how one could get away with it. This is beyond inappropriate, in my opinion. A how-to guide on vandalizing is something I would expect on Unencyclopedia. Here we work so hard, endlessly, to fight vandalism, so something like this sort of verges on WP:BEANS in that it could backfire and encourage readers to engage in these tactics. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  15:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- KTC (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, well summed up argument. And not really funny anyway. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion either way. On the one hand you have a fair point per WP:BEANS, but other the other in no way do I advocate vandalism (I created the page as a parody of the modus operandi of the vandals I reverted) and the information presented is pretty much readily available or deducible to anyone. benzband  ( talk ) 15:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy. I have to admit the section about defense looks eerily like what I've seen myself, and could serve as a bit of useful instruction for editors who haven't encountered really dedicated vandals before. If you threw in some really over-the-top quotations from some previous vandals, and basically just went a bit more over-the-top regarding the language in general, the page could be more fun and informative. Particularly if it were more clearly written as a set of instructions from a vandal. Randy from Boise, or do you mean User:Carrite(?), might, of course, disagree with you calling him a vandal, but I think he might have a weird enough sense of humor to help if you asked. I could try to add a little too. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:BEANS. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not particularly problematic, and it's not a BEANS issue, since the vandal who finds this page is already familiar enough with the website that he doesn't need help. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you Google "how to vandalize wikipedia" this page is the first result &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  18:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom.-- 3 of &diams; I gofirst 20:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom and most recent comment by --JustBerry (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per BEANS. --189.106.237.219 (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing "humourous" about it whatsoever ... it's just ridiculous and rather bloody childish!. – Davey 2010 Talk 05:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – Entirely contrary to Wikipedia's goals of building an encyclopedia. North America1000 12:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Loath to delete something that is a satirical essay related to Wikipedia. ... The educational merits are not jumping out at me yet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and User:Northamerica1000. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:13, 30 September 2015 (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.