Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term bad faith goal

 __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:  Userfied. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long term bad faith goal

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is saying that if you don't slink away in defeat when your first article is deleted but instead stick around and try to learn the ropes, you are acting in bad faith forever. No, just no. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep — The essay which could be re-worded and not deleted is essentially saying, certain UPE editors may try and create an article at first and when it gets deleted, they could learn the ropes in for the single purpose of recreating the (given) UPE article. Celestina007 (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * why not reword it right now, and then we can look at it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We get so very many clueless new people every single day that misunderstand what Wikipedia is and want to use it to promote something. Some just keep spamming until they get blocked, some realize they are in the wrong place and leave, and a few of them actually try to understand what the problem is and correct it. That's good faith, not bad. That they make other edits that are compliant with policy is also a good thing. The whole premise is flawed. Reformed spammers and vandals are a real thing, they are not all deviously plotting to destroy Wikipedia by laying low for a couple years, only to spring their trap when the time is right. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, @, my attention is currently greatly split. I respect Beeblerox and if they had shared any concerns with me on my tp(they aren’t of course mandated to) about the essay I would have had a chance to dialogue with them and explain my thought process and if they still felt it was off, I would have G7’ed just based on the respect I have for them. I’m in the process of permanently destabilizing a UPE cartel so I may not post here for a while.
 * Having said all of my essays are born out of experience and what triggered this very one is the editor who spent 14 years in order to create an autobiography Allwell Uwazuruike, they indeed played a fast one on me as I was fooled into accepting the article at AFC, I was relatively still new at anti-spam so I didn’t catch the obvious signs in time, an error on my part that still haunts me. @, Indeed I do see now how I need to reword the essay, basically my premise and thought process behind the essay is certain editors are willing to stay here long enough and may do certain good works but in the end are aiming for a bad faith goal. In the aforementioned example the editor made 11 more edits after the article was accepted and it was goodbye, as their primary goal had been achieved & that’s apparently all they wanted. I’m sorry if this sounds hasty but I’m currently juggling a whole lot. Thank you all for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And I respect that you are coming from a place of genuinely trying to protect the integrity of this project from unscrupulous people. UPE is one of the biggest problems facing this project and detecting and stopping it is vitally important work, and I'm more than certain DGG sees it that way as well. . As you might have guessed, I became aware of this because you cited two of your essays at ANI as part of your argument that another user is WP:NOTHERE, so I clicked on them both to see what they were about since I'd never heard of them before. I was rather taken aback by both of them as they are quite strident in tone and seem to oversimplify/overstate the situation with spammers and sockpuppets. I have cited my own essays at ANI myself, specifically WP:RADAR, as a rationale for blocking someone, but the reason I wrote that essay was because I had seen this exact same behavior dozens and dozens of times, and even then I was sure to state that it is something that is not necessarily the result of malice. This essay, title and all, assumes bad faith to a degree I don't think is acceptable in project space. Some users prefer to keep such things in their user space, making it clear it represents their own opinion and they wish to control its content. If that's how you feel about this one it can just be moved to your userspace and we can close up here. If not I still feel it should be deleted.  Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's possible to be very rigorous in stopping UPE--and you have been doing truly excellent  work there, without being impolite about it. We want the UPEs to realize we are preventing their work because it does not belong here, rather than as personal animosity towards them. They're more likely to accept it, and perhaps even go away without trying it again under another user name.  DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Essay has been moved back to user space, Beeblebrox. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 22 June 2021 (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.