Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia
Page name is self-explanatory. Priors: 1. AfD, closed as Keep; 2. MfD, closed as Merge; 3. DRV, closed as Overturn and relist. Here is the relist. Please consider prior discussions before contributing. Nomination is procedural, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same opinion as last time, for the same reasons. And if you haven't read the previous discussion, you shouldn't leave an opinion here until you have. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per mindspillage --Docg 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What mindspillage said. --Rory096 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above. ~ Arjun  02:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to various pages. --- RockMFR 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as I said on the MFD... if it was just a list of random vandals like WoW and such i'd be pro deletion... but it isnt... We're talking media people with actual public influence behind them. Large public pushes to vandalise, and/or motivate their following to vandalize (ala Stephen Colbert) need to be recorded somewhere... this article does that.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Alkivar. Jor co ga  Hi! 09:10, Monday, January 29 2007
 * Either keep or merge based on what ALKIVAR said. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DENY and WP:BLP.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are saying when you reference WP:BLP... could you explain further? There doesn't seem to be anything in this policy that relates directly to this article... As for WP:DENY, I'll not say much but WP:EANP and also wish to strongly note that this essay doesn't reflect my opinion, or even a significant section of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete serves no useful purpose. I note one of the above saying this "needs" to be recorded somewhere (Doesn't specify why it's needed) but I disagree, I can't see any useful value in this and as per last time around the risk (no matter how small you believe it is) that others will just copycat these outweights that zero benefit. --pgk 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless page. Nothing I can find anything useful here, just a bunch of trivial stuff because some well known media personalities come and vandalise Wikipedia. So what? Terence Ong 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Prominent vandals deserve no more recognition than non-prominent ones. Charon X /talk 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found the page interesting and unharmful. Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * procedural keep In my opinion renomination is almost never warranted, I remember the first discussion wasn't so long ago. Wikipedia process is not the place to try to hammer through things by endless relists.  Sure this is only the second time, but we've seen 3rd, 4th and even 6th renominations lately.  Consensus spoke then, let it stand. Wintermut3 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge  - I don't want to see this deleted without something being decided on how best to record the information. I still think some form of record at the Wikipedia in the media pages is best, but following the merge discussion (here) I do now realise that splitting the items up amongst those pages loses the essential character of the existing page. Seeing how my last suggestion went, I'm actually hesitant to throw another idea up, but I think part of the problem is with the word 'vandalised' in the title. That puts too much focus on vandalism. A more balanced approach would be to document incidents where someone has written/blogged/broadcast about their editing of Wikipedia, both in a positive way (I can dig up some examples of that if Ta bu shi da yu would like to see them - they are fairly easy to find once you start going through the 'WP in the media' pages), and in a negative way (what the article currently focuses on). This would balance the article out, and actually serve to contrast the different ways journalists have responded to Wikipedia by editing Wikipedia in different ways. In light of these points I have just put forth, I suggest an expansion and move to Editing of Wikipedia by the media. Essentially, this is a keep, with a sort-of-promise that I'll try and help improve the article to make it more balanced, and less about vandalism, (hopefully this will satisfy the "deny vandalism the oxygen of publicity" !voters). On a more general point, what this sort of article essentially does is gather similar of-a-kind examples from the 'WP in the media' lists, and brings them together to make an overview list/article about related stories. This one happens to focus on vandalism, but there is much more that could and should be said to make the story balanced. Vandalism is not the only editing of Wikipedia that should be written about. In fact, I like this idea so much that I really want to carry out this move and start expanding the existing article to be more balanced. If I did this, would that be a gross contravention of MfD etiquette? and/or something that Ta bu shi da yu would blow a fuse about? I know WP:OWN makes it clear I don't need to defer to Ta bu shi da yu, but I am being polite and cautious here. Carcharoth 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying that you don't have to defer to me (since when have I ever said that you had to? Just because I argue robustly doesn't mean that I want you to defer to me) and that I'm about to blow a fuse is an interesting take of being polite to me. I would also like to point out that you don't have to dig out good media references from WP:PRESS, as if you look at the history of that page you'll notice I was almost the sole maintainer of it for a 6 month period. However, I heartily agree with your move suggestion. I happen to think that it's a very good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the 'blowing a fuse' bit. I'm glad you like the idea of moving and expanding the page. The only question now is what the closing admin will think of this idea. I guess if it is deleted, you can always ask if you can userfy it and work on this idea before returning it to Wikipedia namespace under this new name and with the new content. If it is kept, I'll be straight in there to move it! :-) Carcharoth 10:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's OK. You'll see no objection from me if you move the page, but others may, so it might be worthwhile taking it to WP:RPM before you do that... - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is interesting enough and useful - and it is sourced. There is no harm in keeping it. Baristarim 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge according to the previous MfD. Somehow, this page does not sit well with me.  Others have raised WP:DENY, and I don't think it's a good idea to have a page devoted to famous vandals of Wikipedia.  I also think we shouldn't be so self-important to think that vandalism against Wikipedia is really important; as opposed to the Siegenthaler controversy, which was important.  The POV in the first paragraph of the article is also problematic, and is echoed the whole way through.  I see why y'all are voting to keep, but I'm going to disagree. YechielMan 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and DON'T merge - though some have said that it attracts vandalism, I disagree. What mostly happens is that copycats find out about the vandalism through the media itself... as it is the media, it's hardly likely that vandals will be looking to copycat due to this article! And let's think about it: what is the likelihood that a media personality will vandalise Wikipedia just to be on the list? I doubt that will happen. As for reasons as to why it's valuable: the best reason is that it shows great examples how the Fourth Estate deals with new and emerging media, such as Wikipedia. It also helps show that traditional media is not always as respectable as is made out by... well... the media :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I think that Carcharoth is on to something (I still don't agree with a merge). I think that moving to Editing of Wikipedia by the media and expanding the articles scope wouldn't hurt, and wouldn't remove the important bit about vandalism. Perhaps this might be the best way forward. Changing to keep and move to Editing of Wikipedia by the media.- Ta bu shi da yu 08:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (merge/rename distant second). Let's try to apply the policies we normally apply to articles, although this time in "meta" space:
 * WP:V. No problem, obviously.
 * WP:NPOV. I don't see any.
 * WP:N. Well, I guess the "meta" criteria apply: many of the events were covered in Signpost; it is an interesting piece of Wikipedia history.
 * Is it useful? Maybe; no; only just.
 * Is it harmful? I fail to see how WP:DENY (to which I, frankly, have certain reservations, especially when people treat it like Bible) applies. What, that page would supposedly cause a bunch of celebrities to say "ZOMG! c00l! Gotta get to that list and vandalize t3h w00kiep3dia! Elephant penis! I like cheese!"? Sorry, I don't buy that argument. Duja ► 08:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to go down that path, then try WP:RS to go with WP:V and WP:ASR. But I think you miss the point, a bunch of celebrities on seeing this are unlikely to follow suit, a bunch of weak willed kids are however likely to imitate their favourite celrbrity, witness the Colbert related vandalism of the last few hours.--pgk 09:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant to imply that WP:RS (guideline) is under WP:V (policy). WP:ASR obviously has no sense in Wikipedia: namespace. Re your other point, I admit it has merits, but it seems that Colbert on Wheels! is doing a good job with or without this article. Duja ► 10:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well not to labour it too much, "with or without this article." - well clearly it is with this article rather than without (Though I agree some (even much) of the vandalism will not be impacted by the presence or otherwise of this). As for WP:ASR, yep it generally applies to mainspace and indeed is aimed at that, that doesn't mean we should shut our eyes and ignore any pertinent rationale in any other discussion (wikipedia is not a bureacracy a reasonable rationale is a reasonable rationale with or without a little tag saying "policy" on it, (Of course a policy directly contradicting something holds a fair weight)), but it was more in direct response to "Let's try to apply the policies we normally apply to articles". You say WP:RS applies through WP:V, but the you use signpost for WP:N, signpost definitely fails WP:RS. Anyhow already said more than I intended so I'll shut up now. --pgk 11:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify before I shut up too: the page already has multiple external WP:RS. I mentioned Signpost as the argument that the events are notable within Wikipedia, thus the page is of interest within wikipedia namespace, not among articles (where WP:ASR would come into force). In the end, it boils down to the debate "is this page harmful?". Me say no. Others say yes. But then, we're entering the WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT domain. Duja ► 12:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As Signpost editor-in-chief, I'd like to say that I personally don't consider the Signpost a reliable source (while it's perfectly fine for noting that something happened, it should not be used as a primary source, even in Wikipedia space). Most of the Signpost is, by design, original research.  Ral315 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I may have started the signpost arguments. My partiticular argument is that we would need to apply WP:DENY when our wikijournalists write the newsletter, and therefore exclude talking about incidents where the media vandalised the project. After all, Signpost has reported on these incidents before. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is interesting and notable. A mere reader, not a Wikipedian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.33 (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge per Mindspillage. --bainer (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also support renaming per Ta bu shi da yu's suggestion above. --bainer (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Historical record, and a chronicle of an increasingly common trend. - rernst 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DENY, but if not deleted, Keep over merge. -Amark moo! 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:DENY taken as a reason to delete this is just silly, IMHO. Does anyone seriously think that the existence of this page will lead to a noticeable increase in vandalism? I also don't think that we're making vandalism into a "big deal" in any way by keeping this. Otherwise, what stops us from deleting WP:BJADON for the same reason? To me, this is just an interesting, harmless little page that shows the growing media attention Wikipedia gets. I wouldn't mind a move to a more neutral name like Editing of Wikipedia by the media, tho, so we can get rid of the "vandalised". --Conti|&#9993; 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think anyone's made a good case for the deletion of this page, either at the previous deletion debate or the deletion review. The page is harmless. No opposition to moving, merging, or otherwise editing the material. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep . It is not in anyway a violation of any legal codes that I know of. It is definitely an historical database of how noted persons are responding to a rather amazing phenomenon. Who would want to lose it? In fifty years people will be amazed at what they read here. Malangthon 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Crikey, It's in the WP namespace already. As to wp:deny, does anyone think that media personalities give a rats loogie what coverage WE give THEM?  HA! Good one! SchmuckyTheCat 08:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Conti's comparison to WP:BJADON. The arguments based on WP:DENY are weak imo: this is not really about glorifying the cleverness of media personalities who have vandalized Wikipedia, it's rather a potentially useful page on the history of Wikipedia and how its relationship with mainstream media evolves. Pascal.Tesson 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:DENY. Celebrity status does not merit Wikipedia recognizing a particular user's vandalism solely because of that status. Vandalism is vandalism. --Core desat  04:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give a more detailed argument than just referring to WP:DENY? I know that many people have said that either it's silly to quote it in this instance, or they disagree with it entirely. How do you respond to their concerns? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that ordinary people see the media doing this and think it is OK for them to do it. That is not the message we should be sending, or at least it should be balanced with a "look, the media have also edited Wikipedia in a responsible and positive way" message as well. Carcharoth 09:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. --Core desat  22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that makes no sense. They see the media doing vandalism... from the media! Not from a page on Wikipedia. Can anyone give proof that any vandals have vandalised Wikipedia directly due to what the media do? I'd be interested where people are getting their conclusions from. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not a very useful page, and it's not well written at all. It hardly deserves to be in project space, either. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Kat. Ral315 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 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.